Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

DAVID BAILEY, MARVIN RAY YATES, §

KEITH COLE, and NICHOLAS DIAZ

§

individually and on behalf of those similarly §

situated,

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

§

v.

§

§

§

BRAD LIVINGSTON, in his official

§

capacity, ROBERTO HERRERA, in his §

official capacity, and TEXAS

§

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, §

§

Defendants.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-1698

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Since 2011, at least twelve prisoners have died from heat stroke because of the sweltering temperatures inside buildings where the Texas Department of Criminal Justice houses inmates. Hundreds more have suffered heat-related illnesses, many of whom were housed at the Wallace Pack Unit. Despite this, TDCJ has done nothing to lower the temperatures inside the housing areas at the Pack Unit. As this inflicts needless suffering on prisoners, and exposes them – many of who are sick, elderly, and disabled – to serious risk of harm, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin TDCJ from continuing this dangerous practice.

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 2 of 36
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, bring this lawsuit because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) refuses to cool inmate housing areas, despite the dangerously hot indoor temperatures prisoners are forced to live in. 2. TDCJ operates the Wallace Pack Unit (“Pack Unit”). The Pack Unit is a medical and geriatric prison where the indoor inmate housing areas are not climate controlled. As a result, during the hot Texas summers the apparent temperatures routinely exceed 100 degrees inside inmate housing areas, threatening the health and welfare of all inmates living there, especially the elderly, sick, and disabled. 3. TDCJ knowingly subjects Plaintiffs and the Class to extremely hot temperatures inside prisoners’ housing areas in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 4. TDCJ is acutely aware of the health risk that extreme heat poses, especially to prisoners with heat-sensitive medical conditions and disabilities. Nevertheless, TDCJ refuses to make reasonable accommodations for these prisoners with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. 5. Injunctive and declaratory relief are the only means to address TDCJ’s studied indifference to the fact that extremely hot, indoor temperatures constitute cruel and unusual punishment to prisoners. Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to keep indoor apparent temperatures below dangerous levels, and cool indoor temperatures to 88 degrees or lower.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), §1343 (civil rights), and §2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act).

	  

2	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 3 of 36
7. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district.
PLAINTIFFS 8. David Bailey is a 51-year-old prisoner incarcerated at the Pack Unit in Grimes County, Texas. He was convicted of a drug offense, and is not expected to be released from custody until 2020. 9. Marvin Ray Yates is a 69-year-old prisoner incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and is not expected to be released from custody until 2019. 10. Keith Cole is a 60-year-old prisoner incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody. 11. Nicholas Diaz is a 26-year-old prisoner incarcerated at the Pack Unit who uses a wheelchair. He was convicted of a drug offense, and is not expected to be released from custody until 2016.
DEFENDANTS 12. Brad Livingston is the executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. As such, Livingston is the commanding officer of all TDCJ correctional officers, guards, and TDCJ employees and contractors, and is responsible for their training, supervision, and conduct. By law, he is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all persons held in TDCJ custody. At all times described herein, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief. 13. Roberto Herrera is the warden of the TDCJ Pack Unit. At all times described herein, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his official capacity for declaratory

	  

3	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 4 of 36
and injunctive relief. 14. Texas Department of Criminal Justice is the state prison system, an agency of the
State of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 493.004. At all relevant times, it operated the Pack Unit, a public facility with programs and services Plaintiffs and other prisoners with disabilities were otherwise qualified for. TDCJ is a recipient of federal funds. Its failure to protect inmates with disabilities from dangerous heat violates their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
FACTS A. The Pack Unit Houses Sick, Elderly Prisoners
15. The Pack Unit is a TDCJ prison located in Navasota, Texas, in Grimes County. 16. Most prisoners assigned to the Pack Unit are minimum-custody inmates serving time for non-violent offenses. 17. The Pack Unit began operating in September 1983. It presently has the capacity to house 1,478 inmates. As of January 2014, the prison incarcerated approximately 1,386 men. 18. Like most prisons, the population of the Pack Unit is fluid, as new prisoners arrive and prisoners who have completed their sentences are released. Likewise, prisoners are frequently transferred between TDCJ prisons for various reasons related to prison management. 19. The Pack Unit is a medical facility, and houses geriatric prisoners, prisoners with disabilities, and prisoners with chronic medical problems. The Pack Unit is one of the few TDCJ facilities that has wheelchair-accessible housing. 20. As of January 2014, the Pack Unit housed 114 men over the age of 70, and 211 over the age of 65. Over half the men at the Pack Unit are over the age of 50.

	  

4	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 5 of 36
B. The Pack Unit’s Inmate Housing Is Not Air Conditioned 21. The vast majority of prisoners at the Pack Unit, including Plaintiffs, are housed in
inmate dormitories. The dorms do not have air conditioning, or any other form of climate control technology that lowers the indoor temperatures during the summer.
22. The ventilation system at the Pack Unit does not lower the indoor temperatures. Rather, the ventilation system just brings in “fresh” hot air from outside, while pumping out “stale” hot air from the inside, much the same way a vent system in a car does not provide any comfort and does not lower the temperature when it is run without the car’s air conditioning.
23. TDCJ Executive Director Brad Livingston has admitted “during the summer months there sometimes is not a large difference between the indoor and outdoor temperatures at TDCJ facilities.”
24. In fact, it is often hotter inside the housing areas than outdoor temperatures. The dormitories at the Pack Unit have exterior walls made of metal and thin insulation. The walls become hot to the touch during the summer when exposed to direct sunlight, and, on the hottest days, hold heat in like a parked car.
25. Stainless steal tables in the inmate dormitories become hot to the touch. Prisoners have to lay towels down on the table to rest their elbows while sitting.
26. Inmates routinely sleep on the concrete floor because their metal bunks are warm to the touch, and the floor is marginally cooler.
27. The windows in some of the inmate dormitories, including the one Plaintiff Bailey is housed in, are sealed shut.
28. In the dorms where the windows do open, the temperature is not cooler when the windows are open in the summer.

	  

5	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 6 of 36
29. As a result, and as TDCJ knows, there is little difference between the indoor and outdoor temperatures at the Pack Unit. Indeed, to many prisoners, including Plaintiffs, the indoor temperatures actually feel hotter than the temperatures outdoors during the summer.
30. Defendants know very few parts of the prison accessible to prisoners have air conditioning, and inmates’ time in these places is strictly limited. The law library, for example, has air conditioning, but inmates can only go there once per week. The education building has air conditioning, but only inmates enrolled in educational programming can go there, and it is only large enough to accommodate 25-30 prisoners at any time. (Bailey, for example, is not enrolled in any educational programming.) The visitation building is also air conditioned, but inmates can only go to visitation one time per week, and only if they have a visitor there to see them and are eligible to receive visitors.
31. Thus, Plaintiffs are rarely allowed to go to air-conditioned portions of the prison during the summer.
32. But, of course, Warden Herrera’s office is air conditioned, as are all the administrative offices in the prison, and even the prison’s armory. C. The Vast Majority of TDCJ’s Inmate Housing is Not Climate Controlled
33. In fact, though TDCJ imprisons over 150,000 prisoners system-wide, there are only 551 beds available with air conditioning for inmates with medical conditions system-wide. These extremely limited beds are reserved for the patients at the most extreme risk of heat-related illness (such as advanced-stage cancer patients), and are not available even for patients with multiple conditions that make them more susceptible to heat-related illness, injury, or death – like Plaintiffs. TDCJ’s medical providers have testified before the Texas Legislature that these beds are filled by inmates who are so sick that they will never recover and will likely die in them.

	  

6	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 7 of 36

34. TDCJ’s medical provider, the University of Texas Medical Branch, has testified
there simply are not enough beds system-wide to accommodate even the prisoners with serious
medical conditions who are at greater risk of heat-related illness, injury or death. TDCJ utilizes a
Utilization Review Committee to determine which inmates are assigned the climate-controlled
beds.
35. Dr. Glenda Adams, one of the senior medical providers at UTMB who has been
designated as an expert witness for TDCJ, testified as follows:
Q: So that Utilization Review Committee is really performing some sort of triage situation, is that right?
A: Pretty much. That’s a fair description.
Q: Do you know how many of those triage beds or cells you’re talking about?
A: How many are there?
Q: Yeah. A: Absolutely … there were 471 [in 2011]. We now have 481.1
Q: Well, do you think that’s enough to protect the prisoners who are susceptible to extreme heat or are especially vulnerable to extreme heat?
A: No, but it’s all we have.
Q: I understand that. And what you’re telling me is ‘look, this is an impossible situation. We have to evaluate really serious conditions on down and perform almost like a M.A.S.H. unit would in war to determine who gets these 481 beds,’ right?
A: Essentially, yes.
36. In other words, TDCJ knows it does not have enough air-conditioned beds to
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	    1 Dr. Adams testified about the beds available to the University of Texas Medical Branch, which provides healthcare to the majority of TDCJ prisoners. The Texas Tech University Health Science Center, which also provides care to TDCJ inmates, has additional beds available. Together, the UTMB and Texas Tech beds total 551.

	  

7	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 8 of 36
safely house prisoners at risk of heat-related illness, injury or death. 37. In fact, there are no air-conditioned beds available for prisoners at the Pack Unit. 38. In other litigation, TDCJ has admitted it “knows of the high temperatures within its
prisons and regard[s] it as a potential risk to the health and safety” of prisoners. 39. Likewise, Livingston has admitted knowing “TDCJ ha[s] no written [policy] to
address high temperatures in prisoner housing areas.” 40. There is no penological purpose behind refusing to provide prisoners with climate-
controlled housing. In fact, the State of Texas requires county jails to keep indoor temperatures between 65 and 85 degrees. See TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 259.160.
41. Indeed, TDCJ even air conditions limited portions of inmate housing areas at other prisons – including administrative segregation and solitary confinement cells, including Death Row. But decisions to place prisoners in these cells are made for security, not medical, reasons. At the Pack Unit, there are no air-conditioned cells available for prisoners without behavior problems.
42. Even most maximum-security federal prisons in hot climates, like Texas, are routinely air conditioned. For example, the prison housing terrorism suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is air conditioned.
43. In fact, the American Correctional Association mandates prisons be able to “mechanically lower” temperatures in inmate housing areas. The Pack Unit is in violation of this standard.
44. Most TDCJ prisons, including the Pack Unit, were built after air conditioning became common in public buildings in Texas.
45. TDCJ officials made an intentional decision not to air condition the prisoner

	  

8	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 9 of 36

housing areas at the Pack Unit.

46. And TDCJ, including Brad Livingston and the Texas Board of Criminal Justice,

have intentionally decided to continue exposing prisoners to extremely high indoor apparent

temperatures at the Pack Unit.

D. Temperatures Inside the Pack Unit are Dangerously High During the Summer

47. TDCJ routinely records the outdoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit during

the summer. According to TDCJ’s own internal records, the outdoor apparent temperatures at the

Pack Unit routinely exceed 100 degrees during the summer.

Year 2011

# Days: High Over 100 75

# Days: High 90-99 16

# Days: High 80-89 1

# Days: High Below 80 0

2012

45

43

2

0

2013

73

16

3

0

48. This comes as no surprise to Texans, given the brutal summer temperatures and high humidity in the Houston area.
49. Pursuant to TDCJ policy and practice, Warden Herrera reviews this data daily during the summer, and knows that apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit are dangerous.
50. Likewise, Director Livingston is aware that apparent temperatures inside TDCJ prisons are hazardous during the summer.
51. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), summer temperatures in the future will not be lower than temperatures from 2011–2013. In fact, temperatures will likely be higher.
52. Upon information and belief, the indoor temperatures at the Pack Unit are just as

	  

9	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 10 of 36
high as the outdoor temperatures, if not higher, just as they are at numerous other TDCJ facilities. E. The Extreme Temperatures at the Pack Unit Threaten Illness, Injury and Death.
A. Extreme Heat Can Injure or Kill People 53. According to the NWS, “heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States.” Hundreds of people die from exposure to extreme heat each year, and thousands are injured. On average, heat kills more people in the United States than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or lightning combined. 54. According to the NWS, the American Medical Association, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “[m]aintaining a consistent internal body temperature, generally 98.6° [Fahrenheit], is essential to normal physical functioning.” Excessive heat can “stress the body’s ability to maintain this ideal internal temperature. If individuals fail or are unable to take steps to remain cool and begin to experience increasing internal temperatures, they increase their risk of experiencing a range of potential adverse health outcomes.” 55. High temperatures and humidity prevent the human body from regulating its temperature. When exposed to heat, the heart will beat faster to increase blood flow to the skin, in order to dissipate heat and keep the internal organs from overheating. As the blood circulates to the skin, excess heat escapes into the cooler air. With so much blood pumped to the skin, the body struggles to maintain its normal functions. 56. Likewise, the body also cools itself through sweating. The body produces sweat, which evaporates to cool the body. But when the humidity is high, the sweat cannot evaporate, preventing the body from cooling. In addition, continued exposure to heat causes the body to lose water and become dehydrated. When the body loses enough water, it also loses oxygen.

	  

10	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 11 of 36
57. Thus, when exposed to high heat and humidity, the body cannot cool itself through sweating and circulation, the body’s temperature rises, and heat-related illnesses may develop.
58. Continued exposure to high heat and humidity can cause permanent injuries to the body, including heat stroke and death. High temperatures can also cause less deadly, but still painful, heat-related illnesses, including heat exhaustion and heat cramps.
59. Heat Exhaustion: Symptoms of heat exhaustion, according to the federal National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), include fatigue; heavy sweating; nausea; dizziness; elevated body temperature; and fast, shallow breathing.
60. According to the Mayo Clinic, heat exhaustion can quickly progress to heat stroke if the person does not cool down quickly.
61. Heat Cramps: Heat cramps can consist of “[m]uscle pain or spasms usually in the abdomen, arms, or legs,” according to NIOSH.
62. Heat cramps are extremely painful. TDCJ‘s own medical policy recognizes that pain from heat cramps “may be quite severe” and “may occur even at low ambient temperatures.”
63. Heat Stroke: NIOSH describes heat stroke as “the most serious heat-related disorder,” in which “the body temperature can rise to 106 degrees Fahrenheit or higher within 10 to 15 minutes.” Symptoms often include hot, dry skin; hallucinations; chills; headaches; confusion; and slurred speech. “Heat stroke can cause death or permanent disability if emergency treatment is not given.” According to resources published online by the Mayo Clinic, “[i]n a period of hours, untreated heatstroke can cause damage to your brain, heart, kidneys and muscles.”
64. In extreme temperatures, heat-related illnesses can arise and exacerbate quickly to cause death. According to NIOSH, “[t]he different forms of heat-related illness … increase in

	  

11	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 12 of 36
severity as heat strain increases. This allows for a quick, deadly progression from heat exhaustion to heat stroke.”
65. Indeed, TDCJ’s own medical policies recognize heat stroke is “a medical emergency,” that “the onset is often sudden,” and that “death may occur.”
66. Upon information and belief, virtually all prisoners at the Pack Unit, regardless of underlying medical conditions, suffer at least some symptoms of heat-related illness or injury each summer. Typical symptoms include: headaches, dizziness, nausea, lightheadedness, elevated temperature, and heavy sweating.
B. People with Medical Conditions that Impair Cooling are at Additional Risk 67. Though all people suffer in the heat, people with physiological conditions that impair their body’s ability to cool are at increased risk of suffering heat-related illness, injury, or death. 68. TDCJ policy recognizes inmates with certain “underlying medical condition[s] … place them at increased risk,” including: “cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, psychiatric conditions, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, [and] thyroid dysfunction.” Heat tolerance weakens, and the risk of heat-related illness increases, for people who suffer from these conditions. TDCJ policies and procedures recognize prisoners with these conditions are at greater risk of heat-related illness, injury, and death. 69. Similarly, TDCJ’s policies state the risk of heat-related illness increases for individuals who use “anticonvulsants, anticholinergics, antihistamines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, beta blockers, [and] diuretics.” Typically, these drugs impair the body’s ability to cool itself. These medications are used to treat a wide range of illnesses and disabilities, including

	  

12	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 13 of 36
hypertension, chronic pain, allergies, epilepsy, depression, and bipolar disorder. TDCJ policies and procedures also recognize these medications increase prisoners’ risk of heat-related illness and death, and that these prisoners “should not be allowed to work or recreate in environments where the apparent temperature is 95 degrees or higher.”
70. TDCJ acknowledges people with the following medical conditions and disabilities are at heightened risk of heat-related illness: obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction.
71. TDCJ also acknowledges other factors increase the risk of heat-related illness, such as age (particularly for people over 65).
72. According to the CDC, the heat stroke mortality rate increases with age. For example, the rate of heat stroke deaths doubles between ages 35 and 55. The CDC also recognizes that people over the age of 65 are more prone to heat stress.
73. Upon information and belief, numerous prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from the medical conditions that place them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death, or are prescribed the medications TDCJ identifies as putting people at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.
74. As TDCJ knows, throughout the TDCJ system, there are thousands of prisoners who suffer from these medical conditions that impair their body’s ability to cool. There are over 5,000 prisoners with cardiovascular disease, over 9,000 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), over 8,000 with diabetes, and over 36,000 with a diagnosed psychiatric condition. Because the Pack Unit is a medical and geriatric facility, there are greater numbers of these prisoners housed at the Pack Unit than at other TDCJ prisons.

	  

13	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 14 of 36
75. TDCJ is well-aware that it houses inmates with disabilities, like Plaintiffs, who require reasonable accommodations because their disabilities are impacted by exposure to extremely high indoor apparent temperatures. As TDCJ’s policies identify these prisoners as being at additional risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death, their need for an accommodation is obvious.
76. TDCJ could reasonably accommodate these prisoners with heat-sensitive disabilities by housing them in climate-controlled conditions, or transferring them to climatecontrolled facilities.
77. Upon information and belief, prisoners at the Pack Unit with these heat-sensitive disabilities experience symptoms of heat-related illness more frequently or more intensely than able-bodied prisoners. These prisoners with disabilities are also at greater risk of heat-related illness, including heat exhaustion, heat cramps, and heat stroke.
C. Heat in TDCJ’s Prisons is Deadly 78. Since 1998, at least twenty TDCJ prisoners in facilities around Texas have died of hyperthermia, or heat stroke, as set forth in the table below.

	  

14	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 15 of 36

Name
Archie White

Age Prison 48 Robertson

Date of Death June 29, 1998

Body TDCJ Temp. Region 104.2 V

Anselmo Lopez James Moore

41 Eastham 47 Unk

July 14, 1998 July 30, 1998

Unk I 104.1 Unk

Charles

38 Huntsville Aug. 8, 106

I

Finke, Jr.

1999

John

39 Allred

Aug. 4, 108.5 V

Cardwell

2001

Ricky

37 Darrington July 16, 108

III

Robertson

2004

James

47 Byrd

Aug. 8, Unk I

Shriver

2007

Dionicia 54 Byrd

Aug. 13, Unk. I

Robles

2007

Douglas 62 Gurney

July 25, 105

II

Hudson

2011

Larry

58

McCollum

Thomas 46

Meyers

Robert

50

Webb

Alexander 44

Togonidze

Hutchins Coffield Hodge Michael

July 28, 2011 Aug. 3, 2011 Aug. 4, 2011 Aug. 8, 2011

109.4 II 105.6 II Unk. II 106+ II

Charles Cook

53 Hodge

Aug. 8, 2011

107.9 II

Michael 57 Huntsville Aug. 8, 106.5 I

Martone

2011

Kelly

36 Connally Aug. 12, Unk. IV

Marcus

2011

Kenneth 52 Gurney

Aug. 13, 108

II

Wayne

2011

James

Daniel

44 Beto

Aug. 20, 105.2 II

Alvarado

2011

Rodney Adams Albert Hinojosa

45 Gurney

Aug. 3, 109.9 II

2012

44 Garza West Aug. 27, Unk. IV

2012

Facts
Obese, hypertensive, schizophrenic, prescribed tricyclic antidepressants and other medications known to increase risk of heat-stroke Prescribed psychotropic medications for schizophrenia History of paranoid schizophrenia and hypertension, prescribed psychotropic medications, beta-blockers and diuretics Prescribed anti-depressants, recently arrived from air-conditioned facility Prescribed diurectics and psychotropics, spent 2 weeks in ICU, recently arrived Bipolar with depression, prescribed psychtropic medications, History of hypertension, prescribed psychotropics Prescribed psychotropics, incarcerated less than one month History of hypertension, prescribed medication “known to interfere with heat dissipation,” died after 5 days Diabetic, prescribed diuretic, found 2:00 am, died 1 week after arrival History of hypertension, prescribed psychotropics Developmentally disabled, prescribed psychotropics, found unresponsive 3:30 am Diabetic, prescribed psychotropics, previously complained of heat-related illnesses, collapsed 8:00 am Developmentally disabled, prescribed psychotropics, found unresponsive at 3:00 am Prescribed psychotropics
Obese, prescribed diuretic, found 3:30 am
Prescribed diuretic, died 3 days after arrival
HIV+, prescribed psychotropics, found unresponsive at 9:20 am, incarcerated nine days Prescribed psychotropics, died 1 day after arrival Died at transfer facility shortly after arrival, found after midnight

	  

15	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 16 of 36

79. These twenty men all shared certain characteristics. As TDCJ knew, they all suffered underlying medical conditions and heat-sensitive disabilities that put them at much greater risk of heat stroke, including taking psychotropic drugs to treat a mental illness, suffering from diabetes or hypertension, or taking diuretics to treat hypertension.2
80. Plaintiffs also suffer from these same heat-sensitive medical conditions. 81. Moreover, it is likely far more TDCJ prisoners were killed by heat because hyperthermia is an underreported cause of death. 82. Heat can also cause or aggravate other illnesses, even triggering medical emergencies such as heart attacks. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “heat increases death rates from cardiovascular and respiratory disease by placing extra stress on an already stressed system.” Similarly, NIOSH warns that there is substantial evidence that extreme heat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death. 83. The CDC, NWS, and EPA recognize that sudden exposure to heat contributes to a variety of illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, and increases the likelihood of illness and death. 84. The CDC, EPA, and NWS assert that while an average of 182 deaths per year in the United States are specifically attributed to heat-related illness, there is evidence that between 1,700 and 1,800 deaths each summer are “heat-attributable.” These agencies all recognize this tendency to underreport number of deaths caused by heat.

	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	    2	  Six wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of eight of these men are currently pending. See McCollum v. Livingston, No. 3:12-cv-02307 (N.D. Tex.); Adams v. Livingston, 6:13-CV-712 (E.D. Tex.); Webb v. Livingston, 3:13-CV-711 (E.D. Tex.); Togonidze v. Livingston, 3:13-CV-229 (E.D. Tex.); Martone v. Livingston, 4:13-CV-3369 (S.D. Tex.); Hinojosa v. Livingston, 2:13-CV319 (S.D. Tex.).

	  

16	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 17 of 36
85. The underreporting of heat-attributable deaths is because, in the general population,
[T]he great majority of excess deaths in hot weather are not due to hyperthermia, but to the cardiovascular consequences of heat stress in elderly and vulnerable people. Since these deaths are mostly recorded as due to heart failure or coronary or cerebral thrombosis, few of the heat-related deaths are specifically attributed to heat in death certificates and national statistics. G. C. Donaldson, W.R. Keatinge, and R.D. Saunders, Cardiovascular responses to heat stress and their adverse consequences in healthy and vulnerable populations, 19 INTERNAT’L J. OF HYPERTHERMIA, 225, 230 (2003). 86. As all Texans know, however, it is not just the temperature but also the humidity that contributes to heat. The heat index is a measure of “apparent temperature,” based on ambient temperature and humidity, which the NWS says closely approximates how air temperature is “felt” by the human body. The NWS publishes a chart which illustrates how exposure to high heat indexes increases the risk of heat-related illnesses:

	  

17	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 18 of 36
87. The NWS correlates heat index ranges to risk levels: a. Caution (light yellow; heat index 80-90o F) - “Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.” b. Extreme Caution (mustard yellow; heat index 91-104o F) - “Sunstroke, muscle cramps, and/or heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.” c. Danger (orange; heat index 105-125o F) - “Sunstroke, muscle cramps, and/or heat exhaustion likely. Heatstroke possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.” d. Extreme Danger (red; heat index >126o F) - “Heat stroke likely.”
88. The NWS warns that exposure to heat index greater than 105o F “may cause increasingly severe heat disorders with continued exposure or physical activity.”
89. TDCJ incorporates a version of the NWS chart into its policies and training materials, and is well aware of the facts described by the NWS. Like the NWS chart, TDCJ’s

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 19 of 36
version recognizes that as the heat index increases, the risk of increasingly severe heat-related illnesses goes up. When the heat index exceeds 90 degrees, according to TDCJ, “heat exhaustion” becomes “possible.” Above 105 degrees, “heat stroke” becomes “possible.” Above 130 degrees, heat stroke becomes “imminent.”
90. Importantly, the NWS and TDCJ charts are designed to predict the risk to people who do not suffer from medical conditions that increase their susceptibility to heat-related injuries. These charts predict the risk to “healthy” people, not people who have an increased risk of heat-related illness or injury due to medical conditions, medications or age.
91. Both the NWS and TDCJ charts show that prisoners living in the Pack Unit are exposed to indoor heat indexes that put inmates at risk of heat exhaustion, and heat cramps virtually every day of the summer.
92. Though TDCJ’s policies recognize that escalating extreme temperatures put prisoners at increased danger, TDCJ’s policies do nothing to provide additional protections to inmates in the extremely hot housing areas as apparent temperatures go up.
93. In fact, TDCJ has no formal, written policy to protect prisoners from extreme temperatures in the indoor inmate housing areas. TDCJ has no policy to lower indoor temperatures in inmate housing areas.
94. In reality, no mitigation measures short of climate control or a policy to re-locate inmates to cooler housing areas can adequately protect people from these extreme temperatures. Without climate controlled housing, prisoners will inevitably suffer heat-related illnesses and injuries, and be placed at increased risk of death.
95. In fact, Dr. Charles Adams, M.D., the medical director supervising medical care provided at multiple TDCJ prisons, stated “they need cooling” when he was told a prison’s

	  

19	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 20 of 36

infirmary “ha[d] been inundated with heat related issues.” F. Inmates and Officers at the Pack Unit Routinely Suffer Heat-Related Injuries During
the Summer 95. Every summer, inmates at the Pack Unit suffer heat-related injuries. 96. Internal emails from July 2012 state that, at the Pack Unit, “the trend has been noted that the [inmates suffering from heat-related illness] are primarily in housing” – as opposed to prisoners working outside. 97. TDCJ’s medical provider has admitted being “particularly concerned” about the conditions at the Pack Unit. In a four-day period in 2012, twelve prisoners were seen in the prison’s infirmary for heat-related illnesses. Seven of these prisoners were taking medications that placed them at increased risk of heat-related illnesses. 98. Upon information and belief, three of the prisoners treated for heat-related illness in June 2012 at the Pack Unit were not taking any medication that put them at increased risk, and did not have any medical condition that put them at increased risk of heat-related illness. Despite the absence of any additional heat-related risk factors, these prisoners were still injured by the high apparent temperatures. 99. Most of the prisoners at the Pack Unit who suffered heat-related illness or injuries were not working outside, but were simply housed in the extremely hot indoor dormitories. 100. Each summer, inmates at the Pack Unit are treated by medical staff for heat-related illnesses and injuries. 101. Upon information and belief, it is very likely that many additional prisoners are not reporting their heat-related illnesses. 102. Likewise, correctional officers who work in the inmate housing areas also routinely suffer heat-related injuries. Officers routinely sweat through their uniforms, and have to

	  

20	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 21 of 36
towel sweat off their faces when leaving the inmate dormitories. 103. In fact, last summer a 57-year-old correctional officer at the Pack Unit was taken to
the emergency room after becoming dizzy. She was diagnosed with heat exhaustion and dehydration.
104. In a rare development, the correctional officer’s union has even found common cause with the prisoners, and publicly supported the extreme temperature lawsuits brought against TDCJ.
105. The correctional officer’s union has made numerous public requests for the prison housing areas to be air conditioned, but TDCJ routinely ignores these requests for safe working conditions.
106. But while TDCJ knows about and ignores the hazards to prisoners and correctional officers, TDCJ officials approved installing climate controlled hog barns to protect the welfare of TDCJ’s agricultural products. TDCJ’s detailed policies require the pigs live in a “comfortable environment with ventilation. Animals shall never be handled or housed in a manner that does not provide these essentials.” Misters begin to cool the pigs when the temperature goes above 74 degrees to keep the pigs “comfortable.” TDCJ policy requires temperatures be kept no higher than 85 degrees to ensure “pig comfort.” TDCJ policies even establish an “upper critical limit” for pigs at 95 degrees because temperatures above 95, according to TDCJ policies, negatively affect pigs “health,” and “some form of cooling” is required above this “critical limit.” High-ranking TDCJ officials even told the press these climate-controlled barns were necessary to protect vulnerable pigs from heat stroke. TDCJ has no similar policy to protect humans.

	  

21	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 22 of 36

G. The Plaintiffs’ Disabilities Put them at Increased Risk of Heat-Related Injury or Death. A. Bailey Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 107. David Bailey suffers from several of these medical conditions and disabilities that
increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he takes a diuretic to treat his hypertension. Heat aggravates hypertension, and caused Bailey to experience extreme fatigue, and dizziness in the past.
108. Bailey also suffers from asthma. He experiences breathlessness from minor tasks when it is untreated. Extreme heat aggravates Bailey’s asthma, making it even more difficult to work and perform other physical tasks.
109. Likewise, Bailey takes an antihistamine daily to treat allergies that aggravate his asthma. Antihistamines are drugs TDCJ identifies as medications likely to interfere with the body’s ability to cope with extreme temperatures.
110. Bailey also takes benztropine to treat a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Due to his TBI, Bailey suffers symptoms similar to Parkinson’s disease, including tremors, seizures, and severe muscle cramps. Benztropine is a drug TDCJ recognizes increases a patient’s risk of heatrelated illness. Benztropine limits the body’s ability to sweat, which decreases the body’s ability to protect itself from high temperatures.
111. TBI is an injury to the brain, and limits the operation of the brain as a major bodily function. Bailey’s TBI makes it difficult for him to think, concentrate, read, and communicate. Likewise, when Bailey is not taking the benztropine, he experiences painful muscle cramps and tremors.
112. Bailey has been taken to the infirmary in the past due to heat-related illnesses during the summer.

	  

22	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 23 of 36
113. TDCJ prohibits Bailey from working in forced outdoor convict labor when apparent temperatures are above 95 degrees, but does nothing to make sure he is not housed in similarly high apparent temperatures. He is also not allowed to go to outdoor recreation when the apparent temperature is over 95, and is instead forced to remain inside the extremely hot dorms on those days.
B. Yates Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 114. Marvin Yates suffers from hypertension, and takes a diuretic medication to treat his disability. 115. He also suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). COPD impairs the operation of Yates’ respiratory system. 116. Yates’ COPD makes it very difficult for him to perform any manual task. He cannot lift objects, perform work, or even stand for an extended period of time. He becomes short of breath after walking short distances, like from his dormitory to the chow hall. 117. Both his disabilities are aggravated during the summer due to the high indoor temperatures. During previous summers at the Pack Unit, he has experienced several symptoms of heat-related illnesses, including dizziness, painful muscle cramps, fatigue, blurred vision, and headaches. C. Cole Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 118. Keith Cole suffers from diabetes and hypertension. He has a history of chronic cardiovascular disease, and has had two stents placed in his body. 119. When his diabetes is not treated properly, Cole feels dizzy and cannot walk or stand properly. He had difficulty concentrating, thinking, or reading. 120. Cole takes a diuretic and a beta blocker to control his cardiovascular disease. When

	  

23	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 24 of 36
his cardiovascular disease is uncontrolled, he suffers from shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, and chest pains. His cardiovascular disease and hypertension impairs his respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems.
121. Cole has been treated for heat exhaustion in the past at the Pack Unit. 122. During previous summers, Cole has tried to spend extra time in the air-conditioned infirmary after receiving treatment for his disabilities. Though nurses encouraged him to spend extra time in the infirmary, the warden ordered him out of the infirmary and to return to his blazing hot dormitory. D. Diaz Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 123. Nicholas Diaz was born with congenital spinal deformities, including scoliosis and Morquios Syndrome, which require him to use a wheelchair for mobility. Due to his physical disabilities, he can only walk very short distances without feeling extreme pain, and has been told by doctors to use a wheelchair whenever possible. 124. Diaz also suffers from asthma. His asthma makes it difficult to breathe and sleep, especially during the hot summers. 125. Diaz has suffered heat-related injuries in the past. E. Others at the Pack Unit are at Risk of Heat-Related Injuries 126. Plaintiffs’ medical conditions are typical of other inmates at the Pack Unit. Like Plaintiffs, many other prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from medical conditions or disabilities that place them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death, or take medications to treat their conditions or disabilities that create an increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death. 127. Because the Pack Unit is a geriatric and medical facility, upon information and belief, there are more than 100 prisoners housed there who suffer from the above described

	  

24	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 25 of 36
medical conditions. F. The Plaintiffs Suffer from Qualifying Heat-Related Disabilities i. Hypertension 128. Hypertension is a cardiovascular disease. It is the leading cause of stroke, and a
major cause of heart attacks. Serious damage is caused to the cardiovascular system when blood flow asserts high pressure on artery walls. Hypertension is often called “the silent killer.” It can cause breathing problems, and result in organ damage if untreated or exacerbated.
129. Hypertension also causes severe headaches, fatigue, obesity, and vision problems. It is a physiological condition affecting body systems, including the respiratory and cardiovascular systems.
130. As a consequence, TDCJ policy recognizes patients taking diuretics to treat hypertension are at increased risk of heat-related illness, and “should not be allowed to work or recreate in environments where the apparent air temperature is 95 [degrees] or higher.”
131. Hypertension, can substantially limit a patient’s ability to walk, stand, and breathe, and limit the operation of his respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems.
132. Hypertension itself also increases a patient’s susceptibility to heat stress, and, combined with extreme heat, diminishes the body’s ability to regulate internal temperature. Thus, a patient with hypertension will be at additional risk of heat-related injuries, and suffer additional pain and punishment above and beyond what an able-bodied inmate at the Pack Unit experiences.
ii. Asthma 133. Asthma is a chronic lung disease that inflames and narrows the airways. It substantially limits sufferers’ ability to breathe, causing recurring periods of wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and coughing. Asthma also substantially limits the operation of the

	  

25	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 26 of 36
respiratory system. 134. Heat and humid air can trigger asthma symptoms, causing asthma patients to suffer
more pain and punishment in hot environments than people without asthma. 135. TDCJ’s medical provider recognizes that asthma is a condition that places patients
at increased risk of heat-related illnesses. iii. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
136. TBI is a chronic injury to the brain that prevents normal operation of a major bodily function (the brain).
137. Benztropine (Cogentin) is a powerful medication Bailey takes to control symptoms of his TBI. TDCJ’s medical provider lists benztropine, and many similar medications, as a drug with “specific warnings from the manufacturer to avoid excessive heat and dehydration” and identifies it and many other medications as “drugs associated with heat stress.” TDCJ’s medical policies state inmates taking drugs like benztropine who “also have an underlying medical condition that places them at increased risk” of heat-related illness, injury, or death” and these patients should not “be allowed to work or recreate in environments where the air temperature is 95 degrees or higher.” Even these patients, however, are not regularly housed in climate controlled living areas.
iv. Diabetes 138. Diabetes is a chronic disease caused by an insulin imbalance. Insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas to control blood sugar. Diabetes results from improper insulin levels. Diabetes is a physical condition effecting the endocrine, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems. 139. Diabetes impairs the body’s ability to adjust to increases in temperatures by

	  

26	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 27 of 36
affecting diabetics’ ability to sweat. Sweating is critical to cool the body in extreme heat. An inability to sweat increases the body’s core temperature, profoundly aggravating the risk of heat stroke.
140. Diabetes also reduces blood circulation by impairing the action of the heart and by decreasing the ability of the body to dilate the blood vessels at the skin. Both are essential to dissipate body heat, and prevent heat stroke.
v. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 141. COPD is a disease that makes it difficult to breathe. It includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. 142. COPD causes frequent coughing, shortness of breath, and tightness in the chest, among other symptoms. 143. COPD impairs the operation of the respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems. 144. Heat exacerbates COPD, because the body needs to breathe in additional oxygen to help cope with the heat. This requires additional breathing, which is impaired by COPD. 145. Plaintiffs take their medications because the prescriptions are necessary to protect their health from their disabilities. 146. Upon information and belief, there are more than 100 otherwise-qualified prisoners with heat-sensitive disabilities housed at the Pack Unit.
CLASS ACTION 147. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated persons. 148. Plaintiffs propose to represent a class composed of all inmates who currently are,

	  

27	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 28 of 36
or who will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high apparent indoor temperatures in the housing areas.
149. Plaintiffs also seek to represent the following sub-classes of people who 1) are incarcerated at the Pack Unit, or will be in the future, 2) are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high apparent indoor temperatures in the housing areas, and either:
3a. Heat-Sensitive Subclass: (i) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death (including, but not limited to, suffering from obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or, (ii) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotics, antihistamines, antidepressants, beta blockers, or diuretic; or, (iii) are over age 65.
3b. Disability Subclass: suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability.
150. Numerosity: The joinder of each class member would be impracticable because each class is so numerous. The approximate number of class members exceeds 1,300 as the Pack Unit houses over 1,300 inmates. Joining all 1,300 members of the class is impracticable.
151. The subclasses are also sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23(a). Upon information and belief, because the Pack Unit is a medical and geriatric facility, at least 100 inmates incarcerated there are likely to suffer from at least one medical condition or disability that

	  

28	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 29 of 36

would make them a class member. Likewise, upon information and belief, TDCJ houses a high

number of inmates with qualifying disabilities at the Pack Unit.

152. As of January 2014, 211 prisoners at the Pack Unit were over age 65. Joining all

211 prisoners over age 165 would be impracticable.

153. Identifying every inmate at the Pack Unit who is a subclass member would require

interviewing hundreds of prisoners, and reviewing each of their medical records. Disposition of

this matter as a class action will provide substantial benefits and efficiencies to the parties and the

Court.

154. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the

class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the class.

A. The common questions of law and fact for the proposed General Class are:

1)

Does exposing prisoners to the high apparent temperatures in the housing areas

at the Pack Unit violate the Eighth Amendment?

2)

Are the members of the General Class entitled to declaratory and injunctive

relief?

B. Further, the common questions of law and fact for the subclasses are:

1) For the Heat-Sensitive Subclass:

a) Is the risk of heat-related injuries for the Heat-Sensitive Subclass increased

when members are exposed to the high apparent temperatures in housing areas

of the Pack Unit?

b) Does exposing members of the Heat-Sensitive Subclass to the high apparent

temperatures in the housing areas at the Pack Unit violate their Eighth

Amendment rights?

	  

29	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 30 of 36
c) Are the members of the Heat-Sensitive Subclass entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief?
2) For the Disability Subclass: a) Do the members of the Disability Subclass a) suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and b) either suffer from a disability that increases the risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death or receive any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability that increases the risk of heat-related illness, injury or death? b) Does TDCJ provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners with heat-related disabilities exposed to high apparent temperatures in the housing areas at the Pack Unit? c) Is TDCJ immune from claims for injunctive and declaratory relief brought under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act? d) Are members of the Disability Subclass entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief?
155. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical and representative of each class member’s claims against Defendants. The Pack Unit’s housing areas all reach roughly the same temperature levels; they all threaten inmates’ wellbeing. Plaintiffs’ interest in reducing the danger of heatrelated illness, injury, or death is identical to every other inmate’s interest. All members of the class are similarly injured by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
156. Class Counsel: Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Plaintiffs have no interests contrary to those of class members. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes a non-profit law firm, the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), whose mission is

	  

30	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 31 of 36

to protect the civil rights of low-income Texans. TCRP has prosecuted many class actions, or multi-plaintiff cases that obtained class-like injunctive and declaratory relief. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ class counsel, Edwards Law, has litigated complex commercial and civil rights cases, including class actions against multinational corporations and governmental entities. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience in heat-related temperature litigation against TDCJ, as Plaintiffs’ counsel represent the families of eight men who died of heat stroke in TDCJ prisons.
157. A class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy, especially since joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Each class member is irreparably harmed as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Litigating this case as a class action will reduce the risk of repetitious litigation relating to the Defendants’ conduct.
158. Plaintiffs do not seek damages except as may be incidental to declaratory or injunctive relief.
CAUSES OF ACTION I. EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
(Against Defendants Livingston and Herrera in their Official Capacities) 159. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous paragraphs as if alleged herein, and further plead: 160. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Livingston and Herrera, in their official capacities, are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners at the Pack Unit caused by their choice to expose prisoners to high apparent temperatures inside the housing areas, and unnecessarily and wantonly cause the Plaintiffs pain. 161. The high indoor temperatures at the Pack Unit pose an unreasonable risk to prisoners’ future health.

	  

31	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 32 of 36

162. Defendants are aware that extreme heat in their facilities’ housing areas poses substantial risk of serious injury to inmates, including Plaintiffs. Defendants’ knowledge is demonstrated by TDCJ policies and practices, as well as the well-documented history of injuries to inmates and employees at the Pack Unit. But Defendants are indifferent to the risk, failing to take obvious steps to mitigate it.
163. In light of the numerous public warnings about the risk posed by extreme temperatures from government agencies, scientific studies of the risk, warnings within TDCJ’s own policy, knowledge of TDCJ’s medical providers, and the history of inmate and staff injuries, Defendants know of the risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death exists at the Pack Unit.
164. Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by refusing to provide safe housing areas that protect inmates from exposure to extreme heat, and which annually cause injuries to prisoners.
165. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ risk of serious medical problems puts Plaintiffs at substantial risk of serious bodily injury including, but not limited to, heat stroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion, as well as the myriad symptoms associated with these conditions.
166. Defendants’ policies, practices, acts, and omissions violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendments, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
167. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, acts, and omissions, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical injury, risk of physical injury, and risk of death.
II. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND REHABILITATION ACT (Against Defendant TDCJ)

	  

32	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 33 of 36

167. For purposes of the ADA, ADA Amendments Act, and Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs are qualified individuals regarded as having a physiological or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities.
168. TDCJ fails to reasonably accommodate prisoners with heat-sensitive disabilities. These disabilities (such as asthma, COPD, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and mental illnesses treated with psychotropic medications) place prisoners at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death, and cause them to suffer more pain and punishment than able-bodied prisoners.
169. TDCJ acknowledges in internal documents that people with certain disabilities (like diabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease), or who take certain medications to treat their disabilities (like psychotropics, antihistamines, or diuretics), are much more vulnerable to extreme temperatures. Their medical conditions prevent their bodies from regulating their temperature, putting them at much greater risk of death from heat.
170. Plaintiffs suffer from these heat-sensitive disabilities. 171. TDCJ has been, and is, a recipient of federal funds, and thus covered by the mandate of the Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act requires recipients of federal monies to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities in their facilities, program activities, and services and reasonably modify such facilities, services and programs to accomplish this purpose. 172. Further, Title II of the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act apply to TDCJ and has the same mandate as the Rehabilitation Act. 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq. 173. Title II of the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act protects prisoners with disabilities because exposure to extreme temperatures also actually violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. 174. The Pack Unit and other TDCJ units are facilities, and their operation comprises a

	  

33	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 34 of 36
program and service for Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and ADAAA purposes. Plaintiffs are presently qualified to participate in programs, activities and services in TDCJ facilities at the Pack Unit, such as incarceration in the inmate housing areas.
175. Defendants know that Plaintiffs suffer from heat-sensitive disabilities, and were prescribed medications to treat their disabilities. Despite their knowledge, TDCJ’s officers intentionally discriminated against them, under the meaning of the ADA, ADAAA, and Rehabilitation Act, by failing and refusing to protect them from the extreme temperatures.
176. As alleged above, TDCJ fails and refuses to reasonably accommodate Plaintiffs while in custody, in violation of the ADA, ADAAA and Rehabilitation Act.
177. As shown above, TDCJ failed, and refused, to reasonably modify its facilities, services, accommodations, and programs to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs disabilities.
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 178. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, ADAAA, and Rehabilitation Act against Defendants, for themselves and the class, to require TDCJ to provide safe housing conditions at the Pack Unit. 179. Without permanent injunctive relief, Defendants will continue their same perilous practices and conduct, disregarding federal and state legal mandates, endangering the lives and the welfare of current and future prisoners at the Pack Unit. 180. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. 181. Plaintiffs ask that the Court enjoin Defendants to maintain a heat index of 88 degrees or lower inside each of the Pack Unit’s housing areas (calculated using the NWS heat index table).

	  

34	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 35 of 36
182. Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief to end this unlawful discrimination.
183. Plaintiffs do not seek damages. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
184. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs, including expert costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF THEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court award the following relief: A. Certify this action as a class action, as described above; B. Remedy ongoing violations of law and the Constitution by granting declaratory and injunctive relief, as set out in this Complaint, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and the class; C. Permanently enjoin Defendants to abate the risk of serious harm described above by taking steps including, but not limited to, maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower inside the Pack Unit’s housing areas (calculated using the NWS heat index table); D. Find that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this case and award them attorneys’ fees, court costs, expert costs, and litigation expenses; E. Grant such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just, to which Plaintiffs may be entitled, separately or collectively.

	  

35	  

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/14 Page 36 of 36
Respectfully submitted,
The Edwards Law Firm The Haehnel Building 1101 East 11th Street Austin, Texas 78702
Tel. 512-623-7727 Fax. 512-623-7729
By /s/ Jeff Edwards JEFF EDWARDS State Bar No. 24014406 Scott Medlock State Bar No. 24044783 Sean Flammer State Bar No. 24059754 Lead Counsel
Brian McGiverin State Bar No. 24067760 James C. Harrington State Bar No. 09048500
TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 474-5073 [phone] (512) 474-0726 [fax]
Ranjana Natarajan State Bar No. 24071013 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC 727 E. Dean Keeton Street Austin TX 78705 (512) 232-7222 [phone] (512) 232-0800 [fax]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

	  

36	  

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 1 of 47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

KEITH COLE, JACKIE BRANNUM, RICHARD §

KING, LAVAR SANTEE, FRED WALLACE, and §

MARVIN RAY YATES, individually and on behalf §

of those similarly situated,

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v.

§

§

BRAD LIVINGSTON, in his official capacity,

§

ROBERTO HERRERA, in his official capacity, and §

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, §

§

Defendants. §

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-1698

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Since 2011, at least twelve prisoners have died from heat stroke because of the sweltering temperatures inside buildings where the Texas Department of Criminal Justice houses inmates. Hundreds more have suffered heat-related illnesses, many of whom were among the elderly and disabled inmates housed at the Wallace Pack Unit. Despite this, TDCJ has done nothing to lower the temperatures inside the housing areas at the Pack Unit. As this inflicts needless suffering on prisoners, and exposes them – many of whom are sick, elderly, and disabled – to serious risk of harm, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin TDCJ from continuing this dangerous practice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, bring this lawsuit because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) refuses to cool inmate housing areas, despite the cruel and dangerously hot indoor temperatures prisoners are forced to live in.

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 2 of 47
2. TDCJ operates the Wallace Pack Unit (“Pack Unit”). The Pack Unit is a medical and geriatric prison where the indoor inmate housing areas are not climate controlled with refrigerated air (commonly called “air conditioning”). As a result, during the hot Texas summers the apparent temperatures routinely exceed 100 degrees inside inmate housing areas, threatening the health and welfare of all inmates living there, especially the elderly, sick, and disabled.
3. TDCJ knowingly subjects Plaintiffs and the Class to extremely hot apparent temperatures inside prisoners’ housing areas in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
4. TDCJ is acutely aware of the health risk that extreme heat poses, especially to prisoners with heat-sensitive medical conditions and disabilities. Nevertheless, TDCJ refuses to make reasonable accommodations for these prisoners with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.
5. Injunctive and declaratory relief are the only means to address TDCJ’s studied indifference to the fact that extremely hot, indoor apparent temperatures constitute cruel and unusual punishment to prisoners. Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to keep indoor apparent temperatures below dangerous levels, and mechanically lower the indoor apparent temperatures to a safe level (such as 88 degrees or lower).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), §1343 (civil rights), and §2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act). 7. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district.
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 3 of 47
PARTIES A. PLAINTIFFS
9.8. Keith Cole is 61 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody.
10.9. Jackie Brannum is 61 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He will not be eligible for parole until 2017.
11.10. Richard Elvin King is 68 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody.
12.11. Lavar Santee is 34 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He will not be eligible for parole until 2017, and is not expected to be released from custody until 2027.
13.12. Fred Wallace is 72 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody.
14.13. Marvin Ray Yates is 69 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody until 2019. B. DEFENDANTS
15.14. Brad Livingston is the executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. As such, Livingston is the commanding officer of all TDCJ correctional officers, guards, and TDCJ employees and contractors, and is responsible for their training, supervision, and conduct. By law, he is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all persons held in TDCJ custody. At all times described herein, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief.
3

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 4 of 47
16.15. Robert Herrera is the warden of the TDCJ Pack Unit. At all times described herein, he was acting under color of state law. As the warden of the Pack Unit, he is responsible for ensuring constitutional conditions of confinement exist at the Pack Unit. He is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief.
17.16. Texas Department of Criminal Justice is the state prison system, an agency of the State of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 493.004. At all relevant times, it operated the Pack Unit, a public facility with programs and services Plaintiffs and other prisoners with disabilities were otherwise qualified for. TDCJ is a recipient of federal funds.
FACTS A. The Pack Unit Houses Sick, Elderly Prisoners
18.17. The Pack Unit is a TDCJ prison complex located in Navasota, Texas, in Grimes County.
19.18. Most prisoners assigned to the Pack Unit are minimum-custody inmates. 20.19. The Pack Unit began operating in September 1983. It presently has the capacity to house 1,478 inmates. The prison typically operates at or near capacity. 21.20. Like most prisons, the population of the Pack Unit is fluid, as new prisoners arrive and prisoners who have completed their sentences are released. Likewise, prisoners are frequently transferred between TDCJ prisons. 22.21. Despite the frequent transfer of prisoners in to and out of the Pack Unit, the population’s general characteristics (such as average age, percentage with disabilities, and percentage with heat-sensitive medical conditions) remains fairly consistent. 23.22. The Pack Unit is a medical facility, and houses many geriatric prisoners, prisoners with disabilities, and prisoners with chronic medical problems.
4

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 5 of 47
24.23. The Pack Unit is one of the few TDCJ facilities that has wheelchair-accessible housing.
25.24. As of October 2014, the Pack Unit housed 188 men over the age of 65, 335 men over the age of 60, and 514 men over the age of 55. Approximately half the men at the Pack Unit are over the age of 50. These numbers are a typical age distribution for the Pack Unit. B. The Pack Unit’s Inmate Housing Is Not Air Conditioned
26.25. The majority of prisoners at the Pack Unit, including Plaintiffs, are housed in inmate dormitories. The dorms do not have air conditioning, or any other form of climate control technology that mechanically lowers the indoor temperatures or humidity during the summer.
27.26. The ventilation system at the Pack Unit cannot lower the indoor heat index below the outdoor heat index, and cannot ensure that temperatures inside the housing areas are safe and do not exacerbate numerous prisoners serious medical conditions. Rather, the ventilation system just brings in “fresh” hot air from outside, while pumping out “stale” hot air from the inside, much the same way a vent system in a car does not provide any comfort and does not lower the temperature when it is run without the car’s air conditioning.
28.27. Upon information and belief, TDCJ chose not to air condition the Pack Unit with refrigerated air for political and financial reasons.
29.28. As a consequence of the lack of air conditioning, TDCJ Executive Director Brad Livingston has admitted “during the summer months there sometimes is not a large difference between the indoor and outdoor temperatures at TDCJ facilities.”
30.29. TDCJ’s top physicians have noted that indoor apparent temperatures can actually be dramatically higher than the outdoor temperatures: “A few years ago, [a top TDCJ executive]
5

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 6 of 47
found that when the temperature was 98 degrees outside, we had dorms with temps up to 110 inside. It seems like the [prisoners] in that case were better off outside.”
31.30. Upon information and belief, Dr. Lannette Linthicum, M.D., the head of TDCJ’s Health Services Division, and Brad Livingston were aware of this at the time the observation was made. Moreover, they are certainly aware the indoor summer temperatures can be hotter than the outdoor summer temperatures now.
32.31. Some inmates routinely sleep on the concrete floor because the concrete is marginally cooler than laying in their bunks.
33.32. The windows in some of the inmate dormitories are sealed shut. 34.33. In the dorms where the windows do open, the temperature is not appreciably cooler when the windows are open in the summer. 35.34. Moreover, in the dormitories where the windows do open, opening the windows allows biting insects, like mosquitos, into the dormitories. Thus, as a practical matter, they often remain closed. 36.35. As a result, and as TDCJ and its officials well know, there is little difference between the indoor and outdoor temperatures at the Pack Unit. 37.36. Defendants also know very few parts of the prison accessible to prisoners have air conditioning, and inmates’ time in these places is strictly limited. The law library, for example, has air conditioning, but inmates can only go there a few times per week, and the law library is only large enough to hold a few dozen inmates. The education building has air conditioning, but only inmates enrolled in educational programming can go there, and it is only large enough to accommodate 25-30 prisoners at any time. The visitation building is also air conditioned, but
6

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 7 of 47
inmates can only go to visitation one time per week, and only if they have a visitor there to see them, and only if they are eligible to receive visitors.
38.37. Thus, Plaintiffs are rarely allowed to go to air-conditioned portions of the prison during the summer.
39.38. In stark contrast, Warden Herrera’s office is air conditioned, as are all the administrative offices in the prison, and even the prison’s armory. C. The Vast Majority of TDCJ’s Inmate Housing is Not Climate Controlled
40.39. In fact, though TDCJ imprisons over 150,000 prisoners system-wide, there are only 551 beds available with air conditioning for inmates with medical conditions system-wide. These extremely limited beds are reserved for the patients at the most extreme risk of heatrelated illness (such as advanced-stage cancer patients), and are not available even for patients with multiple conditions that make them more susceptible to heat-related illness, injury, or death – like Plaintiffs Cole, King, Brannum, Wallace, and Yates. TDCJ’s medical providers have testified before the Texas Legislature that these beds are filled by inmates who are so sick that they will never recover, and will likely die in them.
41.40. TDCJ’s medical provider, the University of Texas Medical Branch, has testified there simply are not enough beds system-wide to accommodate even the prisoners with serious medical conditions who are at greater risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.
42.41. Dr. Glenda Adams, one of the senior medical providers at UTMB who has been designated as an expert witness in the heat stroke wrongful death litigation, testified as follows:
Q: So that Utilization Review Committee is really performing some sort of triage situation, is that right? A: Pretty much. That’s a fair description. Q: Do you know how many of those triage beds or cells you’re talking about?
7

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 8 of 47
A: How many are there? Q: Yeah. A: Absolutely … there were 471 [in 2011]. We now have 481.1 Q: Well, do you think that’s enough to protect the prisoners who are susceptible to extreme heat or are especially vulnerable to extreme heat? A: No, but it’s all we have. Q: I understand that. And what you’re telling me is ‘look, this is an impossible situation. We have to evaluate really serious conditions on down and perform almost like a M.A.S.H. unit would in war to determine who gets these 481 beds,’ right? A: Essentially, yes. 43.42. In other words, TDCJ knows it does not have enough air-conditioned beds to safely house prisoners at risk of heat-related illness, injury or death. 44.43. At the Pack Unit, there are only twelve air-conditioned beds available for prisoners with serious medical conditions. These beds are located in the infirmary, and are typically reserved for inmates who are very sick. 45.44. In other litigation, TDCJ has admitted it “knows of the high temperatures within its prisons and regard[s] it as a potential risk to the health and safety” of prisoners. 46.45. Likewise, Livingston has admitted knowing “TDCJ ha[s] no written [policy] to address high temperatures in prisoner housing areas.” 47.46. There is no penological purpose behind refusing to provide prisoners with climate-controlled housing.
1 Dr. Adams testified about the beds available to the University of Texas Medical Branch, which provides healthcare to the majority of TDCJ prisoners. The Texas Tech University Health Science Center, which also provides care to TDCJ inmates, has additional beds available. Together, the UTMB and Texas Tech beds total 551. The Pack Unit is served by UTMB.
8

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 9 of 47
48.47. In fact, the State of Texas requires county jails to keep indoor temperatures between 65 and 85 degrees. See 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 259.160.
49.48. Indeed, TDCJ even air conditions limited portions of inmate housing areas – such as administrative segregation and solitary confinement cells, including Death Row – at other TDCJ prisons. But decisions to place prisoners in these cells are made for security, not medical, reasons.
50.49. The only doctor who works at the Pack Unit has testified that air conditioning inmate living areas “would be beneficial” to protect inmates from the dangers of extreme temperatures.
51.50. The doctor also specifically acknowledged that extreme heat – like that commonly experienced at the Pack Unit – placed Plaintiffs at increased risk of harm.
52.51. Most maximum-security federal prisons in hot climates, like Texas, are routinely air conditioned. Even the prison housing terrorism suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is air conditioned.
53.52. In fact, the comment to the American Correctional Association standards instructs prisons to be able to “mechanically lower” temperatures in inmate housing areas. TDCJ deliberately violates this instruction as indoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit cannot be mechanically lowered.
54.53. Most TDCJ prisons, including the Pack Unit, were built after air conditioning became common in public buildings in Texas.
55.54. Indeed, TDCJ officials made an intentional decision not to air condition the prisoner housing areas at the Pack Unit. And, upon information and belief, they did so for political and financial reasons.
9

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 10 of 47

56.55. Moreover, despite their knowledge of numerous heat-related injuries occurring

indoors, all of which would be prevented with air conditioning, TDCJ, including Brad Livingston

and the Texas Board of Criminal Justice, has intentionally decided to continue exposing

prisoners to extremely high indoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit despite

acknowledging these high indoor apparent temperatures put inmates at risk of heat-related

illness, injury, and death.

D. Temperatures Inside the Pack Unit are Dangerously High During the Summer

57.56. TDCJ routinely records the outdoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit during

the summer. According to TDCJ’s own records, the outdoor apparent temperatures at the Pack

Unit routinely exceed 100 degrees during the summer.

Year 2011

# Days: High Over 100 75

# Days: High 90-99 16

# Days: High 80-89 1

# Days: High Below 80 0

2012

45

43

2

0

2013

73

16

3

0

2014

34

47

9

2

58.57. This comes as no surprise to Texans, given the brutal summer temperatures and high humidity in the Houston area.
59.58. Pursuant to TDCJ policy and practice, Warden Herrera reviews this data daily during the summer, and knows that apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit are dangerous.
60.59. Despite this, Warden Herrera has not even looked into costs associated with ways to cool even a single indoor housing area.

10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 11 of 47
61.60. Likewise, Director Livingston is aware that apparent temperatures inside TDCJ prisons are hazardous during the summer. Even so, Director Livingston and the Health Services Division took no steps to bring the dangerous temperatures down in any TDCJ facility. They did not even order a study to determine the cost before several heat-related deaths in 2011 and 2012, and being sued for injunctive and declaratory relief in this case.
62.61. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), summer temperatures in the future will not be lower than temperatures from 2011–2014. In fact, temperatures will likely increase in the future. E. The Extreme Temperatures at the Pack Unit Threaten Illness, Injury and Death.
A. Extreme Heat Can Injure or Kill People 63.62. According to the NWS, “heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States.” Over a hundred people die from exposure to extreme heat each year, and thousands are injured. On average, heat kills more people in the United States each year than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or lightning combined. 64.63. According to the NWS, the American Medical Association, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “[m]aintaining a consistent internal body temperature, generally 98.6° [Fahrenheit], is essential to normal physical functioning.” Excessive heat can “stress the body’s ability to maintain this ideal internal temperature. If individuals fail or are unable to take steps to remain cool and begin to experience increasing internal temperatures, they increase their risk of experiencing a range of potential adverse health outcomes.” 65.64. High temperatures and humidity prevent the human body from regulating its temperature. When exposed to heat, the heart will beat faster to increase blood flow to the skin,
11

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 12 of 47
in order to dissipate heat and keep the internal organs from overheating. As the blood circulates to the skin, excess heat escapes into the cooler air. With so much blood pumped to the skin, the body struggles to maintain its normal functions.
66.65. Likewise, the body also cools itself through sweating. The body produces sweat, which evaporates to cool the body. But when the humidity is high, the sweat cannot evaporate, preventing the body from cooling. In addition, continued exposure to heat causes the body to lose water and become dehydrated. When the body loses enough water, it also loses oxygen.
67.66. Thus, when exposed to high heat and humidity, the body cannot cool itself through sweating and circulation, the body’s temperature rises, and heat-related illnesses may develop.
68.67. Indeed, the doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that ambient temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit can be hazardous to prisoners’ health.
69.68. Continued exposure to high heat and humidity can cause permanent injuries to the body, including heat stroke and death. High temperatures can also cause less deadly, but still painful, heat-related illnesses, including heat exhaustion and heat cramps.
70.69. Heat Exhaustion: Symptoms of heat exhaustion, according to the federal National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), include fatigue; heavy sweating; nausea; dizziness; elevated body temperature; and fast, shallow breathing.
71.70. According to the Mayo Clinic and TDCJ’s own training materials, heat exhaustion can quickly progress to heat stroke if the person does not cool down quickly.
72.71. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that heat exhaustion by itself is a serious health condition that puts prisoners at a serious health risk.
12

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 13 of 47
73.72. Heat Cramps: Heat cramps can consist of “[m]uscle pain or spasms usually in the abdomen, arms, or legs,” according to NIOSH.
74.73. Heat cramps are extremely painful. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that heat cramps can result in severe pain.
75.74. Even TDCJ‘s own medical policy recognizes that pain from heat cramps “may be quite severe.”
76.75. Heat Stroke: NIOSH describes heat stroke as “the most serious heat-related disorder,” in which “the body temperature can rise to 106 degrees Fahrenheit or higher within 10 to 15 minutes.” Symptoms often include hot, dry skin; hallucinations; chills; headaches; confusion; and slurred speech. “Heat stroke can cause death or permanent disability if emergency treatment is not given.” According to resources published online by the Mayo Clinic, “[i]n a period of hours, untreated heatstroke can cause damage to your brain, heart, kidneys and muscles.”
77.76. In extreme temperatures, heat-related illnesses can arise and exacerbate quickly to cause death. According to NIOSH, “[t]he different forms of heat-related illness … increase in severity as heat strain increases. This allows for a quick, deadly progression from heat exhaustion to heat stroke.”
78.77. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that heat stroke can come on suddenly, and heat stroke is possible at apparent temperatures as low as 90 degrees.
79.78. Indeed, even TDCJ’s own medical policies and training materials recognize heat stroke is “a medical emergency,” that “the onset is often sudden,” and that “death may occur.”
13

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 14 of 47
80.79. Upon information and belief, virtually all prisoners at the Pack Unit, regardless of underlying medical conditions, suffer at least some symptoms of heat-related illness or injury caused by or exacerbated by the high indoor apparent temperatures each summer. Typical symptoms include: headaches, dizziness, nausea, lightheadedness, elevated temperature, and heavy sweating.
B. People with Medical Conditions that Impair Cooling are at Additional Risk 81.80. Though all people suffer in the heat, people with physiological conditions that impair their bodies’ ability to cool are at increased risk of suffering heat-related illness, injury, or death. 82.81. TDCJ policy recognizes inmates with certain “underlying medical condition[s] . . . place them at increased risk,” including: “cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, psychiatric conditions, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, [and] thyroid dysfunction.” Heat tolerance weakens, and the risk of heat-related illness increases, for people who suffer from these conditions. TDCJ policies and procedures recognize prisoners with these conditions are at greater risk of heat-related illness, injury, and death. 83.82. Similarly, TDCJ’s policies state the risk of heat-related illness increases for individuals who use “anticonvulsants, anticholinergics, antihistamines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, beta blockers, [and] diuretics.” Typically, these drugs impair the body’s ability to cool itself. These medications are used to treat a wide range of illnesses and disabilities common to prisoners at the Pack Unit, including hypertension, allergies, depression, and bipolar disorder. TDCJ policies and procedures also recognize these medications increase prisoners’ risk of heat-related illness and death, and that these prisoners “should not be allowed to work or
14

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 15 of 47
recreate in environments where the apparent temperature is 95 degrees or higher.” Brad Livingston and Lannette Linthicum are actually aware of these policies and the risks they identify.
84.83. TDCJ also acknowledges people with the following medical conditions and disabilities are at heightened risk of heat-related illness: obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction.
85.84. UTMB, the medical provider at the Pack Unit, has informed TDCJ of this danger on numerous occasions.
86.85. TDCJ identifies approximately 448 prisoners at the Pack Unit as having medical conditions that prohibit them from working in “extreme temperatures.” The prisoners’ medical conditions place them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death, or are prescribed the medications TDCJ identifies as putting people at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.
87.86. This list is under-inclusive, as it did not include Plaintiffs Cole, King, or former Plaintiff Wilson, as recently as the summer of 2015 even though they also take many of the medications and suffer from heat-related disabilities TDCJ recognizes put inmates at increased risk of heat-related injury. Likewise, upon information and belief, it does not include other prisoners who suffer from heat-sensitive medical conditions, or take prescription medications that increase their risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.
88.87. TDCJ also acknowledges other factors that increase the risk of heat-related illness, such as age (particularly for people over 65).
15

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 16 of 47
89.88. According to the CDC, heat stroke mortality rate increases with age. For example, the rate of heat stroke deaths doubles between ages 35 and 55. The CDC also recognizes that people over the age of 65 are more prone to heat stress.
90.89. Yet no accommodations are made relating to the extreme heat for prisoners based on age, even though it is known to be associated with increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, and death.
91.90. TDCJ is well-aware that it houses inmates with disabilities (like Plaintiffs Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates) who require reasonable accommodations because their disabilities are impacted by exposure to extremely high indoor apparent temperatures. As TDCJ’s policies identify these prisoners as being at additional risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death, their need for an accommodation is obvious.
92.91. Upon information and belief, prisoners at the Pack Unit with these heat-sensitive disabilities experience symptoms of heat-related illness more frequently or more intensely than able-bodied prisoners. These prisoners with disabilities are also at greater risk of heat-related illness, including heat exhaustion, heat cramps, and heat stroke. C. Heat in Texas Prisons is Deadly
93.92. Since 1998, at least twenty TDCJ prisoners in facilities around Texas have died of hyperthermia, or heat stroke, as set forth in the table below.
16

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 17 of 47

Name
Archie White

Age Prison

Date of Death

48 Robertson June 29, 1998

Anselmo Lopez James Moore

41 Eastham 47 Unk

July 14, 1998 July 30, 1998

Charles 38

Finke, Jr.

John

39

Cardwell

Ricky

37

Robertson

James

47

Shriver

Dionicia 54

Robles

Douglas 62

Hudson

Huntsville
Allred
Darringto n Byrd
Byrd
Gurney

Aug. 8, 1999 Aug. 4, 2001 July 16, 2004 Aug. 8, 2007 Aug. 13, 2007 July 25, 2011

Larry

58

McCollum

Thomas 46

Meyers

Robert 50

Webb

Hutchins Coffield Hodge

July 28, 2011 Aug. 3, 2011 Aug. 4, 2011

Alexander 44 Michael Aug. 8,

Togonidze

2011

Charles Cook

53 Hodge

Aug. 8, 2011

Michael Martone Kelly Marcus Kenneth Wayne James

57 Huntsville Aug. 8, 2011
36 Connally Aug. 12, 2011
52 Gurney Aug. 13, 2011

Body Temp. 104.2
Unk 104.1
106 108.5 108 Unk Unk. 105
109.4 105.6 Unk.
106+
107.9
106.5

TDCJ Regio n V
I Unk
I V III I I II
II II II
II
II
I

Facts
Obese, hypertensive, schizophrenic, prescribed tricyclic antidepressants and other medications known to increase risk of heat-stroke Prescribed psychotropic medications for schizophrenia History of paranoid schizophrenia and hypertension, prescribed psychotropic medications, beta-blockers and diuretics Prescribed anti-depressants, recently arrived from air-conditioned facility Prescribed diurectics and psychotropics, spent 2 weeks in ICU, recently arrived Bipolar with depression, prescribed psychtropic medications History of hypertension, prescribed psychotropics Prescribed psychotropics, incarcerated less than one month History of hypertension, prescribed medication “known to interfere with heat dissipation,” died after 5 days Diabetic, prescribed diuretic, found 2:00 am, died 1 week after arrival History of hypertension, prescribed psychotropics Developmentally disabled, prescribed psychotropics, found unresponsive 3:30 am Diabetic, prescribed psychotropics, previously complained of heat-related illnesses, collapsed 8:00 am Developmentally disabled, prescribed psychotropics, found unresponsive at 3:00 am Prescribed psychotropics

Unk. IV

Obese, prescribed diuretic, found 3:30 am

108 II

Prescribed diuretic, died 3 days after arrival

17

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 18 of 47

Daniel 44 Beto Alvarado

Rodney 45 Gurney

Adams

Albert

44 Garza

Hinojosa

West

Aug. 20, 105.2 II 2011
Aug. 3, 109.9 II 2012 Aug. 27, Unk. IV 2012

HIV+, prescribed psychotropics, found unresponsive at 9:20 am, incarcerated nine days Prescribed psychotropics, died 1 day after arrival Died at transfer facility shortly after arrival, found after midnight

94.93. Moreover, it is likely far more TDCJ prisoners were actually killed by heat because hyperthermia is an underreported cause of death by medical examiners.
95.94. The twenty men in the chart above all shared certain characteristics. As TDCJ knew, they all suffered underlying medical conditions and heat-sensitive disabilities that put them at much greater risk of heat stroke, including taking psychotropic drugs to treat a mental illness, suffering from diabetes or hypertension, or taking diuretics to treat hypertension.2
96.95. Unsurprisingly, in a 2012 email, two of TDCJ’s top physicians discussed how “the majority of heat-related deaths involve prescription drugs known to increase the risk.”
97.96. Many prisoners at the Pack Unit, including Plaintiffs Cole, Brannum, King, Wallace, and Yates, suffer from one or more of the above conditions, or take one or more of the heat-sensitive medications.
98.97. Heat can also cause or aggravate other illnesses, even triggering medical emergencies such as heart attacks. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “heat increases death rates from cardiovascular and respiratory disease by placing extra stress on an already stressed system.” Similarly, NIOSH warns that there is substantial evidence that extreme heat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death.
2 Six wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of eight of these men are currently pending. See McCollum v. Livingston, No. 4:14-cv-3253 (S.D. Tex.); Adams v. Livingston, 4:14cv-3326 (S.D. Tex.); Webb v. Livingston, 4:14-cv-3302 (S.D. Tex.); Togonidze v. Livingston, 4:14-cv-3324 (S.D. Tex.); Martone v. Livingston, 4:13-CV-3369 (S.D. Tex.); Hinojosa v. Livingston, 4:14-cv-3311 (S.D. Tex.).
18

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 19 of 47

99.98. The CDC, NWS, and EPA recognize that sudden exposure to heat contributes to a

variety of illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, and increases the likelihood of illness and

death.

100.99.

As all Texans know, however, it is not just the temperature but also the

humidity that contributes to heat. The heat index is a measure of “apparent temperature,” based

on ambient temperature and humidity, which the NWS says closely approximates how air

temperature is “felt” by the human body. The NWS publishes a chart which illustrates how

exposure to high heat indexes increases the risk of heat-related illnesses:

101.100. a.

The NWS correlates heat index ranges to risk levels:
Caution (light yellow; heat index 80-90o F) - “Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.”

19

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 20 of 47

b.
c.
d. 102.101.

Extreme Caution (mustard yellow; heat index 91-104o F) - “Sunstroke, muscle cramps, and/or heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.”
Danger (orange; heat index 105-125o F) - “Sunstroke, muscle cramps, and/or heat exhaustion likely. Heatstroke possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.”
Extreme Danger (red; heat index >126o F) - “Heat stroke likely.”
The NWS warns that exposure to heat index greater than 105o F “may

cause increasingly severe heat disorders with continued exposure or physical activity.”

103.102. TDCJ incorporates a version of the NWS chart into its policies and

training materials, and is well aware of the facts described by the NWS. That chart is included as

an Appendix to the TDCJ policy entitled “Temperature Extremes in the TDCJ Workplace,” dated

November 10, 2008. The policy and chart are made available to every TDCJ warden, including

Warden Herrera.

104.103. Like the NWS chart, TDCJ’s version recognizes that as the heat index

increases, the risk of increasingly severe heat-related illnesses goes up. When the heat index

exceeds 90 degrees (a typical occurrence inside the Pack Unit during the summer), according to

TDCJ, “heat exhaustion” becomes “possible.” Above 105 degrees, “heat stroke” becomes

“possible.” Above 130 degrees, heat stroke is “imminent.”

105.104. Importantly, the NWS and TDCJ charts are designed to predict the risk to

people who do not suffer from medical conditions that increase their susceptibility to heat-related

injuries. These charts predict the risk to “healthy” people (like Plaintiff Santee), not people who

have an increased risk of heat-related illness or injury due to medical conditions, medications or

age.

20

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 21 of 47
106.105. Both the NWS and TDCJ charts show that prisoners living in the Pack Unit are exposed to indoor heat indexes that put inmates at risk of heat exhaustion, and heat cramps virtually every day of the summer.
107.106. Though TDCJ’s policies recognize that escalating extreme temperatures put prisoners at increased danger, TDCJ’s policies do nothing to provide additional protections to inmates in the extremely hot housing areas as apparent temperatures go up.
108.107. In fact, TDCJ has no formal, written policy to protect prisoners from extreme temperatures in the indoor inmate housing areas.
109.108. TDCJ has no policy to lower indoor temperatures in inmate housing areas. 110.109. No mitigation measures short of climate control or a policy to re-locate inmates to cooler housing areas can adequately protect people from these extreme temperatures. So long as housing areas are dangerously hot, prisoners will inevitably suffer heat-related illnesses and injuries, and be placed at increased risk of death. 111.110. Indeed, TDCJ’s primary mitigation measure – water intake – creates a new hazard at the Pack Unit. The Environmental Protection Agency has found the arsenic and fecal coliform3 levels in the water at the Pack Unit are more than twice the recommended level under federal law and regulations. The doctor treating inmates at the Pack Unit testified arsenic in drinking water can cause bladder cancer, skin cancer, and harm the nervous system. 112.111. Dr. Charles Adams, M.D., the medical director supervising medical care provided at multiple TDCJ prisons, stated what should be obvious to anyone: “they need cooling.”
3 Fecal coliform is a bacterial contaminate found in feces, and typically enters the water supply through agricultural run-off created by manure.
21

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 22 of 47
113.112. TDCJ ignored this observation, and still has not provided any “cooling” at the Pack Unit. F. Inmates and Officers at the Pack Unit Routinely Suffer Heat-Related Injuries
During the Summer 114. Every summer, inmates at the Pack Unit suffer heat-related injuries. 115. Internal emails from July 2012 state that, at the Pack Unit, “the trend has been noted that the [inmates suffering from heat-related illness] are primarily in housing” – as opposed to prisoners working outside. 116. TDCJ’s medical provider has admitted being “particularly concerned” about the conditions at the Pack Unit. In a four-day period in 2012, twelve prisoners were seen in the prison’s infirmary for heat-related illnesses. Seven of these prisoners were taking medications that placed them at increased risk of heat-related illnesses. 117. Upon information and belief, three of the prisoners treated for heat-related illness in June 2012 at the Pack Unit were not taking any medication that put them at increased risk, and did not have any medical condition that put them at increased risk of heat-related illness. Despite the absence of any additional heat-related risk factors, these prisoners were still injured by the high apparent temperatures. 118. Each summer, inmates at the Pack Unit are treated by medical staff for heatrelated illnesses and injuries caused by the hot indoor apparent temperatures. 119. Upon information and belief, it is likely that many additional prisoners are not reporting their heat-related illnesses. 120. Because of the miserable conditions created by the heat, many prisoners simply languish during the summer. Many spend their summer days avoiding any exertion that could
22

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 23 of 47
bring on heat-related illness (including walking to the chow hall for meals), drinking arseniclaced water, and spraying themselves with water to endure the incessant heat.
121. Even prisoners without medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to the heat, like Santee, suffer intensely during the summer because of the high indoor apparent temperatures.
122. Likewise, correctional officers who work in the inmate housing areas also routinely suffer in the heat. Officers routinely sweat through their uniforms, and have to towel sweat off their faces when leaving the inmate dormitories.
123. In fact, during a recent summer a 57-year-old correctional officer at the Pack Unit was taken to the emergency room after becoming dizzy. She was diagnosed with heat exhaustion and dehydration.
124. Thus, in a rare development, the correctional officer’s union has found common cause with the prisoners, and publicly supported the extreme temperature lawsuits brought against TDCJ.
125. The correctional officer’s union has made numerous public requests for the prison housing areas to be air conditioned, but TDCJ routinely ignores these requests for safe working conditions.
126. Major newspapers, including the New York Times, Houston Chronicle, and Austin American-Statesman, have editorialized that TDCJ should end the practice of failing to air condition inmate housing areas.
127. While TDCJ knows about and ignores the hazards to prisoners and correctional officers, TDCJ officials (including Brad Livingston) approved installing climate controlled hog barns to protect the welfare of TDCJ’s agricultural products. TDCJ’s detailed policies require
23

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 24 of 47
that pigs live in a “comfortable environment with ventilation. Animals shall never be handled or housed in a manner that does not provide these essentials.” Misters begin to cool the pigs when the temperature goes above 74 degrees to keep the pigs “comfortable.” TDCJ policy requires temperatures be kept no higher than 85 degrees to ensure “pig comfort.” TDCJ policies even establish an “upper critical limit” for pigs at 95 degrees because temperatures above 95, according to TDCJ policies, negatively affect pigs’ “health,” and “some form of cooling” is required above this “critical limit.” High-ranking TDCJ officials even told the press these climate-controlled barns were necessary to protect vulnerable pigs from heat stroke. TDCJ has no similar policies to protect humans.
128. Even former TDCJ Institutional Division Director Rick Thaler acknowledged this is unacceptable, and that human prisoners deserve more protections than swine raised for slaughter. G. Many Plaintiffs’ Disabilities Put them at Increased Risk of Heat-Related Injury or
Death. A. Cole Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 129. Keith Cole suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he suffers from diabetes and hypertension. He also has a history of chronic cardiovascular disease, and has had two stents placed in his body. 130. Cole’s diabetes requires treatment with Glipizide. He takes a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), a beta blocker (Metoprolol), a calcium channel blocker (Amlodipine), an angiotensin receptor blocker (Losartan), and a statin (Atorvastatin), to control his hypertension and cardiovascular disease. He is also prescribed Nitrostat tablets to use “as needed” should he feel any chest pains.
24

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 25 of 47
131. These disabilities and medications impair Cole’s thermoregulatory system. 132. Cole’s diabetes causes his body to constantly fight to stay hydrated. He cannot pump enough blood to his skin to cool his body, and his ability to sweat is extremely limited. 133. Cole has other major life activities that are impaired as well by his disabilities, and which become more severely limited by heat. He cannot stand, walk, lift, or otherwise exert himself physically without feeling chest pain and fatigue, especially during the summer when the indoor apparent temperatures are very high. 134. Because of his diabetes, the heat will make Cole feel dizzy and he cannot walk or stand properly—on some days, he can have difficulty concentrating, thinking, or reading. His diabetes also interferes with the operation of several of his major bodily systems, including his circulatory system, endocrine system and digestive system. 135. When his cardiovascular disease is uncontrolled, Cole suffers from difficulty breathing and chest pains in the high temperatures. His cardiovascular disease and hypertension impair his respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems. 136. Cole has been treated for heat exhaustion at the Pack Unit. Officers have had to take Cole to the infirmary in a wheelchair because heat illness prevented him from walking there on his own to receive treatment during the heart of the summer. 137. During previous summers, Cole has tried to spend extra time in the airconditioned infirmary after receiving treatment for his disabilities. On at least one occasion, although nurses encouraged him to spend extra time in the infirmary, Warden Herrera ordered him out of the infirmary and to return to his blazing hot dormitory. B. Brannum Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk
25

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 26 of 47
138. Jackie Brannum suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he has hypertension and diabetes, and is prescribed antidepressant and psychotropic drugs to treat schizoaffective disorder, a serious mental illness.
139. Brannum takes Amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker), Lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor), Pravastatin (a statin), and Propranolol (a beta blocker) to treat his hypertension and coronary artery disease.
140. Brannum is an insulin-dependent diabetic, and receives insulin injections twice a day to control his blood sugar levels.
141. Brannum suffers from chronic back pain, and takes Carbamazepine and Nortriptyline to treat his pain. (Nortriptyline is an antidepressant that also has pain-relieving properties.) He uses a walker to assist with mobility.
142. To control his schizoaffective disorder, Brannum takes Prozac (an antidepressant), and Risperidone (a psychotropic drug). When he is not taking his psychiatric medications, Brannum hears voices, and has thoughts of hurting himself. In the summer, his psychiatric medications make him feel dizzy and lightheaded because of the heat.
143. These disabilities impair Brannum’s thermoregulatory system. Heat aggravates hypertension, and has caused Brannum to experience extreme fatigue and dizziness in the past during the summer. He often feels fatigue and nausea over the summers, and he has become lightheaded many times. Brannum has also felt his heart race and had difficulty breathing when he has to move in the heat.
144. On more than one occasion during the summer, Brannum has told medical providers at the Pack Unit he fell due to dizziness.
26

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 27 of 47
145. Brannum has been treated in the infirmary at the Pack Unit during the summer for symptoms like severe dizziness. In September 2014, for example, Brannum had to be taken to the infirmary in a wheelchair when he “over did it” while “cleaning his dorm.” A physician at the Pack Unit stopped his prescription for a diuretic medication used to treat his hypertension because it caused him to become dizzy during the summer.
146. In May 2015, Brannum was taken to the infirmary in a wheelchair after experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath.
147. Brannum has also experienced blurred vision and “excessive sweating” during the summer, requiring treatment in the infirmary.
148. On several occasions, Brannum has experienced severe headaches during the summer months, and been treated in the infirmary.
149. Though Brannum tries to stay hydrated by drinking extra water during the summer, he has required treatment in the infirmary due to dehydration. In May 2014, he became painfully constipated and suffered from serious dizziness because he could not stay hydrated in the extreme indoor temperatures at the Pack Unit.
150. During the summer, Brannum has great difficulty sleeping due to the heat and his disabilities. The headaches caused by the heat and his disabilities cause him to have problems concentrating and thinking. Though he used to perform forced labor in the prison’s kitchen, due to his heat-sensitive disabilities, he is no longer allowed to work in the prison.
C. King Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 151. Richard King suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. King has hypertension, obesity, and diabetes.
27

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 28 of 47
152. King takes hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic), Atenolol (a beta blocker), Lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor), and Terozsin to treat his hypertension. He receives insulin injections twice a day and takes Metformin to control his diabetes.
153. King’s conditions impair his ability to regulate his body temperature, which, in turn, interferes with his basic, everyday activities. The heat makes it difficult for King to sleep; specifically, he gets so hot at night that his mattress always seems soaked through with sweat. Compounding the strain from sleepless nights, the oppressive daytime heat taxes his body even further, leaving him exhausted. King feels so exhausted in the heat that he is unable to perform simple tasks like standing or walking for long periods of time. The short walk to the chow hall becomes so unbearable he will skip meals.
154. The heat will make King feel dizzy. He has difficulty walking during the summer, and feels like he will lose his coordination and fall over.
155. King also feels he is unable to perform basic tasks during the summer due to exhaustion from the heat and discomfort from excessive sweating. In fact, TDCJ’s medical provider has determined that King cannot perform forced labor at the prison due to his medical conditions. Yet he gets no protection from the indoor heat or humidity.
D. Wallace Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 156. Fred Wallace suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he has hypertension, obesity, and major depression. 157. Wallace takes an antidepressant (Prozac) to treat his major depression, an antihistamine (Diphenhydramine), and several medications to treat his hypertension (Gemfibrozil, Lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor), and Terazosin (an alpha blocker)).
28

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 29 of 47
158. These disabilities and medications impair the function of Wallace’s thermoregulatory system. TDCJ’s medical provider determined Wallace cannot perform forced labor in “extreme temperatures” or “direct sunlight” due to his disabilities and/or prescriptions.
159. Likewise, Wallace’s depression prevents him from engaging in multiple major life activities. Before he went to prison (and began taking Prozac), he would not leave his house or go to work when he was depressed. His depression prevents him from sleeping, causes him to have “low energy,” and suffer from thoughts like “I’d be better off dead.” Thus, his depression impaired his major life activities or working, thinking, concentrating, and caring for himself.
160. His obesity and hypertension also interfere with major life activities. Wallace cannot climb into a top bunk due to his obesity, and TDCJ has been instructed by doctors to only assign him a lower bunk. He has been seen in TDCJ’s sleep clinic for chronic insomnia related to his obesity and depression.
161. During previous summers, Wallace has been taken to the infirmary in a wheelchair when suffering from dizziness and dehydration.
E. Yates Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 162. Marvin Yates suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he has hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease, asthma, diabetes, arthritis, and is a cancer survivor. His body mass index is also over thirty, making him medically obese. 163. Yates takes a calcium channel blocker (Amlodipine), a blood thinner (Clopidogrel), an ACE inhibitor (Enalapril), a diuretic (Furosemide), a statin (Pravastain), and a beta blocker (Metoprolol) to treat his hypertension. His COPD requires treatment with albuterol, a steroid inhaler, and a nebulizer treatment for infections. His coronary artery disease requires
29

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 30 of 47
treatment with a beta blocker, pravastatin, Plavix, and stents in his heart. Finally, his asthma requires treatment with medications including albuterol and a nebulizer for severe attacks, and antihistamines to control his allergies (which exacerbate his asthma).
164. These disabilities and medications impair Yates’s thermoregulatory system. He cannot sweat normally to cool himself down, and the blood flow to his skin is limited. It is also difficult for Yates to perform any manual task. He cannot lift objects, perform work, walk, or even stand for an extended period of time. Yates’s blood sugar regulation is impaired by his diabetes. He needs to carry candy with him at all times to treat himself when his blood sugar level drops, and his diabetes ultimately impairs his ability to stay hydrated. His breathing is impaired: he becomes short of breath after walking short distances, like from his dormitory to the chow hall. He avoids outdoor recreation because his arthritis makes it too painful to undress and dress as fast as the guards require for the “shakedown” before he can go outside. Yates’s medications also impair his ability to think and concentrate, because they cause him to get nervous very easily. Anxiety, exhaustion, or sometimes lying down to sleep cause his bronchial tubes to constrict, making it hard to breathe. Yates’s breathing problems generally make it more difficult to get food, recreate, and sleep at the prison—and they are worsened by hot temperatures.
165. These impairments are aggravated in the summer due to high indoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit. During previous summers at the Pack Unit, he has experienced several symptoms of heat-related illnesses, including dizziness, painful muscle cramps, fatigue, blurred vision, and headaches. He has trouble sleeping in the extreme heat because he cannot catch his breath.
30

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 31 of 47
F. Other Prisoners at the Pack Unit are at Increased Risk of Heat-Related Injuries 166. Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates’s medical conditions are typical of other inmates at the Pack Unit. Like these Plaintiffs, many other prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from physiological conditions that place them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death. Like these Plaintiffs, many other prisoners at the Pack Unit are prescribed anticonvulsants, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, antihistamines, antidepressants, beta blockers, and diuretics. And, like King and Yates, many other prisoners at the Pack Unit are over age 65. 167. Because TDCJ classifies the Pack Unit as a “Chronic Care I” facility, the Unit houses a disproportionate number of prisoners with chronic health needs. There are more than 700 prisoners housed there who suffer from physiological conditions or take medications that increase their risk of heat-related illness. 168. Plaintiffs take their medications because the prescriptions are necessary to protect their health from their disabilities. G. Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, Yates, and Many Others at Pack Suffer from
Qualifying Heat-Related Disabilities 169. There are hundreds of otherwise-qualified prisoners with heat-sensitive disabilities housed at the Pack Unit, including the following:
i. Hypertension 170. Hypertension is a cardiovascular disease. It is the leading cause of stroke, and a major cause of heart attacks. Serious damage is caused to the cardiovascular system when blood flow asserts high pressure on artery walls. Hypertension is often called “the silent killer.” It can cause breathing problems, and result in organ damage if untreated or exacerbated.
31

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 32 of 47
171. Hypertension also causes severe headaches, fatigue, obesity, and vision problems. It is a physiological condition affecting body systems, including the respiratory and cardiovascular systems.
172. As a consequence, TDCJ policy recognizes patients taking diuretics or beta blockers to treat hypertension are at increased risk of heat-related illness, and “should not be allowed to work or recreate in environments where the apparent air temperature is 95 [degrees] or higher.”
173. Hypertension can substantially limit a patient’s ability to walk, stand, and breathe, and limit the operation of his respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems, especially when the patient is exposed to extreme temperatures.
174. Hypertension itself also increases a patient’s susceptibility to heat stress, and, combined with extreme heat, diminishes the body’s ability to regulate internal temperature. Thus, a patient with hypertension will be at additional risk of heat-related injuries, and suffer additional pain and punishment above and beyond what an able-bodied inmate at the Pack Unit experiences.
175. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that hypertension increases the risk of heat-related illness.
176. TDCJ is aware that hypertension increases patients’ risk of heat-related illness. 177. Approximately 728 prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from hypertension.
ii. Asthma 178. Asthma is a chronic lung disease that inflames and narrows the airways. It substantially limits sufferers’ ability to breathe, causing recurring periods of wheezing, chest
32

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 33 of 47
tightness, shortness of breath, and coughing. Asthma also substantially limits the operation of the respiratory system.
179. Heat and humid air can trigger asthma symptoms, causing asthma patients to suffer more pain and punishment in hot environments than people without asthma.
180. TDCJ’s medical provider recognizes that asthma is a condition that places patients at increased risk of heat-related illnesses. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that asthma increases the risk of heat-related illness.
181. TDCJ is aware that asthma places patients at increased risk of heat-related illness. 182. Approximately 113 prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from asthma.
iii. Diabetes 183. Diabetes is a chronic disease caused by an insulin imbalance. Insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas to control blood sugar. Diabetes results from improper insulin levels. Diabetes is a physical condition effecting the endocrine, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems. 184. Diabetes impairs the body’s ability to adjust to increases in temperatures by affecting diabetics’ ability to sweat. Sweating is critical to cool the body in extreme heat. An inability to sweat increases the body’s core temperature, profoundly aggravating the risk of heat stroke. 185. Diabetes also reduces blood circulation by impairing the action of the heart and by decreasing the ability of the body to dilate the blood vessels at the skin. Both are essential to dissipate body heat, and prevent heat stroke. 186. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that diabetes increases the risk of heat-related illness.
33

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 34 of 47
187. TDCJ is aware that diabetes increases the risk of heat-related illness. 188. Approximately 212 prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from diabetes.
iv. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 189. COPD is a disease that makes it difficult to breathe. It includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. 190. COPD causes frequent coughing, shortness of breath, and tightness in the chest, among other symptoms. 191. COPD impairs the operation of the respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems. 192. Heat exacerbates COPD, because the body needs to breathe in additional oxygen to help cope with the heat. This requires additional breathing, which is impaired by COPD. 193. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that COPD increases the risk of heat-related illness. 194. TDCJ is aware that COPD increases the risk of heat-related illness. 195. Approximately 84 prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from COPD.
v. Schizoaffective Disorder 196. Schizoaffective disorder is a chronic mental illness in which a person suffers from both symptoms of schizophrenia and a mood disorder (such as major depression or bipolar disorder). Symptoms include paranoia, delusions, hallucinations, severe depression, mania, and thoughts of suicide. 197. Schizoaffective disorder requires treatment with psychotropic drugs. 198. Schizoaffective disorder impairs the operation of the brain.
34

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 35 of 47
199. Schizoaffective disorder limits patients ability to think, concentrate, work, care for themselves, see, hear, and sleep.
200. According to TDCJ’s medical policies, psychotropic drugs increase a patient’s vulnerability to heat-related medical conditions, like heat exhaustion, and heat stroke.
201. TDCJ is aware that schizoaffective disorder (and the medications used to treat it) increase the risk of heat-related illness.
202. Approximately 66 prisoners at the Pack Unit take some type of psychotropic drug. vi. Major Depression
203. Major depression is a chronic mental illness caused by a serotonin imbalance in the brain. People with depression experience insomnia or excessive sleeping, loss of appetite, fatigue, feelings of worthlessness, irritability, persistent headaches, and problems concentrating.
204. Depression is a physiological condition affecting body systems, including the brain.
205. The doctor treating patients at the Pack Unit testified patients with depression may experience difficulty caring for themselves. TDCJ does not dispute this.
206. TDCJ’s medical provider identifies antidepressant medications, like Prozac, as putting patients at much higher risk of heat-related illness. In fact, when a patient is prescribed an antidepressant, the physician informs the patient that these medications “can affect the manner in which the body relates to excessive heat especially in the summer.” The patient is told to “contact nursing/security if they [feel] dizzy, confused, or over heated” so their vital signs can be checked. The patient is warned “excessive heat can cause life threatening conditions” and told to “drink plenty of water when the heat is extreme.” Despite this explicit warning, TDCJ does
35

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 36 of 47
nothing to protect inmates taking such medications from the extreme temperatures inside the housing areas.
207. TDCJ is aware that depression (and the medications used to treat it) increase the risk of heat-related illness.
I. Though Plaintiff Santee Does Not Suffer from Heat-Related Disabilities, He Still Experiences Symptoms of Heat-Related Illness Each Summer
208. Lavar Santee has not been diagnosed with any medical conditions that make him sensitive to the heat. He also does not take any “heat-sensitive” medications.
209. Nevertheless, Santee suffers from the heat inside his dorm during summers at the Pack Unit. He reports sweating excessively during most summers, even at rest. He also reports feeling exhausted far more easily, and difficulty sleeping, during the summer.
210. Santee has suffered from painful heat cramps while incarcerated at the Pack Unit. 211. Thus, even prisoners without heat-sensitive medical conditions suffer at the Pack Unit due to the high indoor apparent temperatures and cruel conditions.
CLASS ACTION 212. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated persons. 213. Plaintiffs propose to represent a class composed of all inmates who currently are, or who in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high apparent indoor temperatures in the housing areas. Each Plaintiff is typical of class members. 214. Plaintiffs also seek to represent the following sub-classes of people who 1) are currently incarcerated at the Pack Unit (or will be in the future), 2) are subjected to TDCJ’s
36

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 37 of 47
policy and practice of failing to regulate high apparent indoor temperatures in the housing areas, and either:
3a. Heat-Sensitive Subclass: (i) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death (including, but not limited to, suffering from obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or, (ii) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotics, antihistamines, antidepressants, beta blockers, or diuretic; or, (iii) are over age 65. Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates are typical members of this subclass.
3b. Disability Subclass: suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability. Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates are typical members of this subclass.
215. Numerosity: The joinder of each class member would be impracticable because each class is so numerous. The approximate number of class members exceeds 1,400 as the Pack Unit houses over 1,400 inmates and many other inmates could potentially be housed at the Pack Unit during some point during this litigation, or in the future. Joining all members of the class is impracticable due to the minimum 1,400 person size and the fluctuating population of the Pack Unit.
37

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 38 of 47

216. The subclasses are also sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23(a). Because the

Pack Unit is a “Chronic Care I” facility, more than 700 inmates incarcerated there suffer from at

least one medical condition or disability that would make them a class member. TDCJ itself

identifies over 400 inmates who have “heat restrictions” on their forced labor assignments due to

their vulnerability to “extreme temperatures,” though this number is under-inclusive. Likewise,

upon information and belief, TDCJ houses a high number of inmates with qualifying disabilities

at the Pack Unit.

217. Approximately 200 prisoners over age 65 live at the Pack Unit. Joining all 200

prisoners over age 65 would be impracticable.

218. Identifying every inmate at the Pack Unit who is a subclass member would

require interviewing hundreds of prisoners, and reviewing each of their medical records.

Disposition of this matter as a class action will provide substantial benefits and efficiencies to the

parties and the Court.

219. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the

class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the class.

A.

The common questions of law and fact for the proposed General Class are:

1)

Are all prisoners at the Pack Unit exposed to high apparent temperatures inside

the inmate housing areas?

2)

Does exposing prisoners to the high apparent temperatures in the housing areas

at the Pack Unit violate the Eighth Amendment, by denying prisoners safe

housing and shelter from the elements?

3)

Are the members of the General Class entitled to declaratory and injunctive

relief?

38

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 39 of 47

B.

Further, the common questions of law and fact for the subclasses are:

1) For the Heat-Sensitive Subclass:

a) Is the risk of heat-related injuries for the Heat-Sensitive Subclass increased

when members are exposed to the high apparent temperatures in housing areas

of the Pack Unit?

b) Does exposing members of the Heat-Sensitive Subclass to the high apparent

temperatures in the housing areas at the Pack Unit violate their Eighth

Amendment rights to safe housing conditions and shelter from the elements?

c) Are the members of the Heat-Sensitive Subclass entitled to declaratory and

injunctive relief?

2) For the Disability Subclass:

a) Do the members of the Disability Subclass a) suffer from a disability that

substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and b) either suffer

from a disability that increases the risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death

or receive any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability that

increases the risk of heat-related illness, injury or death?

b) Does TDCJ provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners with heat-related

disabilities exposed to high apparent temperatures in the housing areas at the

Pack Unit?

c) Is TDCJ immune from claims for injunctive and declaratory relief brought

under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act?

d) Are members of the Disability Subclass entitled to declaratory and injunctive

relief?

39

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 40 of 47
220. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical and representative of each class and subclass member’s claims against Defendants, as identified above. The claims of Plaintiffs and the Class all arise from the same conduct by Defendants (exposing them to unsafe temperatures in the housing areas at the Pack Unit), are based not only on identical legal theories, and also seek identical remedies (injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Defendants to lower the temperatures at the Pack Unit to safe levels). The Pack Unit’s housing areas all reach roughly the same temperature levels; the high indoor apparent temperatures threaten all inmates’ wellbeing. Plaintiffs’ interest in reducing the danger of heat-related illness, injury, or death is identical to every other inmate’s interest. All members of the class are similarly injured by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
221. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Plaintiffs have no interests contrary to those of class members. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes a non-profit law firm, the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), whose mission is to protect the civil rights of low-income Texans. TCRP has prosecuted many class actions, or multi-plaintiff cases that obtained class-like injunctive and declaratory relief. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ class counsel, Edwards Law, has litigated complex commercial and civil rights cases, including class actions against multinational corporations and governmental entities. Edwards Law has extensive experience in heat-related temperature litigation against TDCJ, as Plaintiffs’ counsel represent the families of eight men who died of heat stroke in TDCJ prisons, and one other man who suffered a non-fatal heat stroke.
222. A class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy, especially since joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Each class member is irreparably harmed as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Litigating
40

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 41 of 47
this case as a class action will reduce the risk of repetitious litigation relating to the Defendants’ conduct.
223. Plaintiffs do not seek damages, except as may be incidental to declaratory or injunctive relief.
CAUSES OF ACTION I. EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
(Against Defendants Livingston and Herrera in their Official Capacities) 224. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous paragraphs as if alleged herein, and further plead: 225. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Livingston and Herrera, in their official capacities, are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners at the Pack Unit caused by their choice to expose prisoners to high apparent temperatures inside the housing areas, and unnecessarily and wantonly cause the Plaintiffs pain. 226. The high indoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit pose an unreasonable risk to prisoners’ health. 227. Defendants are aware that extreme heat in their facilities’ housing areas poses substantial risk of serious injury to inmates, including Plaintiffs. Defendants’ knowledge is demonstrated by TDCJ policies and practices, as well as the well-documented history of injuries to inmates and employees at the Pack Unit. Defendants remain indifferent to the risk, failing to take obvious steps to mitigate it. 228. In light of the numerous public warnings about the risk posed by extreme temperatures from government agencies, scientific studies of the risk, warnings within TDCJ’s own policy, knowledge of TDCJ’s medical providers, and the history of inmate and staff injuries, Defendants know of the risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death that exists at the Pack Unit.
41

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 42 of 47
229. Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by refusing to provide safe housing areas that protect inmates from exposure to extreme heat, and which annually cause injuries to prisoners.
230. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ risk of serious medical problems puts Plaintiffs at substantial risk of serious bodily injury including, but not limited to, heat stroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion, as well as the myriad symptoms associated with these conditions.
231. Defendants’ policies, practices, acts, and omissions violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendments, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
232. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, acts, and omissions, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical injury, risk of physical injury, and risk of death.
II. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND REHABILITATION ACT (Against Defendant TDCJ)
240. For purposes of the ADA, ADA Amendments Act, and Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs Wallace, Brannum, King, Yates, and Cole, and other similarly situated prisoners, are qualified individuals regarded as having a physiological or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities.
241. TDCJ fails to reasonably accommodate prisoners with heat-sensitive disabilities. These disabilities (such as asthma, COPD, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, depression, and mental illnesses treated with psychotropic medications) place prisoners at increased risk of heatrelated illness, injury, or death, and cause them to suffer more pain and punishment than ablebodied prisoners.
42

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 43 of 47
242. TDCJ acknowledges in internal documents that people with certain disabilities (like diabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease), or who take certain medications to treat their disabilities (like psychotropics, antihistamines, antidepressants, or diuretics), are much more vulnerable to extreme temperatures. Their medical conditions prevent their bodies from regulating their temperature, putting them at much greater risk of death from heat.
243. Plaintiffs Cole, Wallace, Brannum, Yates, and King, as well as other similarly situated prisoners, suffer from these heat-sensitive disabilities.
244. TDCJ has been, and is, a recipient of federal funds, and thus covered by the mandate of the Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act requires recipients of federal monies to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities in their facilities, program activities, and services and reasonably modify such facilities, services and programs to accomplish this purpose.
245. Further, Title II of the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act apply to TDCJ and has the same mandate as the Rehabilitation Act. 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.
246. Title II of the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act protects prisoners with disabilities because exposure to extreme temperatures also actually violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
247. The Pack Unit and other TDCJ units are facilities, and their operation comprises a program and service for Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and ADAAA purposes. Plaintiffs Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates, and similarly situated prisoners with disabilities, are presently qualified to participate in programs, activities and services in TDCJ facilities at the Pack Unit, such as incarceration in the inmate housing areas.
43

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 44 of 47
248. Defendants know that Brannum, Wallace, King, Yates, and Cole, and other similarly situated prisoners with disabilities, suffer from heat-sensitive disabilities, and were prescribed medications to treat their disabilities. Despite their knowledge, TDCJ’s officers intentionally discriminated against them, under the meaning of the ADA, ADAAA, and Rehabilitation Act, by failing and refusing to protect them from the extreme temperatures.
249. As alleged above, TDCJ fails and refuses to reasonably accommodate Brannum, Wallace, King, Yates, and Cole, and other similarly-situated prisoners with disabilities, while in custody, in violation of the ADA, ADAAA and Rehabilitation Act.
250. As shown above, TDCJ failed, and refused, to reasonably modify its facilities, services, accommodations, and programs to reasonably accommodate Brannum, Wallace, King, Yates, and Cole’s disabilities, as well as similarly situated prisoners.
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 251. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, ADAAA, and Rehabilitation Act against Defendants, for themselves and the class, to require TDCJ to provide safe housing conditions at the Pack Unit. 252. Without permanent injunctive relief, Defendants will continue their same perilous practices and conduct, disregarding federal legal mandates, and endangering the lives and the welfare of current and future prisoners at the Pack Unit, causing every prisoner to suffer each summer. 253. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. 254. Plaintiffs ask that the Court enjoin Defendants to maintain a safe indoor apparent temperature (e.g. maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower) inside each of the Pack Unit’s
44

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 45 of 47
housing areas (calculated using the NWS heat index table), or enter other injunctive relief sufficient to protect the health and safety of the prisoners at the Pack Unit.
255. Plaintiffs request an order declaring the conditions under which they are housed are unconstitutional.
256. Plaintiffs Cole, Yates, King, and Brannum request an order declaring TDCJ violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act by failing to reasonably accommodate inmates with disabilities.
257. Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief to end this unlawful discrimination.
258. Plaintiffs do not seek damages. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
259. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs, including expert costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF THEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court award the following relief: A. Certify this action as a class action, as described above; B. Remedy ongoing violations of law and the Constitution by granting declaratory and injunctive relief, as set out in this First Amended Complaint, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and the class; C. Permanently enjoin Defendants to abate the risk of serious harm described above by taking steps including, but not limited to, maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower inside the Pack Unit’s housing areas (calculated using the NWS heat index table);
45

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 46 of 47

D. Find that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this case and award them attorneys’ fees,

court costs, expert costs, and litigation expenses;

E. Grant such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just, to which Plaintiffs may

be entitled, separately or collectively.

Date: May 6, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

The Edwards Law Firm The Haehnel Building 1101 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78702
Tel. 512-623-7727 Fax. 512-623-7729

By /s/ Jeff Edwards JEFF EDWARDS State Bar No. 24014406 Attorney-in-Charge Scott Medlock State Bar No. 24044783 David James State Bar No. 24092572 Federal ID No. 2496580

Michael Singley State Bar No. 00794642 THE SINGLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC 4131 Spicewood Springs Rd., Ste. O-3 Austin, Texas 78759
Tel. (512) 334-4302 Fax. (512) 727-3365

Jeremy Doyle REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP State Bar No. 24012553 Federal ID No. 24559 Nathan Smith State Bar No.: 24053060 Federal ID No. 1075505 Andrew “Drew” Pennebaker State Bar No.: 24083645 Federal ID No. 2621125

46

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 412 Filed in TXSD on 05/09/16 Page 47 of 47
1100 Louisiana Suite 3500 Houston, Texas 77002
Tel. (713) 485-7200 Fax. (713) 485-7250
Abigail Frank State Bar No. 24069732 Southern District No. 1076613 Wayne Krause Yang State Bar No. 24032644 TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 1405 Montopolis Dr. Austin, TX 78751
Tel. (512) 474-5073 Fax. (512) 474-0726
Wallis Nader State Bar No. 24092884 Southern District No. 2609150 wallis@texascivilrightsproject.org TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT— HOUSTON 2006 Wheeler Ave Houston, TX 77004
Tel. (832) 767-3650 Fax. (832) 554-9981
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By my signature above, I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record through the Electronic Case File System of the Southern District of Texas.
/s/ Jeff Edwards JEFF EDWARDS
47

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 14, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KEITH COLE, et al., Plaintiffs,
VS. BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-1698 § § § §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Inmates in the Wallace Pack Unit, operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), bring this lawsuit to challenge TDCJ’s alleged policies and practices of exposing the inmates to extreme heat conditions in their housing areas during the summer months. The Wallace Pack Unit is a prison located in Navasota, Texas. Plaintiffs contend that, without climate control or adequate mitigation measures, Defendants are failing to protect the inmates from the harmful and potentially fatal effects of prolonged exposure to such high temperatures. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. No. 272; Doc. No. 413.) Plaintiffs have asked the Court to certify one General Class and two subclasses. An evidentiary hearing was held on the matter on May 27, 2016, June 1, 2016, and June 2, 2016, during which time the Court heard from four expert witnesses. After considering the evidence and the arguments and briefs from counsel, this Court finds that the Motion for Class Certification should be granted. I. BACKGROUND The named Plaintiffs are six inmates who live in the Wallace Pack Unit, a medical and

1

geriatric prison operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Plaintiffs claim that the conditions inside the Pack Unit—in particular, the lack of climate control leading to the prisoners’ prolonged exposure to extreme heat during the summer months—violate their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They also bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that TDCJ has refused to make reasonable accommodations for prisoners with disabilities that render them especially vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat. Defendants are Brad Livingston, the executive director of TDCJ; Roberto Herrera, the warden of the Pack Unit; and TDCJ itself.
Plaintiffs allege that “sweltering temperatures inside buildings where [TDCJ] houses inmates,” including the Wallace Pack Unit, have caused at least twelve prisoners in the Texas prison system to die from heat stroke and hundreds more prisoners to suffer from heat-related illnesses since 2011. (Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 1.) They allege that Defendants have done nothing to lower the temperatures inside the housing areas. (Id.) They ask the Court to “[r]emedy ongoing violations of the law and the Constitution by granting declaratory and injunctive relief, as set out in [the] Complaint, on behalf of Plaintiffs, and the class” and to “[p]ermanently enjoin Defendants to abate the risk of serious harm described above by taking steps including, but not limited to, maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower inside the Pack Unit’s housing areas.” (Compl. 35.)
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class and two subclasses for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs also seek to certify one of the two subclasses for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The proposed General Class is defined as:
All inmates who currently are, or in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate
2

high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas.
The first proposed subclass is the “Heat-Sensitive Subclass,” defined as:
All people who are incarcerated at the Pack Unit, or in the future will be, that are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas, and either: (1) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death (including, but not limited to, suffering from obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or, (2) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotic, antihistamine, antidepressant, beta blocker, or diuretic; or (3) are over age 65.
The second proposed subclass is the “Disability Subclass,” defined as:
All people incarcerated at the Pack Unit, or who will be in the future, that are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas and suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heatrelated illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability.
(Am. Mot. to Certify Class, Doc. No. 272 at 2.)
The named plaintiffs are Keith Cole, Jackie Brannum, Lavar Santee, Richard King, Fred
Wallace, and Marvin Ray Yates. Keith Cole is a 60-year-old inmate who has Type II diabetes,
coronary arterial disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. (Doc. No. 272 at 30.)
According to TDCJ records, Mr. Cole experienced an episode of heat exhaustion in June 2012.
(Doc. No. 272-22 at 3.) Jackie Brannum is a 61-year-old inmate who has hypertension, high
cholesterol, type II diabetes, schizoaffective disorder, and chronic pain. (Doc. No. 272-14 at 1.)
Lavar Santee is a 34-year-old inmate who has no medical conditions that would affect his
sensitivity to extreme heat. (Doc. No. 413-1.) Richard King is a 68-year-old inmate who has
hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. (Doc. No. 272-16 at 1.) Fred Wallace is a 72-year-old
inmate who is obese and has depression and high blood pressure. (Doc. No. 272-13 at 1.)
Marvin Ray Yates is a 69-year-old inmate who has hypertension and COPD with emphysema
3

and bronchitis. (Doc. No. 272 at 30.) II. LEGAL STANDARDS
The requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) are: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [numerosity]; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [commonality]; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class [typicality]; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
[adequacy of representation]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). “To obtain class certification, parties must satisfy Rule 23(a)’s four threshold requirements, as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3).” M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 837 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Found., 493 F.3d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2), which allows for certification if “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).
Plaintiffs, as the parties seeking certification, bear the burden of proving that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) (“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.”). It is well established that a federal district court must conduct a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites before certifying a class. Castano v. Am.
4

Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir. 1996). Currently, the courts must follow the enhanced contours of “rigorous analysis” as announced by the Supreme Court in Wal–Mart. Perry, 675 F.3d at 837. Under Wal–Mart, “[w]hat matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common ‘questions’—even in droves—but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” 131 S.Ct. at 2551 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court requires the district court to look to the dissimilarities among the proposed class members, as these “are what have the potential to impede the generation of common answers.” Wal–Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2551. Thus, as noted in Perry, the commonality test is no longer met when the proposed class does nothing more than establish that there is “at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number” of the putative class members. Perry, 675 F.3d at 840. Instead, Rule 23(a)(2) requires that all of the class members’ claims depend on a common issue of law or fact whose resolution “will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the class member’s claims in one stroke.” Id. (citing Wal–Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2551) (original emphasis).
This heightened analysis under Wal–Mart will “[f]requently . . . entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Id. However, Rule 23 does not require a showing that the questions common to the class “will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.” Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2013). “Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” Id. at 1194–95.
5

III. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented two expert witnesses: Dr. Michael McGeehin, an
epidemiologist and the former Director of the Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Dr. Susi Vassallo, a physician who is board certified in Emergency Medicine and Medical Toxicology and is a clinical professor of emergency medicine at the New York University School of Medicine/Bellevue Hospital Center. Defendants also presented two expert witnesses: Dr. Dean Reiger, a physician who is board certified in Preventive Medicine and Public Health and, until recently, was the Deputy Chief Clinical Officer for Correct Care Solutions, a company that provides patient care services to jail and prison populations, and Dr. Kathryn Means, a physician who is board certified in Hospice and Palliative medicine and was the Director of Quality Monitoring and Compliance at TDCJ from 2009 to 2015. Dr. Means worked at TDCJ in the summer of 2011 when ten inmates died from heat stroke, and she was still working there when this litigation began.
A. Dr. McGeehin’s Testimony Dr. McGeehin was the lead scientist for the CDC on health effects from extreme heat and heat waves for more than fifteen years, the author of numerous peer-reviewed articles related to heat, and a consultant to both local and national governments on heat wave response plans. As such, Dr. McGeehin could speak to both the effects of heat on populations and to the potential effectiveness of mitigation measures. He testified that heat is, in fact, the number one cause of weather-related deaths in the United States, although it is rarely recognized as such because unlike other natural disasters, heat waves do not destroy infrastructure. (Tr. of May 27, 2016 Hearing, p. 29-30.) He testified that 43% of all deaths from heat in the U.S. are in the South, and
6

33% in the West, which caused “consternation among some people because it was always felt that the populations in those two areas were acclimatized and didn’t suffer the impacts of heat as much as people in the Northeast and Midwest do.” (Id. at 33.) Dr. McGeehin explained the impacts of heat on the human body, and noted that it was “well accepted” that to count only hyperthermia or heatstroke deaths as being heat-related deaths would severely undercount the actual number of heat-related deaths in a population. (Id. at 92.)
When presented with TDCJ’s Correctional Managed Health Care Policy Manual (Def. Exh. 5), which listed “Common Comorbidities That May Affect Heat Tolerance,”1 Dr. McGeehin testified that individuals with the conditions on the list have “been found in multiple studies to have increased relative risk or odds ratios of dying or being hospitalized or coming to an emergency room for various health outcomes in extreme heat events.” (Id. at 61.) He noted that those increased risks cannot, however, be used to predict individual health outcomes, nor is it possible to predict individual health outcomes from the heat index alone. (Id. at 122.) But when asked the question, “You cannot compare the risks from one population to any population, right? They have to be specific populations that you are comparing it to?” Dr. McGeehin responded, “No, no, no. I mean, if that were the case, epidemiology would fail. These risks that we’re talking about here have been consistent[] on different continents and different populations over two decades … of time. This is how human beings react to heat and humidity. This can definitely be applied across the board. Absolutely applied across the board.” (Id. at 123-24.)
Dr. McGeehin testified as to the effectiveness of various practices in reducing the risk from heat. For example, he stated that drinking water cools the body. (Id. at 42.) He stated that above a 95 degree heat index, there is no evidence that fans cool the body, and that they may
1 Those conditions include cardiovascular disease, diabetes, psychiatric conditions, and being over the age of 65.
7

even do further damage. (Id. at 37-41.) Dr. McGeehin testified that cold showers are an effective short-term means of reducing body temperature, but that they have no lasting effect. (Id. at 45.) He stated unequivocally that air-conditioning is the most effective intervention he has ever seen for environmental heat exposure. (Id. at 35-36.)
If people in a hot environment were experiencing symptoms like dizziness, sweating, and headaches, Dr. McGeehin testified, “every public health person I know would be alarmed.” (Id. at 34.) He explained: “If you are saying these people are exposed to these temperatures and they are experiencing symptoms in the normal flow of symptoms that lead to heat exhaustion and heatstroke and death or impacting on other systems that may already be compromised, like their cardiovascular or respiratory system, of course that’s alarming.” (Id. at 35.)
B. Dr. Vassallo’s Testimony Dr. Vassallo has practiced medicine, with a focus on thermoregulation, for nearly 30 years and is a prominent expert in the field. She explained to the Court the concept of a “heat load,” and how as the heat load increases, it can override the body’s coping mechanisms. (Tr. of June 1, 2016 Hearing at 35, 51.) Dr. Vassallo testified as to how various comorbidities impact a body’s ability to thermoregulate, and how certain medications (including antihistamines, antidepressants, and beta-blockers) similarly hamper a body’s capacity for dealing with extreme heat. (Id. at 61-69.) She testified that the temperatures in the Wallace Pack Unit during the summer “pose a substantial risk to the health of any individual under any circumstances held in these kinds of temperatures for prolonged periods of time.” (Id. at 70.) Dr. Vassallo pointed to numerous scientific studies showing that, above a certain heat index threshold, ranging from 86 to 89 degrees Fahrenheit, scientists have observed a steep increase in morbidity and mortality. (Id. at 75-76, 88-89.) She testified, based on both her clinical experience and the scientific
8

literature, that even young, healthy individuals are at risk from the heat. (Id. at 123.) C. Dr. Reiger’s Testimony Dr. Reiger was the medical director for multiple prisons in Michigan and has extensive
experience as both a physician and an administrator for prison systems. Dr. Reiger testified that, absent proper mitigation measures, all the inmates at the Pack Unit would be at substantial risk of harm from the heat. (Tr. of June 2, 2016 Hearing at 52.) He agreed with the Plaintiffs’ experts that various comorbidities are known to interfere with thermoregulation, but also pointed out that every individual, even with the same diagnosis, faces an individual level of risk from heat exposure. (Id. at 47-49.)
Dr. Reiger testified that, with his understanding of the heat mitigation measures in place at the Pack Unit, the risk to the inmates was “quite reasonable.” (Id. at 59.) However, he admitted on cross-examination to having incorrectly remembered details about certain mitigation measures, including the inmate’s beliefs regarding their ability to access respite areas on request. (Id. at 99-101.) He appeared confused when emails sent by TDCJ were referred to as a “policy,” stating: “the existence of the policies still would have preceded the e-mails. So I don't think it's a fair statement to say that the e-mail is the policy. The e-mail may quote the policy, but the policy exists in advance of a reminder e-mail that goes out.” (Id. at 93-94.)2
D. Dr. Means’ Testimony Dr. Means worked for TDCJ from 2009 through 2015. She claims to have reviewed over 400 articles related to thermoregulation and acclimatization. (Tr. of June 2, 2016 Hearing at 152.) Over the course of her testimony, Dr. Means painstakingly distinguished each study relied upon by the Plaintiffs from the inmates at the Pack Unit, and attempted to point out why all
2 As far as the Court can ascertain, the policy or practice of allowing inmates to access respite areas is only stated in an email, and cannot be found in a separate policy.
9

scientific findings averse to TDCJ’s positions were illegitimate. She testified: “If I at any point
had any credible scientific evidence that air-conditioning would be helping these offenders, I
would be advocating for that.” (Id. at 216.)
Dr. Means herself is a defendant, along with TDCJ, in related individual prisoner
wrongful death cases. She began reviewing the over 400 scientific articles only after those cases
were filed, and has made over $200,000 as an expert in this case. (Id. at 227-28, 231.) On the
stand, she was unable to directly answer most of the questions by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and was even nonresponsive to questions posed by this Court.3 Unlike all the other experts presented
over the course of the hearing, Dr. Means appeared incapable of admitting to anything she did
not view as helpful to her side’s case. This Court found her to be biased and, frankly,
unbelievable, and cannot credit any part of her testimony.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Ascertainability
“The existence of an ascertainable class of persons to be represented by the proposed
class representative is an implied prerequisite of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.” John v.
Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 501 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 2007). A “precise class definition is
necessary to identify properly those entitled to relief, those bound by the judgment, and those
3 June 2, 2016 Tr. at 137-38: THE COURT: Aren't the chances of survival and good health much higher with airconditioning than without air-conditioning? That's not a hard question, is it? THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, I'm thinking of all the studies I have read to support that. … I know that there were some studies in nursing home deaths where there were working air-conditioning that the power went out. THE COURT: But that's not really responsive. Healthy people do drop dead in nice homes. But aren't the chances of avoiding death and avoiding illness much better with a working air-conditioner than without? THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the studies are also showing that showers and respite airconditioning are just as beneficial as a working air-conditioning.
10

entitled to notice.” In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408, 413 (5th Cir. 2004). Defendants do not dispute the ascertainability of the General Class, but they dispute the
existence of ascertainable subclasses. Defendants argue that “[b]y including the catchall ‘but not limited to’ language, the [heat sensitive] sub-class definition is expanded with unknown dimensions to include unknown medical conditions. Further, the [heat sensitive] sub-class definition is contingent on the physiological condition actually placing the inmate at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.” (Defs.’ Resp., Doc. No. 307 at 40.) Defendants also claim that “[t]he disability sub-class is defined by the subjective and fact based inquiry of whether a condition is substantially limiting a major life activity and at the same time placing the inmate at increased heatrelated risk. Either inquiry would once again devolve into a person-by-person inquiry to determine who is in or out of the sub-class because it is based on subjective criteria that only a medical provider could define.” (Id.)
Defendants’ arguments are worth careful consideration. However, with regard to the heat-sensitive subclass, the Court finds it significant that TDCJ itself uses similar criteria to determine work assignments and other restrictions. (Correctional Managed Health Care Policy Manual, Doc. No. 272-9 at 7–9.) The fact that “only a medical provider” could determine which conditions place people at increased risk for heat-related illness, injury, or death does not make the subclass unascertainable. Based on the testimony of the experts presented at the hearing (with the exception of Dr. Means, whose testimony has been discredited), the medical community appears to be in substantial agreement as to what those conditions are. For an inmate to belong in the heat-sensitive subclass, he must (1) have a diagnosed physiological condition that medical providers understand may negatively “affect heat tolerance” (Doc. No. 272-9 at 9); or (2) be prescribed a drug that medical providers—including the University of Texas Medical Branch (UMTB), TDCJ’s healthcare provider—consider to be “associated with heat stress,”
11

namely, an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotic, antihistamine, antidepressant, beta blocker, or diuretic (Doc. No. 272-9 at 7); or (3) be over the age of 65. In the Health Care Policy Manual, the University of Texas Medical Branch lists the following physiological conditions as possibly affecting heat tolerance: “Cardiovascular Disease; Cirrhosis of the Liver; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease/Asthma; Cystic fibrosis; Diabetes; Psychiatric conditions; Sjogren’s syndrome; Sweat gland dysfunction; Thyroid dysfunction; Age > 65.” The Court is hesitant, however, to limit the qualifying physiological conditions to those on the UTMB list. As Dr. Vassallo explained in her report, spinal cord injuries, which are not on the list, may affect the ability to thermoregulate by impairing signals sent from the brain to the body. (Doc. No. 272-3 at 15.) Moreover, both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ experts agree that obesity can increase a person’s sensitivity to extreme heat, but obesity is not on the UMTB list. (Id. at 9; Testimony of Dr. Reiger, Tr. of June 2, 2016 Hearing at 44; Doc. No. 309 at 16.)
TDCJ already keeps an only slightly more limited list of inmates who are heat sensitive and thus subject to certain restrictions. As the subclass is defined by an inmate’s diagnosed physiological condition, prescribed medication, or age, rather than the inmate’s individual sensitivity to heat, the Court finds that the heat-sensitive subclass is ascertainable for the limited purpose of injunctive relief. It should be emphasized that, with regard to the first of the three prongs, the inquiry need not and should not involve an examination of the inmate’s actual risk of heat-related illness. It is only necessary for an inmate to establish that the inmate has a physiological condition that is known in the medical community to negatively affect thermoregulation, thereby making the inmate’s risk higher than it would be without the medical condition. Any inmate with obesity is a member of this subclass, as is any inmate with sweat gland dysfunction or any of the other conditions listed. According to both parties’ experts,
12

holding all other factors equal, a person who has sweat gland dysfunction is at higher risk of heat-related illness than that person would be without sweat gland dysfunction. An inmate with a spinal cord injury would likewise be a member of the subclass, as he would “have a physiological condition that places [him] at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.”
The disability subclass is also ascertainable. Courts regularly certify classes of inmates who are disabled, even if they do not have the same disability. See, e.g., Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 149 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (certifying a subclass of inmates with disabilities, defined as “all individuals who are now or will be in the future in the Jail and who have a disability, as defined by federal and California law”); Bumgarner v. NCDOC, 276 F.R.D. 452, 454 (E.D.N.C. 2011) (certifying class of prisoners who are disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act). As in the heat-sensitive subclass, the inquiry regarding the disability subclass will focus not on the individual risk of heat-related illness, but on whether the inmate has a type of disability that is known to affect thermoregulation or takes a type of medication that is known to affect thermoregulation in order to treat the inmate’s disability.
B. Rule 23(a) Requirements 1. Numerosity
To satisfy the numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a)(1), the proposed class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The proposed General Class contains over 1,400 members, and there is “a constant flux of inmates into and out of the Pack Unit,” so joinder of all the proposed class members would be impracticable if not impossible. (Doc. No . 272, at 4-5.) The proposed heat-sensitive subclass
13

contains over 400 members, as identified by TDCJ on the “Medical Heat Restriction List” (Doc. No. 272 at 5; Doc. No. 272-8, at 25-47).
Plaintiffs do not estimate how many members might fit into the disability subclass, but they note that “there are 728 inmates at the Pack Unit diagnosed with hypertension, each of whom is likely taking a diuretic or other medication identified by TDCJ’s medical policy as putting inmates at risk of heat-related illness. There are similarly unwieldy numbers for each of the conditions that TDCJ identifies as putting inmates at risk of heat-related illness—212 patients with diabetes, 142 with coronary artery disease, 111 with obesity, 53 with a psychiatric condition, 22 with cirrhosis of the liver, 84 with COPD, 113 with asthma, and 189 with thyroid dysfunction.” (Doc. No. 272, at 13.) While Defendants challenge the subclass’s ascertainability (see infra Part III.A), they do not contend that the disability subclass is too small to fulfill the numerosity requirement.
Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the elements of numerosity in light of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement and there is no significant history of serious heat related illnesses.” (Doc. No. 307 at 38.) It is not, however, necessary for each class member to have satisfied the exhaustion requirement. See Gates, 376 F.3d at 330 (“Russell was the only class member who had [exhausted the administrative remedy]. . . . [T]his is enough to satisfy the requirement for the class.”). Defendants’ argument regarding “no significant history of serious heat related illnesses” is unclear, but the Court finds as a factual matter that there is such a history within the Pack Unit, and that it is not necessary for each member of the class actually to have experienced a heat related illness—the class is defined by exposure to risk, not by past illnesses. The Court finds that the General Class and both subclasses are sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).
14

2. Commonality “To satisfy the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2), class members must raise at least one contention that is central to the validity of each class member’s claims.” In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 810 (5th Cir. 2014). As the Fifth Circuit has explained, however, “this contention need not relate specifically to the damages component of the class members’ claims. Even an instance of injurious conduct, which would usually relate more directly to the defendant’s liability than to the claimant’s damages, may constitute ‘the same injury.’” Id. Plaintiffs claim that the actions and inactions of TDCJ in subjecting the class and subclass members to extremely high temperatures provide the basis for satisfying the 23(a)(2) requirement. (Doc. No. 272, at 20.) According to Plaintiffs, excessive heat constitutes a condition of confinement that poses a substantial risk of serious harm to the health of all the inmates. (Id. at 21-22.) To prove an Eighth Amendment violation, Plaintiffs will also need to prove that officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk posed to the prisoners; the issue of deliberate indifference can be resolved, Plaintiffs contend, “in one stroke.” (Doc. No. 272, at 22.) In support of their contention that all Pack Unit inmates are subjected to a substantial risk of harm by TDCJ policies, Plaintiffs submitted evidence of the summer temperatures inside the Pack Unit as well as copious evidence of the effects that such high temperatures have on the well-being of both healthy individuals and individuals with heat sensitivity. The testimony at the hearing was particularly helpful on this point. Dr. McGeehin, Dr. Vassallo, and Dr. Reiger agreed that, absent proper mitigation measures, all of the inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit are at substantial risk of harm from prolonged exposure to extreme heat. They agreed that inmates with a comorbidity described in the heat sensitive subclass are at greater risk from heat. No two
15

individuals have the exact same risk, but this Court does not believe that that obvious fact destroys commonality. The evidence calls into serious question the adequacy of TDCJ’s mitigation measures—as applied in practice—in reducing the heat risk for all the inmates, and particularly for those inmates with comorbidities that diminish their ability to thermoregulate. For example, although TDCJ claims that the inmates have access to air-conditioned respite areas at any time, on request, affidavits from the named Plaintiffs indicate that respite areas are in fact not consistently available to any of the inmates.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated commonality with regard to the General Class. They raise the common contentions that excessive heat constitutes a condition of confinement that poses a substantial risk of serious harm to the health of all the inmates, and that TDCJ officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk posed to the inmates. The Court also finds that commonality has been established with regard to the subclasses. The heat-sensitive subclass has the same common contentions as the General Class, but the subclass must only prove a substantial risk of serious harm, and deliberate indifference, to the inmates with heat sensitivity. One additional common contention of the disability subclass is that TDCJ officials failed to provide reasonable accommodations to inmates suffering from disabilities that may impact (or that cause the inmates to take medication that may impact) their ability to withstand extreme heat.
3. Typicality “Rule 23(a) requires that the named representatives’ claims be typical of those of the class.” Langbecker v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 476 F.3d 299, 314 (5th Cir. 2007). The analysis focuses on whether the named representative’s claims are typical, not whether the representative is. See Stirman v. Exxon Corp., 280 F.3d 554, 562 (5th Cir. 2002). Before Wal–
16

Mart, the test for typicality was “not demanding.” Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 625 (5th Cir. 1999). The analysis was “less on the relative strengths of the named and unnamed plaintiffs’ cases than on the similarity of the legal and remedial theories behind their claims.” Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir.1986). The extent to which Wal–Mart changed the threshold for typicality is unclear. The Court noted that “[t]he commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge.” 131 S.Ct. at 2551 n.5. As this Court has described it,
“typicality is commonality addressed from the perspective of the named plaintiffs. Commonality requires showing that, in fact, all members of the proposed class share a common claim, the validity of which can be determined on a classwide basis. Typicality requires showing that, in fact, the proposed representatives have that claim.” M.D. v. Perry, 294 F.R.D. 7, 29 (S.D. Tex. 2013). The typicality requirement also overlaps with the adequacy requirement. See In re American Medical Sys., 75 F.3d 1069, 1083 (“The adequate representation requirement overlaps with the typicality requirement because in the absence of typical claims, the class representative has no incentive to pursue the claims of the other class members.”). The claims of all class members need not be identical. James v. City of Dallas, Tex., 254 F.3d 551, 571 (5th Cir. 2001). But typicality demands that claims “arise from a similar course of conduct and share the same legal theory.” Id. The TDCJ policies and practices related to heat exposure affect all the inmates in the Wallace Pack Unit, including the named Plaintiffs. The named Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same conduct of TDCJ and share the same legal theory as the rest of the class. In addition, Plaintiffs Cole, King, Brannum, Wallace, and Yates bring claims that are typical of both the heat-sensitive subclass and the disability subclass. This Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the typicality requirement for both the General Class and the subclasses.
4. Adequacy of Representation
17

“The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). To meet the adequacy requirement, “the court must find that class representatives, their counsel, and the relationship between the two are adequate to protect the interests of absent class members.” Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2005). Counsel must be both competent and zealous in representing class interests. See, e.g., Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 429 F.3d 125, 130 (5th Cir. 2005).
Defendants do not contend that there is a conflict of interest between the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the General Class or subclasses. Nor do they challenge the adequacy of class counsel who, collectively, have extensive experience litigating class actions, prisoner civil rights, and conditions of confinement claims and who have shown themselves to be both competent and zealous in this case. Defendants do, however, contend that the named Plaintiffs are insufficiently involved in the litigation to be adequate representatives. They rely on a line of class action securities cases beginning with Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001). In Berger, the Fifth Circuit held that “in complex class action securities cases governed by the [Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)], the adequacy standard must reflect the governing principles of the Act and, particularly, Congress’s emphatic command that competent plaintiffs, rather than lawyers, direct such cases.” Id. at 484. In Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 429 F.3d 125 (5th Cir. 2005), another securities case, the Fifth Circuit held that the standard defined in Berger is broadly applicable, even to cases that are not governed by the PSLRA:
We have identified a “generic standard” for the adequacy requirement, noting that “the class representatives [must] possess a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding to be capable of ‘controlling’ or ‘prosecuting’ the litigation.” Berger I, 257 F.3d at 482–83. We have also noted that “the PSLRA raises the standard adequacy threshold” with its
18

“requirement that securities class actions be managed by active, able class representatives who are informed and can demonstrate they are directing the litigation.” Id. at 483. Although we noted that the PSLRA raises the adequacy threshold, we have “not, however, created an additional requirement under rule 23(a)(4) that . . . the putative class representative possess[ ] a certain level of experience, expertise, wealth or intellect, or a level of knowledge and understanding of the issues, beyond that required by our longestablished standards for rule 23 adequacy of class representatives.” Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 279 F.3d 313, 313–14 (5th Cir.2002) [Berger II]. The “long-established standard” for the adequacy determination on which we principally relied in Berger I requires “ ‘an inquiry into [1] the zeal and competence of the representative[s’] counsel and ... [2] the willingness and ability of the representative[s] to take an active role in and control the litigation and to protect the interests of absentees[.]’ ” Berger I, 257 F.3d at 479 (quoting Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School Dist., 690 F.2d 470 (5th Cir.1982)). In addition to determining the proposed class counsel’s zeal and competence and the proposed class representative’s willingness and ability, the district court’s “adequacy inquiry also ‘serves to uncover conflicts of interest between the named plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.’ ” Id. at 479–80 (quoting Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 625, 117 S.Ct. at 2236).
Feder, 429 F.3d at 129–30.
Thus, this Court must evaluate “the willingness and ability of the representative to take
an active role in and control the litigation and to protect the interests of absentees.” Id. at 130.
The named Plaintiffs are prisoners. Like most class representatives, they cannot be expected to
have a sophisticated understanding of the legal intricacies involved in class action lawsuits such
as this one. However, they can be expected to show a willingness to take an active role in, and
control, the litigation. Although the record before this Court is limited on this point, the Court
finds that such willingness has been established.
In a deposition, named Plaintiff Keith Cole described his view of the Eighth Amendment
claim, saying: “I feel that’s an Eighth Amendment violation because of [the] extreme heat
condition[s],” which he believes constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” (App. to Defs.’
Resp., Doc. No. 309 at 684.) Named Plaintiff Richard King, when asked what he wanted from
the lawsuit, answered that he wanted “[t]o live, you know, . . . in a safe temperature.” (Id. at
709.) Mr. King had “perused” the Complaint, after joining the lawsuit, and he understands that
19

the lawsuit seeks what he desires, namely, “relief from the excessive heat.” (Id. at 709, 711.) Named Plaintiff Fred Wallace agreed to participate in the lawsuit because he “want[s] [the Wallace Pack Unit] to have a safer situation. . . . [I]t’s too hot in here and . . . we need it to be safer.” (Id. at 735.) Although Plaintiffs’ counsel selected the named Plaintiffs, and not the other way around, that is not uncommon in this kind of impact litigation nor does it negate the named Plaintiffs’ demonstrated willingness and ability to represent the class. The Court finds that the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) has been met.
C. RULE 23(b)(2) REQUIREMENTS Rule 23(b)(2) allows for class certification when “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). This case easily meets such a standard. The conditions of confinement, as created by Defendants, apply uniformly to the class of inmates as a whole (as well as to the subclasses). TDCJ has refused to equip the housing areas at the Wallace Pack Unit with air conditioning; it does not air condition some dorms and not others. Other mitigation measures, such as providing ice water and fans, and the availability or unavailability of respite areas, are similarly applied uniformly to all the inmates. Injunctive or declaratory relief, therefore, would be appropriate respecting the class as a whole if an Eighth Amendment violation were to be found. That holds true if the Plaintiffs establish that air-conditioning is indeed necessary to cure the violation, or if less drastic measures (such as ordering TDCJ to create and adhere to a more definitive policy regarding respite areas) are shown to suffice to remedy the violation. D. THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), “Prospective relief in any civil action
20

with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
The Court does not interpret the above language as prohibiting class-wide relief in this case; rather, it prohibits relief that is unnecessary to correct the alleged Eighth Amendment violation. If an Eighth Amendment violation is found, this Court will need to determine whether air-conditioning the housing areas is indeed the least intrusive means of correcting the violation, or whether augmenting the mitigation measures that are already in place at the Wallace Pack Unit would be sufficient to remedy the violation. VI. APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL
Plaintiffs request that their current attorneys be appointed class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Under this Rule, “a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel” and, in so doing, must consider: (1) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (4) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i-iv). The Rule also requires that “[c]lass counsel must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4).
The Court finds that counsel for the named Plaintiffs fulfill the requirements of Rule
21

23(g). The attorneys currently representing Plaintiffs have investigated the case, have engaged in voluminous discovery, and have experience litigating similar cases in this and other jurisdictions. The proposed class counsel have extensive experience handling complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel have demonstrated, as evidenced by the pleadings before the Court, their familiarity with the applicable law. They have also shown they will devote substantial resources to representing the classes and pursuing this litigation. In sum, the Court concludes that counsel for named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The Court, therefore, will appoint them as class counsel for both the general class and the subclasses certified by this order. VI. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification is hereby GRANTED. The General Class, the heat-sensitive subclass, and the disability subclass, as defined in Part I, are certified.
For the reasons stated at the hearing, both Defendants’ Motion Asserting Daubert and FRE 702 Challenges to Plaintiffs’ Expert Testimony (Doc. No. 399) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Testimony of Dr. Kathryn Means (Doc. No. 453) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED on this the 14th day of June, 2016.
KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 21, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KEITH COLE, et al, Plaintiffs,
VS. BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al,
Defendants.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-1698 § § § §

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 434) was filed on May 23, 2016. The parties agreed to an expedited hearing schedule and, at the request of all parties, an evidentiary hearing began on May 26, 2016. The hearing continued on May 27, 2016, and concluded on June 1, 2016. Plaintiffs allege that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (hereafter “TDCJ”) is subjecting the inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit, a facility which houses many elderly inmates and inmates with chronic medical conditions, to unconstitutionally dangerous conditions. Namely, Plaintiffs allege that the inmates are exposed to extremely high temperatures during the summer months, without air conditioning in the housing areas and with limited access to air conditioning elsewhere. According to Plaintiffs, the primary mitigation measure that TDCJ uses to lower the risk to inmates of heat-related injuries and deaths is encouraging the inmates to drink copious amounts of water; however, Plaintiffs complain that the water at the Wallace Pack Unit contains between two and four-and-a-half times the levels of arsenic permitted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Arsenic is a known human
1

carcinogen. Plaintiffs assert that, in a prison where a high percentage of inmates are over the age of 65 or have serious medical conditions, or both, the exposure to extreme heat, “mitigated” primarily through the provision of arsenic-laden drinking water, constitutes unconstitutional prison conditions. For the reasons stated below, this Court finds that the inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit are entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to provide drinking water that comports with EPA maximum contaminant level requirements during the hottest part of the year. I. EVIDENCE PRESENTED
The parties have already briefed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case, and the evidence submitted in conjunction with those briefings was admitted into evidence at the hearing on the requested Preliminary Injunction. Additional exhibits were admitted into evidence over the course of the hearing, as listed in Docket Entry 457. The Court also heard testimony from the following witnesses:  Mr. Cody Ginsel, the Deputy Director of Management Operations in the Correctional
Institutions Division of TDCJ;  Dr. Michael Honeycutt, the Director of the Toxicology Division of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”);  Dr. Heidi Bojes, an expert witness for the Defendants and the Director of Environmental
Epidemiology Disease Registry Section of the Texas Department of State Health Services;  Mr. Brian Carney, a project engineer at TDCJ;  Dr. Michael McGeehin, an expert witness for the Plaintiffs who was a scientist for the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) for 33 years; and
2

 Dr. Susi Vassallo, an expert witness for the Plaintiffs who is a board-certified physician in Emergency Medicine and Medical Toxicology and is a clinical professor of emergency medicine at the New York University School of Medicine/Bellevue Hospital Center.1
II. FINDINGS OF FACT2 The evidence demonstrates that prisoners at the Wallace Pack Unit are exposed to
extreme heat conditions during the summer, and that such exposure, without sufficient mitigation measures, would pose a substantial risk of serious harm to the prisoners. TDCJ does not dispute the dangerousness to prisoners of the hot summer temperatures in Texas, but claims that the prisons implement a number of mitigation measures that reduce the risk of heat to the inmates; those measures include providing and encouraging inmates to drink copious amounts of water. Defendants asserted in their Motion for Summary Judgment that “[f]rom a medical perspective, access to ice water and regular water is the number one remedial measure that can be implemented during times of high temperatures because hydration is the single most important factor in the prevention of heat related injury and effectiveness of thermoregulation.” (Defendants’ Mot. for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 326, at 15.) TDCJ recommends that prisoners drink two gallons, or roughly 7.5 liters, of water per day on extremely hot days.
However, it is undisputed that, since 2006, the drinking water at the Wallace Pack Unit has contained between two and four-and-a-half times the amount of arsenic permitted by the EPA. The EPA lowered the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of arsenic in drinking water
1 The Court holds Defendants’ objection to the inclusion of Dr. Vassallo’s testimony to be waived, since the objection was not asserted during the hearing. (Tr. of May 27, 2016 Hearing, at 158.) 2 Any findings of fact that are more properly conclusions of law are so deemed. Any conclusions of law that are more properly findings of fact are so deemed.
3

from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb in 2001; the EPA mandated that water systems comply with the new standard by the year 2006. According to Brian Carney, in response to those events, “there was a filtration system put in place in about October of 2007. [TDCJ] tried troubleshooting it for years. [TDCJ] hired an outside consultant to have them troubleshoot it. No one could get it to work properly. So [TDCJ] finally reached the conclusion to replace it.” (Tr. of May 26, 2016 Hearing at 245.) TDCJ now has plans to install a second filtration system and estimates that construction will be completed between January and June of 2017, over ten years after the 10 ppb requirement went into effect.
Currently, however, the prisoners in the Wallace Pack Unit are forced both to endure extremely high temperatures and to drink water with impermissibly high levels of arsenic. The evidence establishes that the increased risk of cancer posed by these arsenic levels (20-45 ppb) is very low, even over a period of two or nine years. But every day that passes in this manner contributes, albeit only slightly, to the inmates’ risk of developing skin, lung, bladder, or kidney cancer due to arsenic in their drinking water.
Defendants point out that the Wallace Pack Unit is not the only public water system in violation of the EPA arsenic standard, although it is the only prison water system of which they are aware in violation of the standard. (Tr. of May 26, 2016 Hearing, at 9.) It is undisputed that many free world residents of the United States still drink water with arsenic concentrations at or above the concentrations in the Pack Unit water system.3 But those individuals do so with EPAmandated notice from the water system, and they do so voluntarily. A free individual who
3 According to Defendants, approximately 65 public water systems (out of thousands) in Texas do not meet the EPA maximum contaminant level requirement for arsenic. (Tr. of May 26, 2016 Hearing, at 152.)
4

receives notice that his water system does not meet EPA regulations has several options4: he can
drink the water, knowing it will (slightly) increase his risk of cancer; he can find or buy a
different water source to drink from; he can buy and use a personal water filter; he can even
move, if he wishes, if the water system has not been fixed within a year or within ten years. For prisoners, those options obviously do not exist.5
In addition to the above, this Court finds the following:
1. Plaintiffs complied with all jurisdictional and procedural prerequisites for the filing of
this suit, including exhaustion of all pre-suit remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.6
2. The Wallace Pack Unit is a Type I Geriatric Facility operated by the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice. The Wallace Pack Unit houses approximately 1,400 inmates, many
of whom suffer from medical conditions. Approximately 728 inmates have been
diagnosed with hypertension, approximately 212 with diabetes, approximately 142 with
coronary artery disease, approximately 111 with obesity, approximately 53 with a
psychiatric condition, approximately 22 with cirrhosis of the liver, approximately 84 with
COPD, approximately 189 with thyroid dysfunction, and approximately 113 with asthma. 4 See Tr. of May 26, 2016 Hearing (Testimony of Dr. Honeycutt), at 169-170. 5 Water at the Wallace Pack Unit commissary costs thirty cents per bottle, and TDCJ recommends that inmates drink two gallons of water per day. (Tr. of May 26, 2016 Hearing (Testimony of Cody Ginsel), at 128-129.) Common sense dictates that most if not all of the inmates would be unable to buy enough water to last through the summer, and they should not have to. Defendants alluded to inmates’ buying habits from the commissary. That inmates could spend their money more wisely is, even if true, not sufficient to defeat Plaintiffs’ arguments. 6 It is undisputed that Plaintiffs have properly exhausted their grievances regarding the inmates’ allegedly unconstitutional exposure to extreme indoor temperatures. (Tr. of June 1, 2016 Hearing, at 19-20.) The Court notes that Plaintiffs need not administratively exhaust every remedy for the alleged constitutional violation.
5

Approximately 188 inmates are over the age of 65. Of course, many inmates suffer from several such conditions. 3. Inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit experience prolonged exposure to extremely high temperatures during the summer months. (See Expert Report of Professor Sager, Doc. No. 434-2, Appx. 10-19.) 4. The heat index is a measure of the apparent temperature, calculated from the ambient air temperature and the relative humidity, used by the National Weather Service to determine the risk to the general population of heat-related injuries. 5. Between June 17, 2014 and August 26, 2014, a 71-day period, inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit spent more than 43% of their time enduring a heat index of 90° F or above while indoors. On 28 of the 71 days, the heat index indoors never dropped below 80°. 6. During the first three weeks of September 2014, the heat index inside the Pack Unit exceeded 90° on all but two days and exceeded 95° on all but three days. 7. Without proper mitigation measures in place, such prolonged exposure to high temperatures poses a substantial risk to the health of all the inmates, young and old, whether or not they have comorbidities that affect their ability to thermoregulate. 8. As Dr. McGeehin testified: “These are heat indices that we know increase the risk of the general population to suffer effects from heat waves and certainly increase the risk [for] people who have risk factors that cause them to be more affected by heat.” (Tr. of May 27, 2016 Hearing, at 83.) 9. Multiple scientific articles have shown that the danger posed by heat to a population increases sharply when the heat index exceeds a threshold of approximately 88° F, although the threshold itself may vary between 86° and 90°.
6

10. If the human body does not have time to recover from the hazard of extreme heat, the risk of heat-related injury or death increases. That is why the definition of a heat wave includes minimum temperature.
11. Heat is the number one cause of weather-related deaths in the United States. Forty-three percent of all deaths from heat in the United States occur in the South. Most people who die from heat are indoors.
12. At least 20 prisoners have died indoors in non-air-conditioned TDCJ prisons from hyperthermia since 1998. Others have suffered from heat exhaustion and other heatrelated injuries such as headaches, nausea and vomiting, and dizziness.
13. Ten inmates died of heatstroke in 2011 while in TDCJ custody. Since that time, TDCJ has made only minimal changes to its policies to protect inmates from the dangers of extreme heat. TDCJ introduced the practice of “wellness checks,” described below, and implemented changes regarding the production and distribution of ice to inmates, but TDCJ did not make any substantial changes that would meaningfully reduce the dangers to the inmates of prolonged exposure to extreme heat.
14. With limited exceptions, the housing areas in the Pack Unit are not air conditioned. 15. TDCJ does not currently monitor the temperatures or heat index inside the housing areas
of the Wallace Pack Unit. 16. TDCJ is aware of the dangers of extreme heat, but has taken no steps to lower the
temperatures inside the housing areas. 17. TDCJ does not have a specific policy in place to respond to heat waves, beyond its
general incident command system. TDCJ’s incident command system is designed to help TDCJ respond to various emergencies, including weather emergencies, but it has never
7

been implemented in response to extreme heat events, even in 2011 when multiple prisoners died of heat stroke indoors. 18. TDCJ encourages the inmates to drink up to two gallons of water per day during periods of extreme heat. 19. TDCJ provides the inmates with ice and regular access to cold showers, and TDCJ allows inmates to wear light clothing during periods of extreme heat. 20. TDCJ allows inmates to have personal fans, and each housing area contains large fans. 21. TDCJ correctional officers perform “wellness checks” on inmates who TDCJ has determined are particularly susceptible to heat-related illness and injury. A “wellness check” is defined by TDCJ as “when a correctional officer performing routine security rounds goes to an offender’s cell or bunk to visualize the offender for wellness due to the offender previously being identified as having a condition or being on a medication that makes the offender more susceptible to temperature-related issues.” (Administrative Directive of March 17, 2015, Doc. No. 327-8, at 14.) 22. TDCJ claims to provide on demand access to air conditioned areas, called “respite areas,” to all inmates at the Pack Unit. On July 24, 2015, Deputy Director Robert Eason authorized an email to all TDCJ Wardens and Regional Directors ordering all Wardens to designate air-conditioned areas as respite areas, to allow staff to use respite areas as needed, to notify “all offenders of the location of respite areas on the unit, as well as instructions for requesting the use of a respite area,” to require that “[a]ll offenders who are provided access to a respite area … be under direct supervision,” and to allow inmates on the Wellness Checklist to “have access to respite areas during the late afternoon and
8

early evening hours during periods of low offender movement.” (Email of July 24, 2015, Doc. No. 327-7 at 112.) 23. Despite TDCJ’s contentions, declarations by inmates at the Pack Unit show that they do not believe they have unlimited access to the respite areas.7 24. TDCJ has taken no steps to encourage inmates to use the respite areas, despite minimal actual use by the inmates. 25. Although regular time spent in an air-conditioned environment would reduce the inmates’ risk of heat-related injury and death, an order from this Court making such respite areas mandatory, rather than voluntary, could have a negative impact on the operation of the Wallace Pack Unit. Requiring the Pack Unit to carry out mandatory rotation of prisoners in and out of respite areas for three hours per day may create a necessity to use force or impose disciplinary measures if a prisoner did not want to go to the respite at the times determined by the prison authorities. A mandatory respite schedule also might disrupt the Pack Unit’s day-to-day operations to provide food, maintain cleanliness, and other duties. 26. The Environmental Protection Agency requires that public water systems maintain their water at a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 ppb of arsenic. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen.
7 See, e.g. 2nd Declaration of Fred Wallace, Doc. 340-2, Appx. 44-45 ¶ 9 (“I’ve only ever tried to use an area listed on TDCJ’s ‘Notice to Offenders’ once, and that was a bad experience. In mid-August 2015, I was standing out in front of the commissary when I started feeling faint and overheated. I felt like I was going to pass out. I asked a guard if I could go into the barbershop which was the closest listed area to where I was standing. The posters TDCJ hung up said the barbershops would be open to help with the heat, so I asked to go there. The guard said no and walked away. I needed to go to an air conditioned area, and was unable to.”).
9

27. Since 2006, the Wallace Pack Unit has been in violation of the EPA requirement, with levels of arsenic in the water that are two to four-and-a-half times the EPA maximum.
28. The arsenic levels in the water are still low enough that scientists would not expect them to cause any non-cancerous health effects.
29. However, the arsenic levels do pose a low, but measurable, increased risk of cancer. According to Dr. Bojes, if an inmate weighing 78 kilograms drinks an average of three liters of water per day, she would expect to find “a potential excess of lifetime cancer of 3.4 cases over 100,000 people … and 1.5 cases for 10,000 people for over a two- and nine-year period [respectively].” (Tr. of May 26, 2016 Hearing, at 206.) The inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit are encouraged to drink 7.4 liters of water during the summer to mitigate the effects of extreme heat, so it is possible that over the course of the year their intake exceeds an average of three liters per day; nevertheless, the Court accepts Dr. Bojes’ estimate of the increased risk.
30. Low arsenic levels have also been associated with elevated risks of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
31. There is no evidence in the record that the water at the Pack Unit poses a health risk if used for showering. There is also no evidence addressing the effects of using ice made from the water, or how much ice diluted in clean water would be necessary to raise the overall arsenic level above the MCL.
32. TDCJ claims that the cost of providing bottled water to all the inmates and the storage of such large amounts of bottled water would be problematic, and the evidence in the record is not sufficient to show that such measures would indeed be feasible.
10

33. However, the evidence shows that TDCJ has the ability to bring in to the Pack Unit clean drinking water from other water sources. Cody Ginsel testified that the “state currently has three large water tanker trucks and two small water tanker trucks.” He admitted that the state “routinely [has] water wells or city water supply sources that go down across the state in all of our facilities,” and that TDCJ uses the water tanker trucks to move water to where it is needed. If all of the trucks are in use, than an injunction requiring TDCJ to provide clean water to the inmates at the Pack Unit could mean that TDCJ would need to lease a truck. It is possible, as well, that TDCJ would need to reallocate its drivers or even hire an additional driver capable of operating (and licensed to operate) an 18wheeler. It is also possible, depending on the functionality of the other water systems within the state, that TDCJ would be able to accomplish the task using the trucks and drivers already at its disposal.
34. The provision of ice that meets EPA requirements would be more difficult to accomplish. According to Cody Ginsel, the ice machines at the Pack Unit are directly hooked up to the current water supply. Making ice from imported water would place a heavy burden on the freezer system and potentially affect the operation of the Wallace Pack Unit. Ginsel stated that “when you store ice inside of our freezer vaults, there is limited space because that's where we have to put our frozen food for the offender population. … [I]t is very burdensome on that freezer system and routinely those freezers will freeze up and go down because that water brings humidity into the freezer vault. And it is very tasking on that freezer to freeze water in cans or whatever way and means we have to freeze that, small bags, water, small containers.” (Tr. of May 16, 2016 Hearing, at 60.)
11

35. With regard to water used for cooking, the record is insufficient for this Court to determine the health risks posed to the inmates from the current water supply.
36. Every day that the inmates are forced to drink water with arsenic levels above the EPA requirements contributes, albeit minutely, to their risk of developing skin, lung, bladder, or kidney cancer. The doses of arsenic ingested by the inmates cannot be undone or remedied in the future.
37. TDCJ has no plan or intention to supply safe drinking water to mitigate the effects of extreme heat during the summer of 2016.
38. The risks to the inmates’ health posed by the combination of extreme heat exposure and arsenic-laden drinking water are obvious, and TDCJ is aware of those risks.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Supreme Court has stated that the Constitution “does not mandate comfortable
prisons” (Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)), but neither does it permit inhumane ones. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). The Eighth Amendment imposes on prison officials the duty to provide humane conditions of confinement, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). This Court believes that among the duties imposed by the Eighth Amendment is the duty to provide safe drinking water when the temperatures are so hot that excessive water consumption is recommended, and necessary, to prevent heatstroke or other heat-related injuries. According to EPA standards, the water currently provided at the Wallace Pack Unit is not safe to drink over extended periods of time, and the water has been out of compliance with EPA standards for more than ten years.
“The four elements a plaintiff must establish to secure a preliminary injunction are:
12

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will
result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should not be granted unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.” PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 545 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim by showing: 1) That the prolonged exposure to extreme heat faced by the Wallace Pack inmates, with
only the mitigation measures currently in place (including the arsenic-laden drinking water), poses an ongoing substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates; and 2) That TDCJ is deliberately indifferent to that risk. Moreover, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants’ current and ongoing conduct violates contemporary standards of decency. Plaintiffs have clearly demonstrated that, if this Court denied relief to the inmates, they would face a substantial threat of irreparable injury, damages for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs have shown that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted. After considering the burden on TDCJ of providing clean water, the Court concludes that the balance of equities tilts heavily in favor of
13

the Plaintiffs. The increased risk of cancer, although minute, is significantly more troublesome than the prospect of reassigning or leasing a truck and reassigning or hiring an employee to drive it.
The Court concludes that an injunction will not disserve the public interest, as it will prevent constitutional deprivations.
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, this Court must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). This order, therefore, will not mandate that TDCJ provide ice from water that meets the EPA requirements. Inmates can choose whether or not to add ice to their water, and how much they wish to ingest. They cannot choose whether or not to drink the water. (On the contrary, in order to mitigate the dangerous impact of the extreme heat, all parties agree that the inmates must ingest copious amounts of water.) It would adversely affect the operation of the Wallace Pack Unit to require the prison to disconnect the ice machines currently in operation, and it has not been demonstrated that such course of action would substantially benefit the inmates’ health. The Court also declines, at this time, to order TDCJ to amend its policy regarding respite areas, to adopt a formal policy to address the dangers of heat waves, or to regularly monitor the temperatures inside the Pack Unit.
The Court has weighed the adverse impact on the criminal justice system and finds that this relief is narrowly drawn. The Court finds that this relief extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of prisoners. The Court finds that this relief is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal rights currently being denied to the inmates at the Pack Unit.
14

The Court reaches its holding reluctantly. It understands that no one should intrude cavalierly upon the administration of our state’s prison systems, nor unnecessarily require expenditure of scarce criminal justice funds. But, in the ten years that the water at the Pack Unit has been in violation of federal standards, prison officials have not provided effective redress. Moreover, the funds expended by the State in litigating this case likely would have been sufficient to have afforded such redress. IV. SECURITY
This Court finds that Plaintiffs are indigent prisoners seeking to vindicate Constitutional rights. Therefore, no bond will be required of Plaintiffs. See Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996) (“In holding that the amount of security required pursuant to Rule 65(c) ‘is a matter for the discretion of the trial court,’ we have ruled that the court ‘may elect to require no security at all.’”). IV. CONCLUSION
TDCJ is hereby ORDERED to provide drinking water to the inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit that conforms with EPA maximum contaminant level requirements for arsenic beginning not later than fifteen days from the date of this Order and continuing until September 22, 2016. TDCJ is free to provide drinking water, which complies with EPA standards, from whichever source and in whatever manner it deems best.
IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED in Houston, Texas, on this the 21st day of June, 2016.
KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 584 Filed in TXSD on 12/07/16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 3
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 07, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

DAVID BAILEY, et al, Plain tiffs,
vs.
BRYAN COLLIER, et al, Defendants.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-1698
§ § § §

ORDER On June 21, 2016, the Court partially granted Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 434), ordering the Texas Department of Criminal Justice "to provide drinking water to the [prison] inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit [in Navasota, Texas] that conforms with EPA maximum contaminant level requirements...." (Doc. No. 477 at 15.) The preliminary injunction was in effect until September 22, 2016, and was not renewed at that time. Defendants appealed the injunction, but the Fifth Circuit has not yet ruled. Litigation as to the underlying issue in this case-the high temperatures in Texas prisons during the summer months-is ongoing. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Amended First Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (Doc. No. 484.) Plaintiffs contend that, because the Court entered a preliminary injunction with regard to the arsenic-laden water, they are "prevailing parties" under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and are entitled to attorney's fees. The Court finds and holds that Plaintiffs' motion is premature and must be denied. The governing statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), provides that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee .... " In
1

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 584 Filed in TXSD on 12/07/16 Page 2 of 3
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department ofHealth & Human Resources, the Supreme Court stated that a prevailing party exists when there is a "judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationships ofthe parties." 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001). Since Buckhannon, the Fifth Circuit has not decided under what circumstances a preliminary injunction may meet the prevailing party standard and support an award of attorney's fees. However, a number of circuit courts have addressed the issue, and the Fifth Circuit reviewed the varying analyses in Planned Parenthood ofHouston and Southeast Texas v. Sanchez, 480 F.3d 734 (2007).
For example, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that "a preliminary injunction on the merits, as opposed to a merely temporary order which decides no substantive issues but merely maintains the status quo, entitles one to prevailing party status and an award of attorney's fees." Taylor v. City ofFort Lauderdale, 810 F.2d 1551, 1558 (11th Cir. 1987). However, attorneys' fees will not be awarded if it is later determined that the preliminary injunction was granted as a result of a "mistake in law." Id. The Seventh Circuit has held that a preliminary injunction may lead to prevailing party status if the plaintiff obtains "substantive relief that is not defeasible by further proceedings" and the case is mooted after the preliminary injunction is granted. Dupuy v. Samuels, 423 F.3d 714, 719 (7th Cir. 2005). The D.C. Circuit determined that a preliminary injunction suffices for prevailing party status if the plaintiff obtains substantial relief and the defendant does not appeal the injunction. Select Milk Producers, Inc. v. Johanns, 400 F.3d 939, 945 (D.C.Cir. 2005). And the Ninth Circuit has found that a preliminary injunction "carries all the 'judicial imprimatur' necessary to satisfy Buckhannon." Watson v. County ofRiverside, 300 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit noted, however, that if a plaintiff secures a preliminary injunction but subsequently loses on the merits, the plaintiff would not be a
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 584 Filed in TXSD on 12/07/16 Page 3 of 3
prevailing party. Id at 1096. The Fifth Circuit did not select an approach from those outlined in Planned Parenthood
because it found that the plaintiffs did not qualify as prevailing parties under any of the existing tests. Id at 741.
Although it is possible that Plaintiffs in this case will eventually qualify as a "prevailing party" on the basis of the preliminary injunction, the Court cannot make that determination at this stage. Several of the tests described above look to information that is not yet available in this case, such as whether the preliminary injunction is upheld on appeal, or whether the plaintiffs ultimately prevail on the merits of their case. Other tests require showings that are directly contradicted in this case, such as the case having been mooted or the defendants having failed to appeal the injunction. As a result, the Court lacks sufficient information to determine whether Plaintiffs are "prevailing parties" entitled to attorneys' fees at this time.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Amended First Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on the 7th of December, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 595 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/17 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

UnitedSta;~h~~~~~fAppeals

FILED

No. 16-20445
4:14-CV-1698

January 30, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

MARVIN RAY YATES; KEITH COLE; JACKIE BRANNUM; RICHARD

ELVIN KING·' FRED WALLACE·' LAVAR JOHN SANTEE'

uSonulttehedrSntaDtFf1I!LsSOEtn.Dic~ttorficTteCaxua.rsi:

Plaintiffs - Appellees

FEB 2 2 2017

v.

Javid J. Bradley, Clerk of Court

BRYAN COLLIER; ROBERTO M. HERRERA; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
This interlocutory appeal arises out of a preliminary injunction that Appellees obtained and have since allowed to expire. For the reasons set out below, we DISMISS the appeal as MOOT, VACATE the district court's order, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 595 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/17 Page 2 of 4
No. 16-20445 I.
This is a conditions of confinement case brought by prisoners housed in the Wallace Pack Unit ("Pack Unit") of the Texas prison system. The prisoners allege that they are exposed to extreme heat throughout the summer months and that such exposure, without sufficient mitigation, violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. To mitigate the effects of the heat, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") encourages its prisoners to drink water. However, the water served at the Pack Unit contains more arsenic than the maximum prescribed (but not yet fully enforced) under federal regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA").
Armed with these undisputed facts, the prisoners, on May 23, 2016, filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking any and all relief necessary to "stop the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from exposing them to the combination of dangerously high temperatures 'mitigated' primarily by water poisoned with arsenic." On June 21, 2016, the district court issued the injunction, ordering the TDCJ "to provide drinking water to the inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit that conforms with EPA maximum contaminant level requirements for arsenic beginning not later than [July 6, 2016] and continuing until September 22, 2016."
On September 23, 2016, the preliminary injunction automatically expired pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). We must therefore first determine whether we have jurisdiction to address the merits of this injunction.
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 595 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/17 Page 3 of 4

No. 16-20445

II.

"Because mootness is jurisdictional," we cannot reach the merits of an

injunction that is moot. 1 Generally, when an injunction "expires by its own

terms," it is moot and "there is nothing to review."2

The TDCJ, however, asserts that this appeal falls into an exception to

mootness known as capable of repetition yet evading review. A dispute is

t

capable of repetition yet evading review if: (1) the challenged action is too short

l
l

in duration "to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration," and (2)

l

l
i

"there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be

subject to the same action again."3 The Supreme Court has noted that "the

f

I ~

capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations ...."4

l

I

"Accordingly, a party seeking to invoke this exception ... bears the burden of

;
I

showing its application."5

j

The TDCJ has not established that it will be subject to the same

i

preliminary injunction in the future. The Pack Unit was, as of last summer,

t

the only Texas prison unit serving water that violates the EPA's current

l

i
j

arsenic-related guidelines. And the TDCJ has assured us that, by next

summer, the Pack Unit will enjoy "a new filtration system" that will ensure

that these violations do not recur.

We see no evidence that the TDCJ will be subject to the same injunction

in the future. The injunction is therefore moot, not capable of repetition yet

evading review.

1 Goudeau v. Dental Health Servs., Inc., 125 F.3d 852 (5th Cir. 1997). 2 Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Local232, Int 'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers ofAm. (AFLCIO), 36 F.3d 712, 713 (7th Cir. 1994). 3 Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809-10 (4th Cir. 2013). 4 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983). 5 Williams, 716 F.3d at 810.
3

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 595 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/17 Page 4 of 4
No. 16-20445 III.
Having determined that the TDCJ's appeal is moot, we now vacate the district court's order. Our vacatur jurisprudence requires a case-by-case "weighing [of] the equities ...."6 We have stated however, albeit in dicta, that "vacatur must be granted where mootness results from the unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court."7
The TDCJ's appeal is moot because the pnsoners allowed their preliminary injunction to expire. True, the preliminary injunction automatically expired pursuant to the PLRA, but the prisoners could have sought an extension in order to allow us to review it on appeal. They chose not to do so. We, in turn, vacate the district court's order. 8
IV. We dismiss the TDCJ's appeal as moot, vacate the district court's order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
6 Staley v. Harris Cty., Tex., 485 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir. 2007) (en bane). 7 Id. (quoting U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 23 (1994)). 8 See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 41 (1950) (recognizing that vacatur is intended to prevent "unreviewable" judgments "from spawning any legal consequences" whatsoever); see also Salter v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 5:03CV221(DF), 2004 WL 5573421, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 29, 2004) (noting that district courts are "inclined to follow the example of other district courts within [their] circuit").
4

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 101
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 19, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KEITH COLE, et al, Plaintiffs,
VS. BRYAN COLLIER, et al,
Defendants.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-1698 § § § §

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................3 I. Findings of Fact ........................................................................................................................4
A. Procedural Background ..................................................................................................4 1. The Plaintiff Classes ...............................................................................................5 2. The First Preliminary Injunction..............................................................................6
B. The Evidence in the Record............................................................................................7 1. The Parties ..............................................................................................................7 2. The Wallace Pack Unit ...........................................................................................8 3. The Fact Witnesses ................................................................................................10 4. The Expert Witnesses ...........................................................................................16 5. Overview of the Factual Issues ..............................................................................20
C. The Outdoor and Indoor Heat Index at the Pack Unit ..................................................22 D. The Effects of Heat on the Human Body .....................................................................26
1. The Effects of Heat on an Individual with Comorbidities ....................................32 2. The Effects of Heat on an Individual Taking Certain Medications ......................35 3. The Effects of Heat on an Individual with Multiple Comorbidities
and/or Who Takes Certain Medications ................................................................37 4. The Heat Index Threshold for Heat Illness ...........................................................39
1

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 2 of 101
E. Conditions in TDCJ Facilities, Including the Pack Unit, Prior to 2013........................42 F. Heat-Related Deaths and Illnesses in TDCJ Facilities ..................................................43 G. The Current Conditions in the Pack Unit ......................................................................45
1. Heat Mitigation Measures......................................................................................45 2. Heat Wave/Extreme Temperature Policy .............................................................67 3. Heat-Related Illnesses in the Pack Unit.................................................................70 H. The Proposed Remedies ................................................................................................72 1. Air Conditioning ....................................................................................................73
a. The Effectiveness of Air Conditioning .........................................................73 b. Pre-Existing Air Conditioned Beds Within TDCJ........................................74 c. Medical Providers’ Inability to Recommend Air Conditioned Housing ......75 d. The Installation and Cost of Air Conditioning at the Pack Unit...................77 2. Window Screens ....................................................................................................79 3. Creation of a Heat Wave Policy for the Pack Unit ................................................81 4. Other Remedies......................................................................................................81 II. Conclusions of Law................................................................................................................82 A. The Legal Standard.......................................................................................................82 B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits ............................................................................83 1. The Constitutional Requirements .........................................................................83 2. Conditions of Confinement that Violate the Eighth Amendment..........................83 a. Substantial Risk of Serious Injury or Death..................................................83 b. Deliberate Indifference .................................................................................86 C. Irreparable Injury ..........................................................................................................91 D. Balancing the Harms ....................................................................................................92 E. The Public Interest ........................................................................................................93 F. Bond .............................................................................................................................94 III. Remedy ..................................................................................................................................94 IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................99
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 3 of 101
Introduction Plaintiffs in this class action request relief from conditions in a state prison. In turning to this subject, the Court is acutely aware of both the limitations of its own competence, and the importance of ensuring that constitutional treatment is accorded one of society’s most discrete and disenfranchised minorities. In a perfect world, the safety and good health of prisoners would be assured by Solomonic men and women who had simultaneous expertise in the corrections industry, construction, safety engineering, medicine, and law. In the world we inhabit, however, judges are asked to make judgments and enforce decisions because courts are, in our government’s architecture, where individuals and institutions bring constitutional issues. The task is one that any court must approach with the utmost humility. Still, the fact that a case is difficult does not lead to the conclusion that a decision should be avoided. The immediate issue is whether a preliminary injunction should be entered to redress conditions that are alleged to create an unconstitutional risk of heat-related illnesses at the Wallace Pack Unit, a prison operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). Although no heat-related deaths have been reported at the Pack Unit, at least 23 men have died because of heat at TDCJ facilities from 1998 to today. For reasons that will be set forth, the Court does find that a preliminary injunction should issue to ensure that prisoners at the Pack Unit are not deprived of their Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.
3

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 4 of 101
I. Findings of Fact A. Procedural Background Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on June 19, 2014. Docket Entry No. 1. Initially, Plaintiffs
consisted of four men—David Bailey, Marvin Yates, Keith Cole and Nicholas Diaz— incarcerated at the Pack Unit. The Pack Unit is a Type-I Geriatric prison, which means it is a single-level facility with wheelchair accommodations. Id. at 2-3; Docket Entry No. 326 at 12. The Pack Unit is owned and operated by TDCJ. Docket Entry No. 326 at 12.
Plaintiffs have sued Defendants Bryan Collier, the Executive Director of TDCJ, and Robert Herrera, the warden of the Pack Unit, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the conditions of confinement in the Pack Unit violate Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment right to be safe from conditions of confinement that cause a substantial risk of serious injury or death. Docket Entry No. 629 at 42-43. A smaller subset of the plaintiffs—those who claim to have a disability—also alleges that TDCJ is violating its right to be reasonably accommodated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). Id. at 43-45.
Plaintiffs moved for class certification, and in May 2016, the Court held a four-day evidentiary hearing. On June 14, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, certifying a general class and two subclasses. Docket Entry No. 473. Around the same time, Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the Pack Unit to provide safe drinking water, to adopt a formal policy to address the dangers of heat waves, to monitor regularly the temperatures inside the Pack Unit, and to amend its policy regarding respite areas— locations that prisoners can go to for relief from the heat. Docket Entry No. 434. The Court considered evidence on the Motion during the four-day evidentiary hearing. On June 21, 2016, the Court entered a preliminary injunction ordering the Pack Unit to provide water that
4

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 5 of 101
conformed to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) maximum contaminant level requirements for arsenic. Docket Entry No. 477. Soon thereafter, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Docket Entry No. 533.
On May 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a second preliminary injunction, and on May 22, 2017, Defendants responded. Docket Entry Nos. 620 & 641. The Court held a nine-day hearing in June 2017. Plaintiffs ask this Court to order TDCJ to lower the indoor temperatures at the Pack Unit to below 88 degrees1 for the summer of 2017. They contend that the extreme heat they endure at the Pack Unit is dangerous and damaging to their health, and that Defendants’ mitigation measures are wholly inadequate to counter the high temperatures. As a result, Plaintiffs claim, the heat creates an unconstitutional condition of confinement. Docket Entry No. 620. If the Court fails to order Pack Unit to lower the temperatures, Plaintiffs request various forms of alternate relief, including mandating three hours of scheduled respite time, installing portable “cooling units” in the inmate housing areas, monitoring each person’s water consumption, and requiring medical staff to conduct “wellness checks” for heat-sensitive people. Id. at 3-13. Defendants argue, primarily, that the mitigation measures they have implemented since 2015 have eradicated any potential constitutional violation caused by the heat in the Pack Unit. Docket Entry No. 641 at 13-14.
1. The Plaintiff Classes In its previous ruling granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the Court certified three classes. Docket Entry No. 473. First, the Court certified the General Class, which is defined as: All inmates who currently are, or in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas. 1 All temperatures noted are in Fahrenheit.
5

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 6 of 101
Id. at 2-3. The Court also certified two subclasses. The Heat-Sensitive Subclass is
defined as:
All people who are incarcerated at the Pack Unit, or in the future will be, that are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas, and either: (1) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death (including, but not limited to, suffering from obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or, (2) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotic, antihistamine, antidepressant, beta blocker, or diuretic; or (3) are over age 65.
Id. at 3. The Disability Subclass consists of:
All people incarcerated at the Pack Unit, or who will be in the future, that are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas and suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability.
Id. Defendants appealed the grant of class certification. The Fifth Circuit has yet to issue its
ruling.
2. The First Preliminary Injunction
On June 21, 2016, the Court entered a preliminary injunction finding that the drinking
water at the Pack Unit contained between two and four-and-a-half times the amount of arsenic
permitted by the EPA, and ordering the Pack Unit, for a defined period, to provide water that
conformed with the EPA maximum contaminant level requirements for arsenic. Docket Entry
No. 477. Plaintiffs had also asked the Court to order that each inmate receive three hours of
scheduled respite every day, and to order Pack Unit to measure, daily, the temperature inside
each of the housing areas. Docket Entry No. 434. The Court, at that time, declined to order such
6

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 7 of 101
relief. Docket Entry No. 477 at 29-30. Defendants appealed the Court’s order, and their appeal was dismissed as moot. Docket Entry No. 594.
B. The Evidence in the Record This motion for a second preliminary injunction requires balancing the expediency demanded by the request for emergency relief with a full and fair consideration of the voluminous record. The parties submitted hundreds of pages of exhibits. Fifteen witnesses testified at the nine-day hearing, including four expert witnesses. Additionally, Plaintiffs have incorporated by reference the testimony and evidence presented at the 2016 four-day hearing. This consisted of testimony from eight witnesses, including three expert witnesses. Docket Entry No. 477. Previously, the Court had visited the Pack Unit. The Court reviews the factual record under the applicable legal framework to resolve the disagreements between the parties, and to enter the findings of fact and conclusions of law.2
1. The Parties As described above, the Court certified a General Class and two subclasses in June 2016. The General Class includes every person currently incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and the two subclasses include subsets of that population. The named Plaintiffs in the case are Keith Cole, Jackie Brannum, Richard King, Michael Denton, Fred Wallace, and Marvin Ray Yates. The defendants in this case are Bryan Collier, the Executive Director of TDCJ, and Robert Herrera, the Warden of the Pack Unit, both of whom are sued in their official capacities. TDCJ is also a defendant.
2 Any findings of fact that are also, or only, conclusions of law are so deemed. Any conclusions of law that are also, or only, findings of fact are so deemed.
7

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 8 of 101
2. The Wallace Pack Unit The Wallace Pack Unit is one of 109 custodial facilities operated by TDCJ across the state of Texas.3 Docket Entry No. 326 at 12. It began housing prisoners in 1983. Id. The facility has wheelchair accommodations, 60 wheelchair-accommodated cells, and a 12-bed infirmary. Id. While the facility does house numerous older men, those who are unable to engage independently in the activities of daily living are assigned to assisted living and/or long-term inpatient care, in other facilities. Id. These facilities include type-II or type-III Geriatric facilities, which are required to have air conditioning. Defs.’ Ex. 109 at 1. TDCJ has one type-II Geriatric facility and one Type-III Geriatric facility. Hearing Tr. 5 at 41. The Pack Unit houses approximately 1,450 men, and has approximately 334 employees. Docket Entry No. 326 at 12. The unit has, among other facilities, a cattle farm and an agricultural farm. Id. There is an air conditioned infirmary, and at least one medical provider is present 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Id. All of the administration offices are air conditioned, as are the visitation areas, the education department, the barbershop, and a small portion of the craft shop. Id. at 13-14. The Pack Unit has three separate housing areas: the main building, the expansion dormitory, and the trusty camp. Id. at 13. Each of these housing areas is set up in a dormitory style, with open-air cubicles for each person. Id. Each dormitory has a “dayroom,” with tables, chairs, and televisions. Pls.’ Ex. 2. None of the dormitories contains conditioned air.4 Docket Entry No. 326 at 12. Within the main building, four dormitories extend from either side of a main hallway. Pls.’ Ex. 1 These dormitories are labeled Dormitory A, Dormitory B, Dormitory 3 TDCJ typically incarcerates more than 150,000 people at any given time. Hearing Tr. 6 at 51. 4 The Pack Unit does contain 40 air conditioned beds in a “work unit,” which is an off-site prison location that houses only trusty inmates. Additionally, twenty segregation cells and twelve infirmary beds at the Pack Unit are air conditioned. Docket Entry No. 721 at 3.
8

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 9 of 101
C, and Dormitory D. Id. Each dormitory is divided into four sub-dormitories, which are labeled numerically, from 1 to 16. Hearing Tr. 3 at 17. Two of those dormitories are wheelchair accessible, and contain 30 cubicles each. Id. at 29; 38-39. The other dormitories house approximately 54 men each. Hearing Tr. 4 at 227. Each dormitory contains toilets, and all of the main-building dormitories use a communal shower space with 72 shower heads. Hearing Tr. 3 at 31. The expansion dormitory is housed outside of the main building, but within the perimeter gates. Id. at 34. This dormitory holds approximately 111 men, and contains showers within the dormitory. Id. The trusty camp has a 321-person capacity, and is located outside of the main perimeter fence. It also contains its own showers. Id. at 15, 35.
The parties stipulated that, as of September 18, 2014,5 the Pack Unit contained 728 men with hypertension (high blood pressure), 212 men with diabetes, 142 men with coronary artery disease, 111 obese men, 53 men with a psychiatric condition, 66 men prescribed an antipsychotic medication, 22 men with cirrhosis of the liver, 84 men with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (“COPD”), 189 with thyroid dysfunction, and 113 with asthma. Docket Entry No. 721 at 3-4. There are 188 men in the Pack Unit over the age of 65. Id. Many of these conditions overlap within one person. However, all of the conditions, individually, cause heat sensitivity, as will be discussed in greater detail below.6 The Pack Unit also houses a number of men who are young and healthy. These men work in the fields or the kitchen, help carry drinking water to the housing areas, and are integral to the functioning of the Pack Unit as a whole. Hearing Tr. 3 at 21-23.
5 The Court has not been provided with more recent numbers. However, the parties stipulated that the numbers obtained in 2014 are typical for the Pack Unit. Docket Entry No. 721 at 3-4. 6 All of the individuals listed above are included in the “Heat-Sensitive Subclass” certified by this Court in 2016. Not all are included on the Heat-Restriction list produced by the University of Texas Medical Branch, the medical provider for the Pack Unit. Hearing Tr. 4 at 120.
9

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 10 of 101
3. The Fact Witnesses The fact witnesses testified about the conditions in the Pack Unit, specifically relating to extreme heat in the summers, and to the mitigation measures that have been implemented.
The 2017 Preliminary Injunction Hearing Richard King is a named Plaintiff in this case. He is a 71-year-old man incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He has been in TDCJ custody for 28 years, and at the Pack Unit for six years. He currently works in the craft shop in the Pack Unit. Mr. King suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity. He takes Furosemide and Carvedilol, two medications included on the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee’s policy listing medications that interfere with the body’s ability to regulate temperature.7 Additionally, in 2010 Mr. King suffered from a viral infection that attacked his nerves, leading to the loss of 25-30 percent of the use of his legs. He currently resides in the expansion dormitory of the Pack Unit, also known as E Dormitory. Mr. King testified that the heat in the E Dormitory during the summer is like “walk[ing] out to your car in the middle of the summertime.” Hearing Tr. 1 at 16. He stated that, in the summer, he sweats profusely, his energy level drops, his appetite diminishes, and he finds it difficult to function normally. Additionally, it is difficult for him to write letters because sweat drips all over his paper, and when he lies down, sweat pools in his eyes. He finds that it is often cooler to lie on the concrete floors than in his bunk, because the personal fan that he owns blows hot air and does not have a cooling effect. He also testified about mitigation measures that the Pack Unit has implemented, including a cool-down shower in his dormitory, ice water, respite areas, and
7 Pls.’ Ex. 47 at 7. The Correctional Managed Health Care Committee is a statutorily-created committee “responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring the correctional managed health care services for offenders confined in institutions operated by TDCJ.” McCollum v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017).
10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 11 of 101
training about heat-related illnesses. He stated that these measures create temporary relief from the heat. Hearing Tr. 1 at 3-64.
Jackie Brannum is also a named Plaintiff, age 63, and is incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He has been in TDCJ custody for approximately 22 years, and has been at the Pack Unit for 16 years. Like Mr. King, Mr. Brannum spends much of his time in the craft shop. He suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and schizoaffective disorder. Mr. Brannum takes Risperidone, Nortriptyline, Propranolol, and Amlodipine, Lisinopril, Pravastatin, Prozac, and Carbamazepine, all of which are listed as “drugs associated with heat stress” by the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee (“CMHCC”). Defs.’ Ex. 4 at 7. He also uses a walker because of a pinched nerve in his back that makes walking difficult. He currently resides in dormitory D16, within the main building. Mr. Brannum has not been allowed to work after he passed out while working in the kitchen several years ago. Although Mr. Brannum was not diagnosed with a heat-related illness at that time, he notes that it was hot in the kitchen, and that he was placed in a cool-down area of the infirmary and told to drink cold water. He compares the heat in his housing area to getting into a hot box in the sun during the summertime. The heat makes him feel weak, dizzy, and nauseated. His heart feels like it beats faster, he has difficulty breathing, and he gets headaches. He testified that he often sleeps on the concrete floor during the summer, because the concrete is cooler than his bunks; however, some officers have told him he cannot sleep on the floor. Mr. Brannum also complained of insects that get in through the openings in the wire screens that cover the windows, and which bite him. Finally, Mr. Brannum testified about his attempts to use the respite areas at the Pack Unit. He stated that, though he has used the respite areas several times, he has been shuffled between various areas; he has been made to stand with his nose to the wall in one respite area, despite his mobility impairment; he has been
11

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 12 of 101
told that he could not go to respite because it was full; and he has been told that in order to stay in respite in the infirmary, he must submit to a core (rectal) temperature reading. Hearing Tr. 1 at 67-118.
Thomas Pennington is a 52-year-old man incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He has been in TDCJ for 28 years, and has been in the Pack Unit for the past 11 years. Mr. Pennington has high blood pressure, diabetes, and deep vein thrombosis (which causes blood clots in his legs), and is morbidly obese. He must use a cane to walk. He also suffers from sleep apnea, which interferes with his breathing at night. He uses a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (“CPAP”) machine to sleep, but has problems during the summer months because the sweat his body produces makes it difficult to keep the mask as tight as it needs to be. Mr. Pennington takes Metoprolol and Furosemide, two medications included on CMHCC’s list of drugs associated with heat stress. Mr. Pennington currently resides in dormitory B6, which has a Power Breezer that TDCJ recently installed. Mr. Pennington testified that the Power Breezer does nothing to help with the temperature in his dormitory. He spoke about his experiences using the respite areas: while he has never been denied access to respite, he has been discouraged by the constant movement and standing required of him. He stated that, in the lower administration hallway, he is required to stand, which is difficult for him. In the barbershop, he may be able to stay for 15-20 minutes before he is told to go to the infirmary, and is only allowed to stay in the infirmary for a short period of time as well. About three years ago, he was sent on a stretcher to the infirmary because he began feeling sick, had difficulty breathing, and felt nauseated as a result of the heat. In June 2017, he felt the same symptoms when he was leaving the inmate cafeteria, and had to go to the infirmary to cool down. Finally, Mr. Pennington testified about the insects that come into the housing areas and bite him and the other inmates. Hearing Tr. 1 at 119-159.
12

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 13 of 101
Carlos Huerta is a 30-year-old man incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He has been in TDCJ for three-and-a-half years, and in the Pack Unit for the past two years. He lives in the upstairs section of the expansion dormitory. Mr. Huerta suffers from high blood pressure and is obese. He takes Atenolol, which is on CMHCC’s list of medications that interfere with heat regulation. The heat causes him to feel dizzy, have headaches, and get frustrated. Mr. Huerta testified that he witnessed a Correctional Officer collapse in the dormitories on a very hot day. He, too, was diagnosed with heat exhaustion last summer. He testified that he was feeling hot in his dormitory, so he went outside. Mr. Huerta was walking8 outside, which is something he’s been told to do to lose weight, and he felt worse. He went back into his dormitory, drank water, took a cold shower, and got in front of the fan, but still did not feel better. Finally, he asked to go to medical, where his core body temperature was found to be 102.3 degrees; he was sent to the hospital, and was diagnosed with heat exhaustion. Finally, Mr. Huerta testified about his one attempt to use the respite areas; he stated that he did not like it, because some of the officers would limit how long inmates could stay depending on the officer’s opinion of when they had sufficiently cooled off. Hearing Tr. 1 at 161-199.
Keith Cole is a named Plaintiff in this case. He is a 63-year-old man incarcerated in the Pack Unit. He has been in TDCJ for more than 23 years, and has lived in the Pack Unit for the past six years. He currently resides in dormitory B6. Mr. Cole suffers from chronic cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes. Mr. Cole takes many medications, three of which are on CMHCC’s list of medications that cause heat stress:
8 Defendants contend that Mr. Huerta was in fact running outside, which is what the Incident Report states. The Court does not make credibility determinations at this point, but is merely summarizing the witness’ testimony.
13

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 14 of 101
Amlodipine, Metoprolol, and Hydrochlorothiazide.9 He testified that, since the lawsuit was filed, conditions have improved in the Pack Unit: ice water is more readily available, cool-down showers have been implemented, and he regularly accesses air conditioned respite areas. However, he stated that most men living at Pack Unit are not as assertive as he is, and would not demand access to respite, as he feels he must. Indeed, he estimated that only 15 to 20 men use respite on a regular basis. Furthermore, Mr. Cole maintained that, even with these measures in place, he and others are still at risk of harm from the heat in the housing areas. He stated that, on a daily basis in the summer, he feels dizzy, nauseated, and short of breath. Additionally, he is bothered by mosquitoes and other insects that get into the dormitory areas through the window screens. Finally, Mr. Cole testified that the Power Breezer in his dormitory does nothing to cool the air, and has no cooling effect unless he is standing directly in front of it. Hearing Tr. 1 at 199246.
Robert Herrera has been the Senior Warden of the Pack Unit since 2010. He started his career as a correctional officer in TDCJ at the age of 18, and has worked his way through the ranks to become a warden. Defendants offered Warden Herrera’s testimony regarding the functioning of the Pack Unit on a daily basis, and the various security concerns that he must consider. He also spoke about the mitigation measures that have been implemented at the Pack Unit, and their effectiveness in combating heat illness. Hearing Trs. 3 at 3-114, 4 at 2-246, 5 at 321.
Phyllis McWhorter is a registered nurse and the manager for TDCJ’s Mental Health Services Liaison and Utilization Review. Prior to December 2016, Ms. McWhorter was the manager of the Health Services Liaison, focusing on heat-related illnesses in all TDCJ facilities.
9 As Mr. Cole did not testify to the names of these medications, they have been gleaned from his medical documents. Pls.’ Ex. 22.
14

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 15 of 101
In this role, she collected reports of heat-related illnesses as they were submitted by employees at the various facilities in TDCJ. She testified as to the number of reports of heat-related illness at the Pack Unit between the years of 2010 and 2016, and the number of those illnesses occurring indoors versus outdoors. She also spoke to the ability of medical providers to request that an inmate be assigned to a Type II or Type III Geriatric Unit, both of which are air conditioned. Hearing Tr. 5 at 25-98.
Cody Ginsel is currently the Division Director for the Private Facilities Contract Monitoring Oversight Division. His prior position in TDCJ was as Deputy Director of Management Operations in the Correctional Institutions Division. Before that, he was a warden or assistant warden in TDCJ for 13 years. Mr. Ginsel spoke to the financial ability of TDCJ to air condition the housing areas of the Pack Unit. He also testified about the heat mitigation policies that have been designed by TDCJ and their implementation in the Pack Unit. Finally, Mr. Ginsel reviewed the Incident Command System, which is the system that TDCJ alleges to be a heat wave policy. Hearing Trs. 5 at 99-204, 6 at 2-244.
Kim Farguson is the Director of Maintenance in the Facilities Department of TDCJ. He testified that he has been working for TDCJ for 20 years, and has a mechanical license to work in the fields of heating, air conditioning, natural gas piping, and sheet metal, among others. Mr. Farguson testified as to the electrical capacity in Pack Unit, and its ability to accommodate the air conditioning units proposed by Plaintiffs. He also prepared a report about the estimated cost of implementing many of Plaintiffs’ other proposed remedies. Hearing Tr. 8 at 79-120.
LaMorris Marshall is the Captain of correctional officers at the Pack Unit. He has worked for TDCJ for the past 21 years. Mr. Marshall testified about the mitigation measures that have been implemented in the Pack Unit, and the inmates’ knowledge of these measures. He also
15

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 16 of 101
testified as to two incidents that occurred during the first week of the hearing, wherein approximately 60, and then 150, inmates simultaneously requested respite. These incidents were significant because, prior to those two days, the largest number of inmates who had requested respite at the same time was approximately 20. Hearing Tr. 9 at 3-90.
Michael Denton is a named Plaintiff in this case. He is 39, has been living at the Pack Unit for more than 10 years, and currently resides in the expansion dormitory. He does not have any medical conditions that impact his body’s ability to regulate its temperature, nor is he taking any medications that have detrimental effects. He works in the kitchen at the Pack Unit. During the summers at the Pack Unit, Mr. Denton suffers from headaches, dizziness, and extreme perspiration. He was one of the approximately 60 men who requested respite simultaneously, and testified about that experience. Hearing Tr. 9 at 91-126.
The 2016 Class Certification/Preliminary Injunction Hearing10 Cody Ginsel testified at both the 2016 and the 2017 hearings. In 2016, he was still the Deputy Director of Management Operations in the Correctional Institutions Division of TDCJ. Mr. Ginsel testified about issues relating to the arsenic levels in the water at the Pack Unit, which was the subject of the 2016 hearing. However, he also testified about the heat mitigation policies at the Pack Unit. Thus, for the purposes of this opinion, his testimony in 2017 was substantially similar to the testimony he gave in 2016. Docket Entry No. 459 at 14-130.
4. The Expert Witnesses The 2017 Second Preliminary Injunction Hearing
Ron Brown was presented by Plaintiffs to testify under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the possibility of air conditioning the Pack Unit, as well as the associated cost. Mr. 10 Witnesses who testified solely about arsenic levels in the water at the Pack Unit are not included in the summary. They have not been considered in the Court’s analysis of Plaintiffs’ second request for preliminary injunction.
16

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 17 of 101
Brown testified that he is registered by the State of Texas as a mechanical engineer, and is also certified in electrical, automatic controls, and energy management. He was licensed as a professional engineer in 1979, and has been practicing as a mechanical engineer ever since. He has been registered as an engineer in 26 states, and has spent the majority of his career designing air conditioning systems for various types of structures. In preparing his opinion in this case, Mr. Brown toured the Pack Unit, reviewed blueprints and other structural documents, and performed various calculations using an engineering software. Hearing Tr. 2 at 2-93.
Eldon Vail also testified for Plaintiffs under Rule 702. Mr. Vail spent his career in the Washington Department of Corrections. He started as a correctional officer before becoming the superintendent of three different facilities. He worked his way up through the administration, became the deputy director for seven years, and then in 2007 became the head of the agency until 2011, when he retired. Since that time, he has been consulting on correctional issues for the U.S. Department of Justice and other entities, as well as serving as an expert in litigation. Mr. Vail testified about the importance of air conditioning prisons in hot climates, and about his experience retrofitting two prisons in the state of Washington. He also testified about other states in the U.S. that require cooled air in their facilities, as well as the mitigation measures in place at the Pack Unit. Mr. Vail toured the Pack Unit and interviewed several men incarcerated there in preparing his opinion for this case. Hearing Tr. 2 at 96-280.
Dr. Dean Rieger was presented by Defendants as a Rule 702 witness in corrections. Dr. Rieger has a medical degree and a master’s degree in public health. Over the course of his career, Dr. Rieger has been the medical director for a women’s facility in Michigan, the medical director for the state prison of southern Michigan, the state regional medical director for southeast Michigan, and the medical director for the Indiana Department of Corrections. From 2006-2016,
17

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 18 of 101
Dr. Rieger was the Chief Medical Officer and Corporate Medical Director for Correct Care Solutions, a private managed healthcare company that focuses on correctional healthcare. Dr. Rieger testified about the effects of heat stress on the human body, the compounding effects caused by certain conditions or medications, and the mitigation measures in place at the Pack Unit. Dr. Rieger testified that he has earned approximately $40,000 to $45,000 through his work for TDCJ in this and other heat-related cases. Hearing Tr. 7 at 2-173.
Frank Traknyak also testified as a Rule 702 witness for Defendants. He is an engineer, and owns a company called Trak Engineering, which focuses on mechanical, electrical and other types of engineering. About 60 percent of Mr. Traknyak’s professional focus is on heating and air conditioning, and he has designed thousands of systems. Mr. Traknyak testified as to the cost of installing permanent and temporary air conditioning systems in the housing areas of the Pack Unit. In coming to his conclusions, Mr. Traknyak visited Pack Unit, reviewed drawings, and performed various calculations using an engineering software. Hearing Trs. 7 at 181-208, 8 at 278.
The 2016 Class Certification/Preliminary Injunction Hearing Dr. Susi Vassallo testified as a Rule 702 witness for Plaintiffs at the hearing in 2016. Dr. Vassallo is a practicing physician, board certified in emergency medicine and medical toxicology. She is licensed in New York and Texas, and is a professor of emergency medicine at the New York University School of Medicine. She is also on faculty at Dell Medical School, the new medical school for the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Vassallo is a specialist in thermoregulation—the capacity of the body to maintain the temperature of 98.6 degrees. She is also board certified in correctional health by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dr. Vassallo testified about the risk of heat-related illnesses for the men incarcerated in the
18

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 19 of 101
Pack Unit, and the effectiveness of the heat mitigation measures as compared to the effectiveness of air conditioning. She expounded on the effects of heat on the human body, as well as the effects of heat on individuals who have comorbidities, or take medications that impede their ability to thermoregulate. Docket Entry No. 465 at 29-226.
Dr. Michael McGeehin was presented by Plaintiffs as a Rule 702 witness. Dr. McGeehin spent much of his career as the Division Director for the Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He received his doctorate degree in environmental epidemiology, and has published several peerreviewed epidemiological articles related to heat. Dr. McGeehin testified about various populations’ risks of heat-related illness. He also spoke to the effectiveness of different heat mitigation measures. Docket Entry No. 460 at 7-157.
Dr. Dean Rieger testified at both the 2016 and 2017 hearings on behalf of Defendants. His credentials are detailed above; his testimony in 2016 was substantially similar to the testimony given in 2017. Docket Entry No. 466 at 4-135.
Dr. Kathryn Means testified on behalf of Defendants as a Rule 702 witness. Dr. Means is board certified in hospice and palliative medicine. She has practiced as a primary care physician, but has mostly focused on geriatrics. In 2009, she began working for TDCJ as a consulting physician in the Health Services Division. After the summer of 2011, Dr. Means was tasked with reviewing the autopsies of the men who died from heat-related illness. As an expert in this case, Dr. Means testified about the risk to the named Plaintiffs of heat illness, and spoke generally about the risk of heat illness faced by all individuals living at the Pack Unit. Dr. Means reviewed extensive literature relating to heat-related illness, reviewed the medical records of the named Plaintiffs in the case, and reviewed the medical records of 22 heat related illnesses that
19

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 20 of 101
had occurred in TDCJ. She was compensated at the rate of $300 per hour, and as of April 1, 2016, had been paid $206,000. At the time that she testified, Dr. Means was a defendant in two lawsuits stemming from the deaths of two individuals in TDCJ from heat-related illness during the summer of 2012. Because TDCJ was her employer when the acts alleged in the lawsuits occurred, TDCJ was covering the cost of Dr. Means’ legal defense, and will pay any judgment against her. Docket Entry No. 466 at 135-257.
The Court finds that Drs. Vassallo, McGeehin, Rieger, and Means meet the Rule 702 requirements to testify as to the effects of heat on the human body, and on populations as a whole. The Court also finds that Mr. Brown and Mr. Traknyak are qualified to testify as experts of mechanical engineering, specifically with regard to air conditioning. Finally the Court finds that Eldon Vail meets the requirements to testify as an expert in corrections.
5. Overview of the Factual and Legal Issues There is little dispute that the heat in the housing areas of the Pack Unit during the summer months could violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to conditions of confinement that are free from a substantial risk of serious harm or injury. The parties’ dispute focuses on the effectiveness of TDCJ’s mitigation measures in reducing that risk to an acceptable level. In sum, TDCJ avers that its mitigation measures, which include the constant provision of ice water, both industrial and personal fans, cool-down showers, access to respite areas, wellness checks, and the training of both correctional officers and inmates on the recognition of heat-related illnesses, have successfully reduced the number of heat-related illnesses in the Pack Unit. Plaintiffs dispute that all of the inmates at the Pack Unit know they have access to respite areas at any time of day or night, and further contend that the Pack Unit could not accommodate the numbers of inmates who would want to take advantage of these respite areas. Plaintiffs also
20

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 21 of 101
assert that correctional officers at the Pack Unit are not, in fact, conducting wellness checks, but are merely continuing the pre-existing practice of conducting security checks, which do not assess the inmates’ well-being. Plaintiffs argue that an unconstitutional risk of heat-related illness remains, and that the only way to reduce this risk is to air condition the housing areas. This is especially true, according to Plaintiffs, for individuals with heat sensitivities.
For the reasons set out below, the Court finds and concludes that the mitigation measures put in place by TDCJ are insufficient to combat the substantial risk of serious injury or death faced by the inmates at the Pack Unit during the summer months. Since the 12 heat-related deaths in 2011 and 2012, TDCJ has implemented, and attempted to implement, many of the mitigation measures discussed by the Fifth Circuit in Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 599 (5th Cir. 2015). While these measures have achieved various levels of effectiveness, they do not reduce the substantial risk of heat-related illness faced by all of the men at the Pack Unit, and particularly not the men with heat sensitivities. Although Pack Unit officials state that they have made all of the air conditioned spaces available as respite areas, the testimony of Plaintiffs and of Pack Unit officials reveals that these respite areas can handle only a fraction of the men living at Pack Unit, and even then, the men are often forced to stand, not talk, and move quickly from one respite area to another. Furthermore, the testimony of Plaintiffs and Pack Unit officials belies TDCJ’s claim that wellness checks are being conducted for those with heat sensitivities. Instead, it is clear that there is no difference between the security checks that have always been done at the Pack Unit, and the wellness checks that TDCJ claims are being performed. Thus, two of the major mitigation measures touted by TDCJ are ineffectively implemented. The other measures are either entirely ineffective, or are somewhat effective but still insufficient.
21

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 22 of 101
The Court is particularly troubled by Defendants’ seeming indifference to heat-sensitive inmates. It finds that this indifference has permeated all aspects of Defendants’ handling of extreme heat in the summers, from failing to consider the installation of air conditioning after 23 deaths occurred from heat-related illness, to failing to notify prison officials and inmates when heat advisories have been issued, to placing Power Breezers in a high-humidity environment, despite Defendants’ own expert opinion that Power Breezers will be ineffective, and even harmful, in these conditions. In some cases Defendants’ actions have risen beyond indifference to obstruction, such as when, after this lawsuit was filed, Warden Herrera ordered his staff to stop measuring the indoor heat index during the summer months.
The Court finds and concludes that, based on the credible, reliable evidence in the present record, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim that the conditions of confinement in the Pack Unit create a substantial risk of serious injury or death. The Court does not reach Plaintiffs’ ADA and RA claims, as insufficient evidence has been presented for the Court to determine the likelihood of success as to those claims. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction, as set out in detail below.
C. The Outdoor and Indoor Heat Index at the Pack Unit Texas is famously hot, and the Pack Unit is no exception. The Pack Unit is located five miles south of Navasota, Texas, about 70 miles northwest of Houston, Texas, in the southeastern part of the state. Pls.’ Exs. 3 & 4. Officials at the Pack Unit monitor the outdoor heat index on a daily basis. The heat index is the combination of the temperature and relative humidity, and is a better indication of how the body “feels” heat than air temperature alone. Docket Entry No. 340
22

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 23 of 101

18 at 7. The heat indices at the Pack Unit during the summer months are represented in the following chart:11

Outdoor Heat Index at the Pack Unit Heat Index Highs (2011-2016)

Year 2011

Number of Days: High Over 100°F
74

Number of Days: High 90-99°F 16

Number of Days: High 80-89°F 1

2012

45

43

2

2013

73

16

3

2014

34

47

9

2015

11

71

9

2016

13

55

13

In 2016, the heat index at the Pack Unit reached over 100 degrees on 13 days, and was between 90 degrees and 99 degrees for 55 days. In 2015, the Pack Unit experienced 11 days on which the heat index reached over 100 degrees, and 71 days of heat indices between 90 degrees and 99 degrees. In 2014, there were 34 days of heat indices over 100 degrees, and 47 days of heat indices between 90 degrees and 99 degrees. In 2013, the number of days over 100 degrees heat index jumped to 73, with a corresponding decrease to 16 in the number of days between 90 degrees and 99 degrees. In 2012, a summer in which two individuals incarcerated at other TDCJ facilities died of heat-related illness, the number of days featuring heat indexes over 100 degrees decreased to 45. In 2011, the year that a heat wave hit Texas that led to the deaths of 10 individuals confined in TDCJ facilities, the Pack Unit experienced 74 days over 100 degrees, just one more than the number experienced in 2013.

11 The data is taken from Pls.’ Ex. 6. 23

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 24 of 101 The heat index was regularly measured inside the dormitories until the present lawsuit
was filed. Hearing Tr. 4 at 108. At that point, Warden Herrera ordered his staff to stop measuring the temperature and humidity. Id. Thus, the Court does not have as much information about the conditions inside the dormitories as it does about the conditions outdoors. However, the parties have stipulated that the readings taken for Professor Thomas Sager’s report, commissioned by Plaintiffs, accurately depict the heat index for the dormitories that were measured from August 27, 2014 through October 8, 2014. Docket Entry No. 693 at 1. These readings are summarized in the chart below:
Professor Sager used the readings above to determine, within a reasonable degree of statistical certainty, the heat index inside three Pack Unit dormitories for the period of June 17, 2014 through August 26, 2017, a time period when no measurements were recorded. Id. Prof. Sager used regression analysis, which is a reliable method of statistical analysis, to come to his conclusions. These heat indices are represented in the following charts:
24

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 25 of 101
Prof. Sager’s results reveal that the heat indices inside Dormitory A of the Pack Unit were over 100 degrees for approximately 13 days from June 17, 2014 through October 6, 2014. In Dormitory C, that number increased to 41 days. Indeed, Dormitory C experienced eight days where the heat index reached over 105 degrees. Six of those days occurred in the span of a single week—in other words, there were three days above 105 degrees, one day below 105 degrees, and then three more above 105 degrees.12 During these seven days, the heat indices never fell below 12 Although the charts are a helpful visual, they sometimes obfuscate the exact heat index. However, Prof. Sager provided hourly heat indices as part of his report. (Docket Entry No. 34018 at 132-168.) Thus, on the seven days mentioned above, the heat index in Dormitory C reached 106.5 degrees (8/16/14), 105.05 degrees (8/17/14), 106.6 degrees (8/18/14), 104.1 degrees (8/19/14), 106.1 degrees (8/20/14), 105.1 degrees (8/21/14), and 106 degrees (8/22/14). (Id. at 162-165.)
25

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 26 of 101
80 degrees.13 Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 128. Dormitory D experienced 40 days over 100 degrees.
In sum, TDCJ’s recordings of the outdoor heat index in 2014 demonstrate a total of 34 days over 100 degrees. Dormitories C and D experienced 41 and 40 days over 100 degrees, respectively. Accordingly, the Court finds that the conditions in Dormitories C and D are hotter than the conditions outdoors. Of the three dormitories that were measured, only Dormitory A is cooler than conditions outdoors. This conforms with, and bolsters, the testimony of several Plaintiffs, who testified that the dormitories often feel hotter than outside.14
D. The Effects of Heat on the Human Body The Court has heard testimony from several experts about the effects of heat on the human body. There is little disagreement among the experts about the effects; indeed, this is a well-studied area of health science and medicine. The process by which the human body maintains its temperature within a safe physiologic range15 is called thermoregulation. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 5. Exposure to heat places pressure on the human body. Hearing Tr. 7 at 8. In response, the body uses two primary mechanisms to cool itself—evaporative cooling (also known as perspiration or sweating) and cutaneous vasodilation (dilation of blood vessels close to the skin). Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 6. These processes are intricately interconnected, and are managed by the section of the brain called the hypothalamus. Docket Entry Nos. 465 at 52; 340-
13 This meets the definition of a heat warning, which is issued when the temperature index is higher than 105 degrees for two consecutive days and does not drop below 75 degrees at night. Hearing Tr. 5 at 187. 14 Richard King testified that “some days it’s cooler outside because there is a breeze blowing.” Hearing Tr. 1 at 29. Similarly, Jackie Brannum testified that “outside you get a little breeze. And inside the building you don’t get any. It’s extremely hot in the summertime.” Id. at 80. 15 The body’s safe physiologic range is typically a set point of 98.6 degrees plus or minus 0.8 degrees. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 5.
26

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 27 of 101
18. Both of these processes release heat from the body into the atmosphere, and are critical to effective thermoregulation. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 6. As the external environment gets hotter and more humid, the body must work harder to cool itself by increasing perspiration and vasodilation. Id. Perspiration requires sweat gland function, which in turn requires neurotransmission—the proper functioning of the hypothalamus. Id. Vasodilation also requires neurotransmission, as well as adequate cardiac output. Cardiac output is important because, when the body needs to emit heat, the heart must pump faster and harder to get sufficient blood to the skin, in order to release heat from the blood through the blood vessels at the surface of the skin. Id.
Heat illness occurs when the heat created by the environment overwhelms the body’s ability to dissipate heat into the environment. Hearing Tr. 3 at 52-53. With regard to vasodilation, the heart can pump only so hard and fast before the body’s need to maintain blood pressure results in a limitation in vasodilation. This limitation causes the body to begin to accumulate heat. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 6. Body temperature can also rise as a result of dehydration from excessive perspiration. The act of sweating depletes the body of water and salt, and without adequate replenishment, a person becomes dehydrated. Id. Dehydration causes dizziness, a lack of energy, low blood pressure, weakness, and an increased heart rate. Id. A person who is dehydrated and salt-depleted may be unable to increase cardiac output to the degree necessary to dissipate heat, because the heart does not have enough fluids to squeeze on in order to meet the required cardiac output. Id; Docket Entry No. 465 at 67-68. Furthermore, at a certain level of dehydration, the body will stop sweating in order to maintain its fluid levels. Hearing Tr. 7 at 16.
27

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 28 of 101
The environment also has an effect on the body’s ability to dissipate heat. Dr. Rieger, Defendants’ expert, credibly testified that one of the most important ways that the body manages heat loss is through perspiration. Id. at 12. However, the amount of perspiration that the air can absorb from the human body is governed by how much humidity is already in the air. Id. At 100 percent humidity, the air can no longer absorb water, and the body will be unable to cool itself through perspiration. Id. Thus, Dr. Rieger explained, the higher the humidity, the less efficient perspiration is, and the less efficient perspiration is, the less heat dissipation can take place. Id. The Pack Unit is located in a humid geographic region, and the housing areas in the Pack Unit are likewise extremely humid. Professor Sager’s measurements from August 27, 2014, to October 6, 2014, show that humidity levels in the housing areas were consistently above 80 percent, and often over 90 percent. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 123-124. The Court finds that the high humidity levels in the housing areas of the Pack Unit impede the inmates’ ability to cool their bodies through evaporative cooling.
Heat stress—conditions that cause the body’s thermoregulatory systems to fully engage—can cause four major types of heat illnesses. These are heat syncope (fainting), heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 7. Heat syncope is a brief loss of consciousness that results from the increased demand on the heart to pump blood to the skin. Id. The heart becomes so taxed trying to pump enough blood to the skin to cool the body, generate adequate blood pressure, and provide blood to the brain to maintain consciousness, that a sudden, brief loss of consciousness may occur. Id. Heat cramps are painful muscle cramps that result from dehydration and sodium depletion, most often as a result of exercising or working in a high-heat-index environment. Id.
28

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 29 of 101
When heat stress begins to overwhelm the body’s ability to cool itself, heat exhaustion can occur. Id. Although the thermoregulatory systems are fully engaged, the body still cannot maintain a normal body temperature, and the body’s temperature may begin to elevate. Id. A person with heat exhaustion may experience chills, a headache, and/or muscle cramps, and may feel light-headed, thirsty, nauseated, weak, faint, and/or dizzy. Id. at 8. Heat exhaustion may or may not be accompanied by a rise in core body temperature. Hearing Tr. 7 at 10; Docket Entry No. 465 at 54. If a person experiencing heat exhaustion does not get out of the heat, heat exhaustion can lead to heat stroke. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 8.
Dr. Rieger testified that heat cramps and heat exhaustion are not serious injuries, and Dr. Rieger does not classify heat syncope as a major heat illness. Hearing Tr. 7 at 8-10. Dr. Vassallo opines, however, that there is overlap in all of the above-described heat-related illnesses, and that this overlap should cause concern about all heat-related illnesses. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 8. For example, heat exhaustion may include heat cramps and heat syncope. Id. As a result, Dr. Vassallo concludes that individuals experiencing any of the above heat-related illnesses should be removed from a hot environment. Id. The Court finds and concludes that heat syncope is a type of heat-related illness, and that heat syncope and heat cramps, while not fatal, should be taken seriously in the correctional context because they could, in fact, be symptoms of heat exhaustion. Heat exhaustion, in turn, can lead to heat stroke, which is a severe and potentially fatal condition. Id.
Heat stroke is defined as an elevation of body temperature above 105.5 degrees, accompanied by alteration of mental status. Id. The altered mental status could be subtle, such as inappropriate behavior or impaired judgment, or it could be more obvious, including confusion, delirium, stupor, coma, or convulsions. Id. The altered mental status is a symptom of brain
29

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 30 of 101
functioning beginning to fail because of the rise in core body temperature. Hearing Tr. 7 at 11. Once brain functioning fails, the body can no longer thermoregulate, because thermoregulation requires proper brain functioning. Id. The failure to thermoregulate causes the body’s temperature to rise, causing inflammation, injury to body tissues, and cell death, ultimately leading to multiple organ system failure and death. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 8.
There are two types of heat stroke: exertional and classical. Id. Exertional heat stroke occurs when a person is exercising or engaged in strenuous activity in a hot and humid environment. Id. Classical heat stroke commonly occurs during heat waves, and victims typically include persons least able to tolerate or escape from heat. Id. Heat stroke is a medical emergency that must be treated immediately. Hearing Tr. 7 at 11. If not treated, it may result in permanent brain damage or death. Id. Studies have shown that heat stroke leads to death in 30 to 80 percent of cases. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 9. Those who survive may have a permanent inability to walk and/or talk. Permanent neurological damage occurs in up to 17 percent of survivors. Id.
Symptoms of less serious heat-related disorders may portend heat stroke. Id. at 8. However, Dr. Vassallo credibly reports that these symptoms do not always occur: often, the body develops heat stroke rapidly, and with little warning. Id. at 7. Once heat stress overwhelms the body’s ability to cool itself, the body’s temperature can rise very rapidly, sometimes leading to life-threatening manifestations of heat stroke, such as a seizure, within 10 or 20 minutes. Id. Furthermore, two-thirds of heat stroke victims experience symptoms for less than one day before becoming hospitalized or being found dead. Id. The rapid onset of heat stroke means that even frequent observations of persons at high risk of heat stroke are unlikely to give adequate warning of impending heat stroke. Id. A person who begins to suffer from heat stroke may be unable to remove himself from heat or call for help because of altered mental status. Id. at 8.
30

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 31 of 101
Heat stroke is widely recognized to be vastly underreported. Docket Entry Nos. 460 at 91; 340-18 at 41. Heat-related deaths sometimes go unrecognized when medical personnel fail to consider the conditions in which the individual died, and the possibility that the death was heatrelated. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 41. Furthermore, a medical examiner or doctor may not conclude that the cause of death was heat stroke if the body’s temperature is not above 105 degrees, which is the medical threshold for heat stroke. Docket Entry No. 460 at 90-91. But the deceased are often not found in time to measure accurate core body temperature before the body begins to cool. Id. Finally, because heat-related illnesses can cause various symptoms and exacerbate a wide range of existing medical conditions, the etiology of the death can be difficult to establish. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 41.
Compelling evidence convinces the Court that heat-related illnesses short of heat stroke are also underreported. Dr. Vassallo stated that hospitalizations and emergency room visits are categorized by the primary diagnosis, without reference to underlying factors that contributed to that diagnosis. Id. at 42. Thus, the role of heat in exacerbating an underlying condition is rarely acknowledged or reported. Furthermore, heat cramps and heat exhaustion are not reported in the medical community, so there is no way to determine the rates of heat exhaustion and heat cramps that occur in the free world. Hearing Tr. 7 at 47. Even if heat cramps and heat exhaustion were reported, not everyone experiencing those illnesses will go to the doctor or the hospital—many will treat the condition themselves. Finally, Dr. Vassallo testified that, while the heat-related illnesses described above may occur from short-term exposure to heat, long-term exposure to heat is generally bad for one’s health, and increases the risk of mortality from other conditions.16
16 The Court finds that Dr. Vassallo’s expert report and testimony regarding the effects of heat on the human body were extremely thorough, and that she has extensive knowledge on this subject.
31

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 32 of 101
Docket Entry No. 465 at 86-87. The intersection of heat and other medical conditions is explored further below.
1. The Effects of Heat on an Individual with Comorbidities Individuals with certain conditions are at higher risk for heat-related illnesses, as those conditions impede thermoregulatory functioning. Conversely, heat stress often exacerbates the underlying condition, which can lead to permanent injury and/or death. Dr. Vassallo contends that “many more people die each year from heat-induced exacerbations of underlying medical vulnerabilities than die from heat stroke.” Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 10. The diseases or conditions that are widely believed to increase the risk of heat illness are described below, in no particular order. The majority of these conditions are already recognized in CMHCC’s list of “Common Comorbidities That May Affect Heat Tolerance.” Defs.’ Ex. 4 at 10. The document indicates that the list is not all-inclusive, and notably absent from the list is obesity, which both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ experts averred should be included on the list. Docket Entry No. 465 at 62; Hearing Tr. 7 at 73-74.
a. Diabetes Diabetes causes microcirculatory changes that result in blood vessels that are unable to dilate adequately (a condition known as arteriosclerosis). Hearing Tr. 7 at 18-19; Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 14. This impairs the body’s ability to circulate blood to the brain and heart, disrupting the vasodilatory response to heat. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 14. Diabetes may also impair kidney function, and the kidneys’ ability to maintain salt-water balance is an important part of the body’s response to heat. Id.
32

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 33 of 101
b. Obesity Obesity causes an increased risk of heat-related illness because excess fat beneath the skin can impair the skin’s ability to dissipate heat. Docket Entry No. 465 at 117. The connection between obesity and heat-related illness has been demonstrated in scientific studies, and Defendants’ expert does not deny the association. Id.; Hearing Tr. 7 at 74. The Court thus finds and concludes that obesity is a common comorbidity that affects heat tolerance, despite its absence from CMHCC’s list.
c. Cardiovascular Disease Cardiovascular disease, which includes chronic hypertension and arteriosclerosis, causes a decrease in a person’s “cardiac reserve”—the ability to increase cardiac output. Hearing Tr. 7 at 18; Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 14. This means that the heart of an individual with cardiovascular disease cannot pump as hard or as fast as necessary to dissipate heat through vasodilation, impacting the individual’s ability to thermoregulate. Hearing Tr. 7 at 18. The stress that is placed on the heart from having to pump harder and faster than normal can also cause damage to the heart, and in some cases can cause the heart to fail. Id.
d. Psychiatric Conditions Individuals suffering from psychiatric diseases are at an increased risk of heat-related illnesses because they may have impaired behavioral responses to heat stress. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 15. They may not have the ability to reason or to help themselves during a period of heat stress, because their illness may adversely affect their mood, thinking, or behavior. Id More specifically, individuals suffering from depression or anxiety may be unable to communicate well with others, or may experience apathy in the face of challenging circumstances, such as heat stress. Id. In sum, individuals with psychiatric conditions may not be able to take advantage of
33

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 34 of 101
mitigating measures, recognize the symptoms of heat-related illness when they occur, or ask for help when needed. Id.
e. Advanced Age Individuals who are over the age of 65 are at increased risk for heat-related illness for several reasons. Docket Entry No. 465 at 89. One reason is that, as a person ages, his cardiovascular reserve decreases, limiting the ability of the heart to pump as hard and fast as required by heat stress. Id. A person’s ability to sense temperature will also decrease with age. Id. Furthermore, sweat gland functioning decreases, impeding the body’s ability to cool itself through perspiration. Id. Thus, both of the major physiological systems responsible for thermoregulating are negatively impacted by advanced age. Id. at 90.
f. Pulmonary Disease People with pulmonary disease, such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (“COPD”), have diseased lungs that cause problems with oxygenation and ventilation. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 14. COPD is an umbrella term for various lung diseases, including emphysema and asthma. People with COPD have a limited ability to oxygenate the body, and any stressor to the lungs, such as heat and humidity, will worsen their underlying condition. Id. Furthermore, pollutants are worse in hot weather, and pollutants exacerbate asthma. Id. These conditions also make people more susceptible to illnesses precipitated by excessive heat. Id.
g. Sweat Gland Dysfunction Although sweat gland dysfunction was not discussed by Plaintiffs’ expert or Defendants’ expert, it is on CMHCC’s list of common comorbidities that affect heat tolerance. It is clear to the Court, based on other testimony, that if a person’s sweat glands do not function properly, the
34

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 35 of 101
body’s ability to cool itself through perspiration will be impeded, leading to an increased risk of heat-related illness.
h. Cirrhosis of the Liver, Cystic Fibrosis, & Thyroid Dysfunction Despite their presence on CMHCC’s list of common comorbidities, neither party’s expert discussed the physiological reasons why cirrhosis of the liver, cystic fibrosis, and thyroid dysfunction lead to an increased risk of heat-related illness. However, both experts testified that these conditions create an increased risk, and the Court has no grounds on which to question this assertion.
2. The Effects of Heat on an Individual Taking Certain Medications In addition to underlying conditions that exacerbate the effect of heat on the body, certain medications can impede the body’s ability to thermoregulate, thereby increasing the likelihood of heat-related illness. This can occur in a variety of ways, usually by impacting the two major heat regulation systems—perspiration and vasodilation—or by affecting the body’s “thermostat”—the hypothalamus. There is very little dispute among the parties about the effects of certain medications on the body’s ability to thermoregulate. Indeed, the categories of drugs described below come from CMHCC’s own list of “Drugs Associated with Heat Stress.” Defs.’ Ex. 4 at 7.
a. Anticonvulsants Anticonvulsants increase the likelihood of heat illness by affecting the neurotransmitters that allow the hypothalamus to function. Docket Entry No. 465 at 63-64. The hypothalamus is then impeded in its ability to monitor and regulate body temperature through perspiration and vasodilation. Id.
35

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 36 of 101
b. Anticholinergics & Antihistimines Anticholinergics and antihistimines are used to treat a variety of conditions, including respiratory disorders. They work by blocking acetylcholine, which is the neurotransmitter that drives sweat glands. Id. at 64-65. Thus, anticholinergics and antihistimines increase the likelihood of heat illness by interfering with the body’s ability to sweat. Anticholinergics and antihistimines also impact the hypothalamus, though those effects are less understood. Id. at 66.
c. Antipsychotics Antipsychotics block acetylcholine, similar to anticholinergics and antihistimines. Thus, antipsychotics inhibit the body’s ability to sweat. Id. at 65. Antipsychotics also affect dopamine, which is one of the major neurotransmitters involved with the hypothalamus. Id. Like anticonvulsants, antipsychotics impede the hypothalamus’s ability to monitor and regulate body temperature. Id. Finally, antipsychotics can affect the body’s ability to vasodilate properly. Id. Thus, antipsychotics negatively impact the bodily systems used to regulate temperature, as well as the part of the brain responsible for those systems. All antipsychotics come with a specific warning from the manufacturers to avoid heat and dehydration, as noted in CMHCC’s heat policy. Defs.’ Ex. 4 at 7. Additionally, CMHCC’s policy states that “offenders on antipsychotic drugs should not be allowed to work or recreate in environments where the apparent air temperature is 95 degrees or higher.” Id.
d. Antidepressants The antidepressants listed in CMHCC’s heat policy are all cyclic antidepressants, which means they are strongly anticholinergic, and therefore impede the body’s ability to perspire. Docket Entry No. 465 at 66. They also impact the hypothalamus. Id.
36

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 37 of 101
e. Antimanics According to Dr. Vassallo, lithium, which is the primary drug prescribed to treat mania, does affect the body’s ability to thermoregulate, by impacting electrolytes, renal effects, and the kidney system. Docket Entry No. 465 at 66. CMHCC states, on the other hand, that lithium does not disrupt the body’s ability to thermoregulate. Defs.’ Ex. 4 at 7. However, lithium is on CMHCC’s list of drugs associated with heat stress because, “if an offender treated with lithium becomes dehydrated, they are at an increased risk of lithium toxicity.” Id. Because both parties recognize that individuals taking lithium are at an increased risk from heat stress, the Court finds that it does not need to resolve the issue of whether lithium affects the body’s ability to thermoregulate.
f. Beta Blockers & Calcium Channel Blockers Beta blockers and calcium channel blockers are used to treat cardiovascular disease. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 15. They work by impairing the heart’s ability to squeeze, and reducing the speed at which the heart beats, thereby lowering cardiac output. Id. However, this also means that the heart cannot pump as fast or as hard as it would need to in order to dissipate heat through vasodilation. Docket Entry No. 465 at 67.
g. Diuretics Diuretics—also known as “water pills”—cause a loss of fluid from the body, and can be dehydrating. Id.
3. The Effects of Heat on an Individual with Multiple Comorbidities and/or Who Takes Certain Medications
Dr. McGeehin credibly testified that an individual with any one of the above-described medical conditions, or taking any of the above medications, will be at an increased risk for heatrelated illness. Docket Entry No. 460 at 62. This risk is further heightened, Dr. McGeehin stated,
37

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 38 of 101
when an individual has some combination of the conditions and/or medications, particularly those individuals over the age of 65. Id. Indeed, CMHCC’s own policy states that offenders who take medications on the “Drugs Associated with Heat Stress” list should not be allowed to work or recreate in environments where the apparent air temperature is 95 degrees or higher if they are on more than one such medication, or if they also have an underlying medical condition that places them at increased risk.17 Defs.’ Ex. 4 at 7.
All but one of the Plaintiffs who testified meet these criteria. Richard King is over the age of 65 and suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity. He is also on two medications associated with heat stress. Hearing Tr. 1 at 13-14. Jackie Brannum suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and schizoaffective disorder. Id. at 73-75. He currently takes eight medications that exacerbate heat stress. Id. Thomas Pennington suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity, and takes two medications associated with heat stress. Id. at 128-129. Carlos Huerta suffers from high blood pressure, is obese, and takes one medication associated with heat stress. Id. at 163. Keith Cole suffers from chronic cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes. Id. at 200. He takes three medications that are associated with heat stress. Pls.’ Ex. 22.
The Court finds and concludes that heat stress can lead to heat-related illnesses even in young and healthy individuals. However, this risk is heightened when an individual is over the age of 65, has a condition that impedes the body’s ability to thermoregulate, or takes a medication that impedes the body’s ability to thermoregulate. This risk is further heightened when these conditions and medications are combined in any way. 17 The policy also mandates that individuals on antipsychotics be given a heat restriction. Defs.’ Ex. 4 at 7. The Court notes, and discusses in more detail in Section I.G.1.c, that heat restrictions in TDCJ apply to work assignments, but have no impact on the placement of an inmate in one of the 32,000 air conditioned beds that exists in TDCJ. Hearing Tr. 5 at 85.
38

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 39 of 101 4. The Heat Index Threshold for Heat Illness
As temperatures and humidity rise, the risk of heat-related illnesses rises. Dr. Vassallo credibly testified that, based on her several decades of clinical experience and a thorough review of the existing literature, temperatures above a heat index of 88 degrees significantly increase the risk of heat-related illness. Docket Entry No. 465 at 70, 77. While prolonged exposure to a heat index above 88 degrees increases the risk of heat-related illness for even young and healthy individuals, those with heat sensitivities may suffer heat-related illnesses within a few hours. Id. at 71. As the heat index increases into the 90s and 100s, that risk becomes more pronounced. This is illustrated by the National Weather Service’s Heat Index Chart:
Pls.’ Ex. 11. The National Weather Service (“NWS”) is a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the above chart is widely accepted within the field of climatology. Docket Entry No. 465 at 73. Indeed, TDCJ uses the chart in Administrative Directive 10.64, and CMHCC uses a version of this chart in its heat policy. Defs.’ Exs. 1 at 14; 4
39

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 40 of 101
at 5. The chart demonstrates that, while a heat index of 88 degrees falls at the high end of the “caution” section, as temperatures and humidity increase, the level of danger also rises.
Dr. Vassallo testified that her clinical experience and the chart above informed her choice of 88 degrees as the heat index threshold, and that her review of the scientific literature subsequently confirmed this number. Docket Entry No. 465 at 75-76. For example, one study she reviewed found that mortality increased in cities in North America, Europe, and South America when temperature and humidity climbed above the 88 degree heat index. Id. at 77. Another study showed an increase not only in mortality, but also in emergency department visits and hospitalizations, above a heat index of 89 degrees. Id. at 81-83. Dr. Vassallo did not testify, and the Court does not hold, that any risk of heat-related illness disappears below the 88-degree threshold, or that the risk of heat-related illness skyrockets at the 89-degree mark. The NWS chart is designed to demonstrate a gradually increasing level of risk, which is appropriate for the scientific understanding of how heat stress affects the human body. But for purposes of litigation, the Court has no basis upon which to question Dr. Vassallo’s choice of 88 degrees as a threshold above which the risk of heat-related illness increases, and the Court finds that this choice is sound. Specifically with regard to Plaintiffs in this case, Dr. Vassallo concluded that all of the inmates at the Pack Unit, “including young and healthy men with no known medical problems, are at substantial risk for serious heat-related disorders during periods of persistent exposure to a heat index above 88 degrees.” Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 11. The Court agrees.18
18 Defendants do not appear to dispute this finding. They presented no evidence at the 2017 hearing alleging that inmates are not placed at a risk of harm by the temperatures and humidity at the Pack Unit. Although Dr. Kathryn Means, who testified at the 2016 hearing, took issue with Dr. Vassallo’s application of epidemiological studies to the population at the Pack Unit, the Court found her testimony to be biased and not credible. Docket Entry No. 473 at 10. Instead, Defendants contend that any risk has been effectively mitigated by the measures currently in place at the Pack Unit. Docket Entry 641 at 9 (“The protective measures currently in place at the Pack Unit are effective and ameliorate the risk that inmates might otherwise face in the summer
40

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 41 of 101
The Court further finds that the heat indices in the housing units of the Pack Unit, as measured and aggregated by Dr. Sager in 2014, climbed above this 88-degree threshold—often well above—for 100 of the 106 days measured between June 27, 2014 and October 6, 2014. Although the Court’s analysis would be assisted by the provision of more recent heat indices in the Pack Unit housing areas, Warden Herrera ordered his employees to stop taking those measurements when the present lawsuit was filed. Defendants have provided no evidence that the heat indices recorded in 2014 were anomalous, and the Court has no reason to believe that they are not representative of the majority of summers at the Pack Unit.
Indeed, during the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, a heat advisory was issued for Grimes County, where the Pack Unit is located, indicating that the heat index was expected to rise “near or above 108” degrees that day. Hearing Tr. 6 at 136-137; Defs.’ Ex. 138. These temperatures fall into the “Danger” category of the NWS heat index chart. Hearing Tr. 6 at 137. TDCJ’s “Training Circular” on extreme heat, which is given to inmates and staff, instructs that, when a heat advisory is issued, inmates and staff should, “Take Action! A Heat Advisory is issued within 12 hours of the onset of extremely dangerous heat conditions . . . Take precautions to avoid heat illness. If you do not take precautions, you could become seriously ill or even die.” Pls.’ Ex. 53 at 2; Docket. Entry No. 326 at 25.
There was some question at the hearing as to why Warden Herrera had not received a notice of this heat advisory from the state operations center for TDCJ, the department in charge of monitoring NWS advisories and disseminating them to the appropriate officials. Hearing Tr. 5 at 182. Cody Ginsel, the Rule 30(b)(6) representative for TDCJ, testified that Warden Herrera did not receive the heat advisory because “[the state operations center] receive[s] these pretty much every day during the summer.” Id. at 182-183. Thus, TDCJ’s own representative concedes temperatures without the measures.”).
41

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 42 of 101
that heat indices up to or over 108 degrees are such regular occurrences during Texas summers that TDCJ does not disseminate the advisories to the affected regions. Furthermore, while urging inmates to “take action” and “take precautions” in the face of a heat advisory, TDCJ does not alert the affected prison officials, much less the inmates, when these heat advisories are issued. That heat advisories are issued so often in Texas does not mean that the risk is any less, nor does it excuse TDCJ from the obligation to alert affected populations and take the necessary steps to protect inmates. If anything, the routineness of these heat advisories reveals the extremity of the heat in Texas in the summer months, and TDCJ’s knowledge of the risk posed by this heat.
Accordingly, the Court finds and concludes that, during the summer months, the men incarcerated in the Pack Unit face, on a daily basis, temperatures that substantially increase their risk of heat-related illness, aggravate any underlying medical conditions, or both. While this risk is pronounced even for young and healthy individuals, the risk increases significantly for individuals with certain medical conditions, who are on certain medications, and/or who are above the age of 65. The Court must next address the mitigating measures that TDCJ has implemented in the Pack Unit and other facilities, and determine whether those measures reduce this risk of harm to a constitutional level.
E. Conditions in TDCJ Facilities, Including the Pack Unit, Prior to 2013 TDCJ has made some changes to the conditions in the Pack Unit and other facilities over the last few years—after a series of heat-related deaths in 2011 and 2012, and after this and other related lawsuits were filed against TDCJ and its officials. TDCJ’s heat mitigation measures are described in two documents: Administrative Directive 10.64, entitled “Temperature Extremes in the TDCJ Workplace,” and an annual “Heat Precaution” message that is sent via email. Pls.’ Exs. 42, 57. In 2011, the heat precaution message instructed wardens to: provide additional water in
42

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 43 of 101
the housing areas, and provide ice water if ice was available; train employees and inmates to make them aware of the signs of and treatment for heat-related illnesses; situate fans, when used, in such a way to draw air through the structure and exhaust it outside; use air blowers to increase ventilation, when appropriate; allow additional showers for inmates when feasible; allow inmates to wear shorts in dayrooms and recreational areas; clean window screens to ensure maximum air flow; allow all inmates to purchase fans; and ensure that inmates who have been indigent for the past six months and cannot afford to buy a fan are issued a fan, on a first-come-first-served basis. Pls.’ Ex. 57.
As explained in this Court’s opinion in McCollum v. Livingston, these measures were inadequate, in large part because they allowed significant discretion on the part of each warden: with regard to how much water to provide; whether to provide ice, and if so, how much; and whether to allow additional showers. McCollum v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at *15 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017). Additionally, no respite program existed before 2015. Hearing Tr. 4 at 27.
F. Heat-Related Deaths and Illnesses in TDCJ Facilities From 1998 to present, at least 23 men incarcerated in TDCJ facilities have died as a result of heat-related illnesses.19 Pls.’ Ex. 18. Although TDCJ makes much of the nationwide heat wave in 2011 which caused the death of 10 men in TDCJ facilities (Hearing Tr. 6 at 148), the other 13 deaths were spread over the course of eight summers: three men died in 1998, two men in 1999, one man in 2000, another in 2001, one in 2003, one in 2004, two in 2007, and two in 2012. Pls.’ Exs. 18, 19. Defendants have presented no evidence that Texas experienced abnormally high temperatures during those summers, as it did the summer of 2011. Although no deaths have 19 Given Drs. McGeehin and Vassallo’s testimony about the underreporting of heat-related death, this number may in fact be larger. See Section I.D supra.
43

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 44 of 101
occurred since 2012, this does not necessarily mean that the risk of death has been eliminated. Indeed, three summers passed between 2007 and 2011 without any heat-related deaths, but the 10 deaths in 2011, and the two in 2012, reveal that the risk was still very real.
Since 2011, TDCJ has made an effort to track heat-related illnesses in its facilities. With the caveat that heat-related illnesses are likely vastly underreported, reports collected by TDCJ show that in 2011, 163 incidents of heat-related illness20 were reported in facilities across the state. Pls.’ Exs. 16; 21. One hundred and nine of these incidents occurred indoors. Id. In 2012, the total number of heat-related illnesses fell to 118, with 56 of those incidents occurring indoors. Id. In 2013, 118 total incidents were reported, with 45 occurring indoors; in 2014, 97 total incidents were reported, with 42 occurring indoors; and in 2015, 94 total incidents were reported, with 55 occurring indoors. For the summer of 2016, 108 heat-related illnesses were reported, with 62 occurring indoors.
It is also clear is that correctional officers employed by TDCJ are suffering heat-related illnesses while on duty at the facilities. During this litigation, TDCJ produced records evidencing heat-related illnesses suffered by hundreds of correctional officers. Pls.’ Ex. 16 at 160-266.
Despite the significant number of deaths, and the large number of heat-related illnesses suffered by inmates and correctional officers alike, the Court finds that TDCJ has never seriously considered air conditioning the housing areas of its facilities. Hearing Trs. 6 at 160-161, 214215; 7 at 135.
20 TDCJ defines a heat-related illness as heat cramps, heat exhaustion, or heat stroke. Especially with inmates who have other morbidities, there would appear to be enormous discretion in determining whether illnesses are called “heat related” or something else—e.g., diabetic, psychiatric, or cardiovascular.
44

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 45 of 101
G. The Current Conditions in the Pack Unit Defendants have presented extensive evidence regarding the mitigation measures currently in place, and they assert that these measures are effective at reducing the risk of heatrelated illness faced by inmates during the summer months. Docket Entry No. 641 at 9.
1. Heat Mitigation Measures While there is little debate about the existence of some of TDCJ’s mitigation measures, others are keenly contested. What follows is a summary of each of the mitigation measures that TDCJ claims it has implemented, as well as this Court’s factual findings regarding its implementation and effectiveness. Ice Water There is no dispute that TDCJ now provides ice water in all of the housing areas, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Hearing Tr. 1 at 227. Cups are issued to indigent individuals upon arrival at the facility; otherwise, cups are purchased at the commissary. Hearing Trs. 5 at 148; 6 at 129. The ingestion of cold water is a beneficial method of controlling or reducing body temperature; furthermore, the ingestion of water is essential in a hot environment in order to avoid dehydration, because of the amount of perspiration that occurs. Hearing Tr. 7 at 24; Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 6. Dr. Rieger explained that cold water helps cool down the body through conduction—the transfer of heat between two objects. Hearing Tr. 7 at 21-22. Essentially, conduction occurs when cold water has direct conduct with the warm stomach; heat energy transfers until both the stomach and the water are the same temperature. Id. at 24. The Court finds that Dr. Rieger’s testimony regarding the cooling effects of drinking cold water is valid, and that providing ice water in the housing areas 24 hours a day is a helpful mitigation measure.
45

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 46 of 101
However, Dr. Vassallo pointed out that there are potential adverse side-effects to drinking excessive water, such as a condition called hyponatremic, where the body’s level of sodium becomes abnormally low. Docket Entry No. 465 at 168. Given the helpful but limited cooling effect of ice water, the levels of heat faced by the men incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and the potential hazards incurred by drinking too much water, the Court finds that ice water alone could never suffice to mitigate the risk of injury.
Cool-Down Showers Defendants have also instituted “cool-down showers” at the Pack Unit. Hearing Tr. 1 at 204-205. For the dormitories in the main building, the communal shower area, with 72 shower heads, has 12 shower heads set to cold water at all times. Twice a day, all 72 showers are switched to cold water, and all of the men living in the dormitories are allowed to take showers. Hearing Tr. 3 at 31-32; 110-111. Furthermore, Warden Herrera testified that, if any person in the main-building dormitories wants a cool-down shower, “all he needs to do is ask a staff member, and he is going to be directed to the shower area.” Id. at 31-32; 111. In order to test his staff’s compliance with this policy, Warden Herrera has, on an unknown number of occasions, asked an inmate to request a shower, and then followed up to see if permission was granted. On one occasion, the inmate was not allowed to access the showers, and Warden Herrera instructed the correctional officer at that time that inmates must be allowed to go to showers upon request. Id. at 111-112. However, there are no documents, flyers, or training programs informing inmates in the main-building dormitories that they can access cold showers at any time. Hearing Tr. 1 at 6061; 205. Some of the Plaintiffs testified that they were unaware that they could access cool-down showers at any time. Id. at 141; 204; 229. Other than Warden Herrera’s informal conversations with inmates at the Pack Unit, there has been no effort made to inform inmates about the
46

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 47 of 101
beneficial health effects of taking cool showers during the summer months. Hearing Tr. 4 at 198199.
The wheelchair-accessible dormitories, Dormitories A2 and A4, have one handicappedaccessible shower inside each dormitory. Hearing Tr. 3 at 31-32. These showers have an adjustable handle that allows the inmate to choose between cold or hot water. Id. at 32. In the expansion dormitory, one shower is set up to run cold water. Id. at 34. Because the shower is in the dormitory, inmates do not need to request permission to access it. Id. at 34. However, 56 men live in the expansion dormitory, and must share the single cold-water shower. Hearing Tr. 1 at 30. Mr. Huerta testified that there is sometimes a line to use this shower. Id. at 198. In the trusty dormitory, Warden Herrera believes that all of the showers have an adjustable handle, allowing them to run hot or cold. Hearing Tr. 3 at 37.
Dr. Rieger credibly testified that cold showers help to cool the body by transferring heat from the body into the water molecules, also through conduction. Hearing Tr. 7 at 26. Water is an efficient means of removing heat from the body. In fact, immersion in an ice bath is the most generally accepted treatment for heat stroke. Id. at 26. However, Dr. Rieger also testified about the possibility of developing hypothermia—a dangerous decrease in the body’s temperature—by taking a cold shower when one is not overheated. Id. at 27, 29-30. The Court finds that cooldown showers are an effective means of cooling the body when the body is overheated. However, the Court finds that cool-down showers are a less effective mitigating measure for preventing individuals from becoming overheated in the first place. Indeed, Dr. McGeehin credibly testified that showers reduce the body’s temperature for the short term, but that the beneficial effect is limited by putting the body back into a hot and humid environment. Docket Entry No. 460 at 45-45. This testimony supports and bolsters the testimony of the plaintiffs, who
47

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 48 of 101
credibly and consistently testified that the cool-down showers help while they are in the shower and for a brief time afterward, but that within 15-20 minutes they are again sweating profusely and feeling hot. Hearing Tr. 1 at 43; 87; 118; 141.
Fans Each housing area contains two large ceiling fans and one large floor fan. Defs.’ Ex. 27; Hearing Tr. 3 at 36-37. Additionally, each inmate is allowed to buy a personal fan for use in his cubicle. Hearing Trs. 4 at 244; 5 at 121. Each cubicle has a power outlet. Hearing Tr. 8 at 72. If an individual is indigent, he is provided a fan through a loan program. Hearing Trs. 4 at 199; 5 at 121. Just before the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief, TDCJ installed eight Power Breezer units in some of the Pack Unit housing areas. Hearing Tr. 5 at 170. A Power Breezer is a large oscillating fan that produces a light mist. Id. Defendants readily admit that these fans are not designed to cool down the entire housing area; instead, they are supposed to create a slight cooling effect for inmates standing directly in front of them. Id. The Court finds that Defendants have made a genuine effort to ensure that there are adequate fans in the housing areas at the Pack Unit. But there are significant problems with their heavy reliance on fans as a mitigation measure. First, the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) does not recommend the use of fans above a 95 degree heat index, as fans actually increase heat stress by blowing air that is warmer than the body’s temperature over the skin’s surface. Docket Entry No. 460 at 37-38. Another study found that “the use of fans indoors in rooms without air conditioning should be strongly discouraged . . . when the heat index exceeds . . . 99 degrees Fahrenheit.” Id. at 38. Indeed, TDCJ’s own “Training Circular” about heat, which is distributed to all inmates, instructs, “Do not direct the flow of portable electric fans toward yourself when room temperature is hotter than 90 degrees. The dry blowing air will dehydrate you faster,
48

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 49 of 101
endangering your health.” Pls.’ Ex. 53 at 1. The Court also notes that the CDC advises individuals to “not rely on a fan as your primary cooling device” during periods of extreme heat. Defs.’ Ex. 88 at 2. Accordingly, the Court finds that the use of fans is unhelpful, and potentially harmful, when the heat index exceeds 95 degrees, as is regularly the case in the housing areas of the Pack Unit.
As to the Power Breezers, Defendants’ own expert, Mr. Traknyak, testified that, given the high humidity of the climate at the Pack Unit, Power Breezers are not a good idea, as they simply increase the moisture in the air. Hearing Tr. 8 at 70-71. Indeed, Mr. Traknyak had previously opined that evaporative coolers are effective in dry climates, and therefore would not be effective in the Hutchins Unit, which is located outside of Dallas, Texas. Id. at 115-116. Dallas has a less humid climate than the Pack Unit, which is significantly closer to the Gulf of Mexico. Id. at 116. Thus, in Mr. Traknyak’s opinion, Power Breezers would be even less effective at the Pack Unit than at the Hutchins Unit. Id. at 116. Because Power Breezers do not cool the housing areas, but instead increase the humidity in an already-humid environment, the Court finds that these units are not only ineffective, but potentially harmful. Furthermore, because TDCJ placed these units in the Pack Unit one week before the preliminary injunction hearing, without asking their own expert if they would be effective, the Court finds that this was not a serious attempt to mitigate the heat.
Relaxed Dress Code Men living at the Pack Unit are allowed to wear shorts and t-shirts in the housing areas during the summer months. Hearing Tr. 5 at 167. They are not allowed to go without a shirt. Id. When they go to other areas of the unit, they are required to wear long pants. Id. Dr. McGeehin testified that the less clothing one wears in warm climates, the more comfortable one will be,
49

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 50 of 101
because perspiration is aided by the exposure of skin to moving air. Docket Entry No. 460 at 41. Thus, a person in a hot, humid climate will be more comfortable in shorts and a t-shirt than a suit. Id. However, Dr. McGeehin emphasized that this is true only up to a certain temperature, and that there have been no peer-reviewed studies conducted to test the efficacy of wearing shorts as a heat-mitigation measure. Id. at 41-42. The Court finds that, while wearing shorts and a t-shirt in extreme heat is certainly more comfortable than having to wear long pants and a long sleeve shirt, and might have a minimal cooling effect, it does not substantially help to cool the body.
Open Windows All of the housing areas except for the expansion dormitory have windows that can be, and are, opened during the summer months. Hearing Tr. 5 at 151. This allows for a breeze, if there is one, to enter the housing units, and for ventilation to occur. The expansion dormitory has windows that do not open; in order to provide ventilation, the Pack Unit has a ventilation system and a large fan to circulate the air. Id. Open windows can have a cooling effect only when there is cool air or a breeze to blow through them. Thus, during the hottest part of the day, windows will have no cooling effect. Plaintiffs testified that the open windows do little to help with the heat in the housing areas, because “when it’s hot it’s hot air [] coming in the window.” Hearing Tr. 1 at 141. Given the extremely hot and humid outdoor temperatures at the Pack Unit that occur on a daily basis during the summer, the Court finds that having windows open during the daytime provides a minimal cooling effect, if any. The Court additionally finds that having the windows open at night would provide a cooling effect if the heat index drops. However, this effect could occur only to the degree that the heat index drops. The Court also notes that this cooling effect would not be felt by those incarcerated in the expansion dormitory, who do not
50

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 51 of 101
have access to open windows. Thus, although temperatures have not been taken in the expansion dormitory since the start of this litigation, the Court doubts that the temperature of the expansion dormitory would decrease significantly at night, the way it does in other housing areas. See Section I.C supra.
Furthermore, although open windows provide some cooling effect at night, Plaintiffs have credibly complained of insects, such as mosquitos and beetles, that consistently enter the housing units through the wire security screen and bite them. Hearing Tr. 1 at 88; 141-142; 222.
Respite Areas One of the most recent, and most debated, mitigation measures implemented at the Pack Unit is its respite program. Hearing Tr. 4 at 27-28. Both parties agree that respite—the ability to spend time in an air conditioned environment—can be a beneficial mitigation measure. The parties dispute the extent to which respite, in general, can reduce the risk of harm posed by heat, as well as the adequacy of the Pack Unit’s respite program, specifically. The 2017 “Heat Directive” email sent to all TDCJ officials dictates that, “[d]uring extreme temperatures, offenders must be allowed access to respite areas,” but gives no other guidance or direction. Defs.’ Ex. 7 at 1. Although the Pack Unit does not have air conditioning in the housing areas, like other TDCJ facilities, it contains many air conditioned locations. These locations include the infirmary, the education department, a barbershop located inside the main building, hallways, the officer dining room, and all administrative offices. Pls.’ Ex. 129. Defendants maintain that inmates can access all of these locations at any time, on request, and that they may stay in the areas for as long as they want. Docket Entry No. 641 at 11 (“Staff have identified 20 different air conditioned areas that may be accessed as respite wherein offenders may remain for an unlimited time in order to cool down. Offenders are granted access
51

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 52 of 101
to one of these areas on request, without exception.”). Defendants further claim that “there are few or no restrictions on what an offender may bring to a respite area,” and that inmates are allowed to talk to each other in the respite areas. Id.
Despite the seemingly inviting and open nature of the respite program described above, the evidence revealed that very few men have been requesting or using respite: when the hearing started, only 15-20 inmates had ever used respite at the same time. Hearing Tr. 4 at 31. The parties disagreed about why respite areas were being utilized in such low numbers, considering the seriousness of the heat in the housing areas. Mr. Ginsel testified that the reason is because “they choose not to go.” Hearing Tr. 5 at 147. This statement is belied by the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
To start, Warden Herrera testified that inmates at the Pack Unit are not allowed to choose which area they go to for respite, but are instead directed to an area by a correctional officer. Hearing Tr. 4 at 31. Once that area is full, correctional officers will direct inmates to the next location. When the hearing started, only five of the 20 identified locations had been used as respite areas. Id. These were: the barbershop, the lower administration hallway, the education department hallway, the infirmary, and the craft shop. Id. at 32. The Court will discuss the evidence regarding each of these areas in turn.
The Barbershop: The barbershop is the first place that Warden Herrera uses as a respite area. Hearing Tr. 3 at 92. The barbershop contains two barber chairs and two small benches placed against two walls. Defs.’ Ex. 129. The inmates are not allowed to sit in the barber chairs, and the benches can hold approximately four to five people each. Hearing Trs. 1 at 216; 9 at 18. Warden Herrera estimates that the barbershop can hold about ten people before it is full. Hearing
52

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 53 of 101
Tr. 3 at 70. When the barbers are working, there are individuals waiting to get haircuts, meaning fewer people can be accommodated for respite. Hearing Tr. 1 at 26.
Plaintiffs also presented evidence that offenders are often told that they cannot talk in the barbershop. Hearing Tr. 9 at 45-46. The barbershop has a door with a mesh-covered opening that leads into an area used for legal visits, staff trainings, and other meetings. Id. at 46; Defs.’ Ex. 36 at 1. Captain Marshall testified that, while that area is in use, he or other officials will order the inmates in the barbershop to stop talking. Hearing Tr. 9 at 44-45; 47-48. Additionally, Captain Marshall conceded that, at some point in the summer of 2016, a sign was placed in the barbershop that said “No talking in the barbershop.” Id. at 48. Although Captain Marshall testified that this sign was on paper and was immediately taken down, Mr. Denton, one of the named plaintiffs, testified that the sign was in fact painted onto the wall. Id. 70; 107.
Lower Administration Hallway: Warden Herrera testified that, after the barbershop is full, he sends people to the lower administration hallway. Hearing Tr. 3 at 70. This hallway is close to a central desk that is staffed with correctional officers, so Warden Herrera does not have to use any extra correctional officers in order to monitor the inmates in respite. Id. at 76. The end of this hallway leads to the administrative segregation area, which is where men are held in protective custody. Id. at 100. When an inmate has to enter or leave the administrative segregation unit, the lower administrative hallway must be cleared, which means individuals who are there for respite must leave and go somewhere else until the transfer has been completed. Id. at 101. Warden Herrera estimates that approximately ten individuals can use the hallway as respite. Id. at 75. At the time the hearing began, there were no chairs in the lower administration hallway, so inmates were forced to stand if they wanted respite. Id. at 76. Over the course of the hearing, ten chairs were placed in the hallway. Hearing Tr. 9 at 19.
53

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 54 of 101
Mr. King testified that during one of the times he sought respite, he was sent to the barbershop, but it was too crowded. Hearing Tr. 1 at 27. He was then moved to the lower administration hallway, where he was told to stand, facing the wall.21 Id. After about ten minutes, he was told to leave while prison officials moved an inmate from administrative segregation. Id. Because Mr. King suffered a viral infection that has limited the use of his legs, and suffers from obesity, he has difficulty standing for long periods. Id. at 6-7. After about 30 minutes in respite, Mr. King chose to return to his housing area rather than remain standing and moving from one location to another. Id. at 27. Mr. Brannum was also told to face the wall and stand while in the lower administration hallway for respite. Id. at 86. Mr. Brannum uses a walker, and he was able to stand for only about 20 minutes. Id. at 87. Similarly, Mr. Pennington, who uses a cane to walk, has been discouraged by the need to stand in the barbershop and lower administration hallway, as well as the frequent need to move from one respite area to another; he testified that, eventually, he gives up and returns to his housing area. Id. at 132-133.
Education Hallway: The third place used for respite is the education hallway—a hallway directly outside of the library, the law library, and five classrooms. Hearing Tr. 9 at 19. The hallway has benches and chairs that can fit about 25 to 30 people, some sitting and some standing. Hearing Tr. 7 at 77; Defs.’ Ex. 126.
Library: Next, Warden Herrera would turn to the library, which he testified could hold 40 people. Hearing Tr. 3 at 78. Depending on the time of day, Warden Herrera may not need to reposition any correctional officers in order to use the library as a respite area, because he
21 When asked if there is a policy of making inmates face the wall in the lower administrative hallway, Warden Herrera stated that any time someone is being taken to administrative segregation, inmates are required to face the wall. Hearing Tr. 3 at 102. The Court notes the inconsistency of this statement with Warden Herrera’s earlier statement that anytime someone is being taken in or out of administrative segregation, the entire hallway is cleared. Id. at 101.
54

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 55 of 101
already has two officers stationed in the library during the day. Id. at 78-79. However, Warden Herrera may need to cancel or reschedule library hours in order to do this. Id. at 80; 84.
Infirmary: If the library becomes full, Warden Herrera testified that he would use the infirmary as the next respite area. Id. at 81. There are two benches in the infirmary that could hold approximately 15 to 20 men. Id. at 81. During the day, there are already two officers stationed in the infirmary, so there would be no need to reposition correctional officers. Id. at 81. Mr. Denton and Mr. Brannum testified that, when they have gone to the infirmary for respite, they have been told that they were required to submit to a measurement of their core body temperature, which is done by taking a rectal temperature. Hearing Trs. 1 at 87; 9 at 125. Mr. Denton testified that this requirement deterred him from using respite. Hearing Tr. 9 at 125.
All Other Locations: Once the above five areas are full—after approximately 105 inmates have requested respite simultaneously—Warden Herrera would have to start rearranging his correctional officers, and disrupting the normal functioning of the prison, in order to accommodate more people in respite. Pls.’ Ex. 129; Hearing Tr. 3 at 82-83. The next areas that Warden Herrera would use, in order, are: the caged area of the visitation room located in the main building, which is typically used for non-contact visits, where he could fit approximately 25 people, Defs.’ Ex. 130; the visitation room, which could accommodate approximately 40 individuals, Id.; the officers’ dining hall, which could fit around 40 people, Defs.’ Ex. 128; the five classrooms in the education wing, which could hold around 150 people total; the law library, which could fit about 40; the sewing room and administration offices in the boiler room and kitchen, which could hold about 30 people total; a small air conditioned room within the craft shop, which could hold approximately 10 people; and the property office, chaplain’s office, and food service manager’s office, which could hold about 5 each. Hearing Tr. 3 at 82-95.
55

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 56 of 101
Trusty Camp: In the trusty camp, which houses 314 inmates, there is an air conditioned administration building that could hold approximately 80 individuals, and an education area that could hold between 50 and 60 men. Id. at 99. These areas are located outside of the perimeter fence, and as a result would likely never be used for non-trusty inmates. Hearing Tr. 2 at 153.
Evidence was also presented regarding the information that the Pack Unit has conveyed to inmates about the respite program. The primary source of information is a poster that is designed, in Warden Herrera’s words, “to make sure that every offender on the unit understands that they can request and go to respite at any given time.” Hearing Tr. 3 at 103. This poster is placed on a bulletin board used for posting notices to inmates and correctional officers. Id. This poster reads as follows:
NOTICE TO OFFENDERS Areas are being made available for offenders who are experiencing difficulty due to heat. These areas are located at Education Department, Lower Administration, Officers Dining Hall, Infirmary, Laundry Captain Office, Food Service Captain Office, Lieutenants office, Regular Visitation Room, Barber Shop (officer and offender), Trusty Camp office (Sgt. And Lt.), Trusty Camp visitation, Trusty Camp Food Service office, Agriculture office, Farm Shop office, Kennel office, Unit Maintenance office, Warehouse office, BOQ dayroom. If you are experiencing difficulty due to the heat, please notify a staff member immediately. Pls.’ Ex. 52. The notice appears also in Spanish. Id. Although Warden Herrera testified that there is not, in fact, a requirement that inmates feel ill before requesting respite (Hearing Tr. 3 at 105106), Mr. Vail stated that inmates could interpret the language “offenders who are experiencing difficulty due to heat” as requiring that they feel ill before seeking respite. Hearing Tr. 2 at 148. Warden Herrera agreed that there are much clearer ways to communicate the intended message to inmates. Hearing Tr. 4 at 27. Defendants’ own expert, Dr. Rieger, stated that the poster should be rewritten, as it is unclear and difficult to understand. Hearing Tr. 7 at 74. This is especially
56

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 57 of 101
important in a correctional facility, he said, where the average reading level of inmates is generally accepted to be around the third grade. Id.
Another poster has been placed on the same bulletin board, labeled as a notice to correctional officers. This poster says, “Respite areas are being made available for offenders to prevent the development of heat-related illnesses.” Hearing Tr. 2 at 263-264.
In addition to the posters, TDCJ’s Risk Management Department has created several handouts that are given to inmates. One, a handout that discusses suicide prevention and the Prison Rape Elimination Act, as well as temperature-related illnesses, says nothing about the respite program, or the importance of seeking out air conditioning during the heat. Pls.’ Ex. 54. A four-page “Training Circular” gives information about heat-related illnesses and their prevention. This handout says that inmates should “use air conditioners or spend time in air conditioned locations such as identified respite areas.” Pls.’ Ex. 53 at 1. On the second page, the handout tells inmates to “stay indoors and, if at all possible, stay in an air conditioned place. If your home does not have air conditioning, go to the shopping mall or public library.” Id. at 2. On the fourth page, there is a section marked “Respite Areas,” which writes, “During the extreme temperature months, offenders will be allowed access to respite areas. Ensure employees and offenders are trained, and are compliant with heat precaution procedures to include knowledge of respite area locations and offender access.” Id. at 4. Although this second handout does more than the poster and the first handout to identify the importance of spending time in respite areas, the information is still vague, and is not specific to the Pack Unit. In addition, the inclusion of information about going to a shopping mall or public library confuses and dilutes the message.
The Court finds, based on the unclear and incomplete communication and training described above, that both inmates and correctional officers are unaware of, or confused about,
57

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 58 of 101
the limitations and rules regarding respite. This is confirmed by Plaintiffs’ testimony. Mr. Brannum testified that he has been refused access to a respite area by correctional officers. Hearing Tr. 1 at 86. Mr. King does not think he can access respite areas 24 hours a day. Id. at 16; 26. He believes that respite closes around 10:00 p.m., and does not know of anyone who went to respite after that time. Id. at 16. Mr. Pennington has been told that he cannot take a book to respite. Id. at 134. Mr. Huerta testified that he does not think he can stay in respite as long as he wants, because some officers will tell him to leave once they think he has been there long enough. Id. at 174. These issues could be easily resolved with effective training of, and communication with, the correctional officers and inmates at the Pack Unit.
Before the hearing began, only 15-20 men in the Pack Unit had ever requested respite at the same time. However, during the first week of the hearing, on the night of Thursday, June 22, 2017, and during the day on Friday, June 23, 2017, a large group of men at Pack Unit requested respite. Hearing Tr. 9 at 27. Captain Marshall testified that on Thursday night, approximately 65 to 70 men requested respite, and Pack Unit staff placed them in the barbershop, the lower administrative hallway, and the officers’ dining hall. Id. at 27-28; 32. Later, the men were escorted from the officer’s dining hall into the education hallway and library. Id. at 28. In the library, Captain Marshall stated that most men had chairs, and the rest were “placed strategically” so they could rest their backs against walls and shelves. Id. at 28. On Friday, approximately 150 men requested respite, and they were placed in the barbershop, lower administrative hallway, and two classrooms in the education department, because the library was being used for a class at that time. Id. at 29; 32. Approximately 80 men were placed into the library and had access to one bathroom; there was a line of men waiting to use this bathroom. Id. at 35. Captain Marshall testified that there were “no problems at all” accommodating the influxes
58

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 59 of 101
of men. Id. at 29. But the Court finds Captain Marshall’s testimony less than credible.22
Plaintiff Michael Denton was one of the men who requested respite on Thursday, June
22, 2017, and he testified about this experience. When he requested respite at around 5:30 p.m.,
he was sent to the officers’ dining hall, where about 45 other men were located. Id. at 97. Upon
arrival, he and the other men were told by a correctional officer, “If you all want to play, then we
can play, too. If you are in here and your house isn’t in compliance,23 we’re going to write you a
22 The Court finds that Captain Marshall was impeached during the hearing in a way that damaged his credibility. Captain Marshall testified that inmates are allowed to talk in respite areas, and that he had never ordered inmates to stop talking in a respite area. Hearing Tr. 9 at 42. Plaintiffs then produced a grievance filed against a correctional officer who ordered inmates in the barbershop to stop talking. Hearing Tr. 9 at 42-43. The correctional officer responded, on the grievance form, that Captain Marshall “gave a direct order not to talk to each and every one of them that was sitting in there.” Hearing Tr. 9 at 44. When presented with this grievance, Captain Marshall explained that any time legal visits or staff trainings are happening in the room adjacent to the barbershop, inmates are ordered to stop talking. Hearing Tr. 9 at 46. His reason for not testifying about this when directly questioned was that all inmates in the barbershop, whether there for haircuts or respite, were ordered to stop talking, so he was not simply ordering those in respite to stop talking. Hearing Tr. 9 at 46-47. The Court finds this explanation dubious, and finds that Captain Marshall was attempting to cover up or downplay evidence that was unfavorable for Defendants. The Court also finds that Captain Marshall’s memory proved unreliable. On direct examination, he testified that 140 to 150 inmates had used respite on Thursday and Friday, June 22 and 23. Hearing Tr. 9 at 27. On cross examination, he said that in fact the number of inmates using respite on Thursday was around 60, and on Friday the number increased to 150. Hearing Tr. 9 at 32. However, he then said that there were 82 men in the library alone on Thursday, which would be impossible if only approximately 60 men requested respite that night. Hearing Tr. 9 at 35. Accordingly, the Court significantly discounts Captain Marshall’s testimony.
23 This refers to a rule that any time an inmate is outside of his designated living area, his cubicle is required to be clean, with personal effects properly stored. Hearing Tr. 9 at 97. Although this rule is always in place, and is regularly enforced, the Court finds that the specific targeting of inmates who request respite could intimidate inmates who are less apt to assert their rights. This is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Cole that “certain offenders [are] more assertive than others and they are not afraid to get up against the system. They will get out like I do. But the vast majority of offenders on my unit, they are afraid.” Hearing Tr. 1 at 210. Mr. Vail also testified that Mr. Cole’s assertion of his rights is “not the characteristic of a lot of inmates. A lot of inmates will be afraid to access these areas for the fear of running into conflicts with the staff.” Hearing Tr. 2 at 225.
59

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 60 of 101
case.”24 Id. at 97. After being in the officers’ dining room for approximately 20 minutes, the men were moved to the library. Id. When they got there, all of the chairs were taken, so Mr. Denton had to either stand or sit on the floor. Id. at 98. Mr. Denton counted approximately 55 men in chairs in the library, and approximately 15 men sitting on the floor. Id. He stated that the library was crowded, and that when the air conditioning vent stopped blowing cold air, it became very warm. Id. at 100. He said that the process of getting everyone into respite on Thursday evening was disorganized, and that the correctional officers seemed frustrated, and vented this frustration at the inmates. Id. at 101. The Court finds Mr. Denton’s description of the events of Thursday evening to be more persuasive than Captain Marshall’s. Defendants’ cross-examination of Mr. Denton failed to raise any significant issues with his testimony.25 His memory was clear, he was not evasive, and his testimony appeared unbiased. Even when it hurt Plaintiffs’ case, Mr. Denton was honest—for example, when Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ counsel followed-up about the correctional officer’s statement that “houses better be in order,” Mr. Denton readily admitted that this rule is always in place and is enforced on a daily basis. Id. at 108; 123.
Based on the evidence described above, the Court finds that the events during the first week of the hearing reveal how unprepared the Pack Unit is to deal with any significant number of inmates requesting respite. The number of men who requested respite on Friday is just over ten percent of the number of inmates housed at the Pack Unit, yet Defendants struggled to find places in which to put them. On Thursday, that number was even smaller, but inmates were shuffled from one location to another, and they were crammed into the library, some with no 24 “Writing a case” means taking disciplinary action against an inmate. 25 Defendants attempt to impeach Mr. Denton’s credibility with his criminal conviction under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearing Tr. 9 at 111. The impeachment seems to have been based in large part on the fact that Mr. Denton still claims to be innocent. But the Court finds that Mr. Denton’s conviction does not reduce his credibility with regard to the events of Thursday evening.
60

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 61 of 101
place to sit. Officers were frustrated, and were vocal about their frustration. This does not evidence a well-functioning program where, in the words of Warden Herrera, “every offender on the unit understands that they can request and go to respite at any given time.” Hearing Tr. 3 at 103. Plaintiffs may be aware that they can request respite, but they are likely also aware that their request may provoke the ire of correctional officers; that they may have to walk from one respite area to another; that they may have to stand, despite any discomfort or pain; and that they may not be able to talk or read, much less watch television or play games.
Mr. Vail, Plaintiffs’ expert on corrections, credibly testified that, based on his review of the evidence, Defendants’ respite program has not been designed to incentivize its use. Hearing Tr. 2 at 162. He identified several problems with the respite program at the Pack Unit. In general, Mr. Vail is of the opinion that inmates at the Pack Unit are not being encouraged to use the respite areas, and that in fact there are several disincentives in place. Id. at 153. First, he testified that there are no dedicated staff members assigned to some of the respite areas that might be able to handle a larger volume of inmates. Id. at 146. Instead, inmates are sent to areas like the barbershop and the lower administration hallway, which cannot accommodate many people and are not designed to allow for other activities, such as writing, playing games, or watching television. He identified the inability to sit and talk, and the occasional requirements to stand with one’s nose against the wall or to submit to a rectal temperature, as significant disincentives to using the respite areas. Id. at 146-147. He stated that having respite areas in administrator offices is problematic because there is potentially confidential or secure information located in those offices; furthermore, most inmates will not feel comfortable spending time in an administrator’s office, for fear of being labeled an informant. Id. at 152-153.
61

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 62 of 101
In order for the Pack Unit to have a fully-functioning respite program, Mr. Vail recommends creating a comfortable environment where inmates can sit, talk, relax, and engage in activities, such as reading, watching television, or playing games. Id. at 160; 236. He recommends publicizing the program, and clearly communicating where respite is, what hours it is open, and what the rules are once there. Id. at 160; 148. He thinks that the poster regarding respite should be more clear, more inviting, and explain why respite is important for one’s health. Id. at 149. Ideally, there would be a dedicated space for respite; for example, air conditioning a location such as the gym could provide an area large enough to accommodate a higher volume of inmates in respite. Id. at 163; 278. Mr. Rieger agrees that, in order to successfully implement a respite program, inmates should be able to sit down, read, talk, and generally be comfortable. Hearing Tr. 7 at 140-141.
Based on the above-described evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are failing to use the respite areas at the Pack Unit, not because they simply choose not to, as Mr. Ginsel proposed, but because the respite program is poorly designed, administered, and communicated. Accessing respite means being forced to stand, or sit in hallways with nothing to do, or sit in a barbershop in silence; officials have not communicated the extent and limits of the respite program to the inmates or correctional officers; and the prison has not educated the inmates about the importance of seeking respite on a daily basis during the summer months. This is not the robust respite plan described by Defendants in their briefing, nor is it the type of program that would constitute an effective mitigating measure.
However, even if a successful respite program were implemented at the Pack Unit—one that incorporated all of the suggestions made by Mr. Vail and Dr. Rieger—the Court finds that
62

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 63 of 101
significant evidence supports Plaintiffs’ claim that they still would not be free from a substantial risk of serious injury or death.
Dr. Rieger testified that respite is an effective mitigation measure because it removes a person from a hot environment for that period of time, and provides that person with an opportunity to cool down, decreasing their body temperature if it has begun to rise. Hearing Tr. 7 at 56. Dr. Vassallo testified, however, that for the time Plaintiffs are not in respite areas, which would be the majority of the hours of the day, they would be subjected to temperatures that could cause sickness and death. Docket Entry No. 465 at 135. Given the rapidity with which a person can develop heat stroke, several hours in the temperatures at the Pack Unit could result in serious injury. Docket Entry Nos. 465 at 135; 340-18 at 7. This is especially true for individuals with underlying conditions, or on medications, that hasten the onset of heatstroke. Docket Entry No. 465 at 135.
Indeed, the Plaintiffs who testified that they were regularly accessing respite areas stated that they still experienced symptoms of heat-related illness. Mr. Brannum works in the craft shop, and he testified that he accesses the air conditioned portion of the craft shop on a daily basis and is able to cool off in that room. Hearing Tr. 1 at 110. However, Mr. Brannum—who is 63 years old, suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and schizoaffective disorder, and takes eight medications that affect his ability to regulate temperatures—still experiences weakness, headaches, a rapid heartbeat, difficulty breathing, and nausea during the summer months. Id. at 78. Mr. King, who is 71 years old, suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity, and takes two medications that interfere with thermoregulation, also works in the craft shop, and uses the air conditioned room for respite on a daily basis. Id. at 54. But he also continues to feel symptoms of heat-related illness when he is in his housing area, including
63

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 64 of 101
difficulty functioning, sluggishness, and a diminished appetite. Id. at 17. Mr. Cole, who is 63 years old, suffers from chronic cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes, and takes three medications that interfere with heat regulation, uses respite on a daily basis. Id. at 228. Yet he testified that he also feels the symptoms of heat-related illness every day when he is in the housing units. Id. at 219. He feels dizzy, nauseated, and has difficulty breathing; additionally, his underlying conditions, such as his heart problems, are more aggravated in the summer than during the winter months. Id. at 219.
The Court finds that respite areas are a useful mitigation measure while an individual is in them, as well as to the degree that they allow that individual’s body temperature to normalize before going back into housing areas. However, the respite program at the Pack Unit suffers many deficiencies, described above, that make its use difficult and unpleasant, and that discourage inmates from seeking respite. Even if respite were actively encouraged and made to be more comfortable, it is clear that Warden Herrera could not accommodate large numbers of inmates in respite at any given time without drastically changing the operations of the Pack Unit. Assuming that the Pack Unit could create a respite program that functions as intended, inmates at the Pack Unit are still left vulnerable to heat-related illness from the extreme heat faced while in their housing areas. This risk is especially heightened for individuals with conditions, or on medications, that affect their ability to thermoregulate.
Wellness Checks Defendants claim that wellness checks of inmates on the heat-restriction list are performed every 30 minutes at the Pack Unit, and that this is an effective mitigation measure. It is somewhat unclear what is meant by “wellness check.” TDCJ’s 2017 Heat Directive states that, “During normal security checks, officers must conduct wellness checks and seek care for
64

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 65 of 101
offenders requesting medical assistance or exhibiting signs of illness.” Defs.’ Ex. 7 at 1. Neither TDCJ nor the Pack Unit has written directions about how to conduct a wellness check. Hearing Tr. 4 at 6. Defendants’ expert, Dr. Rieger, testified that a wellness check simply means human contact. Hearing Tr. 7 at 95. Specifically, it gives “each person in that contact an opportunity to see the other, to look at their state, to ask questions if they want to, not ask questions if they don’t want to.” Id. at 95. He emphasized the importance of looking at each inmate and making eye contact with each inmate. Id. at 96. Plaintiffs insist that a wellness check should be conducted by medical personnel, and should include specific questions that each inmate is asked. Docket Entry No. 620 at 5; Hearing Tr. 9 at 94.
What is in fact occurring at the Pack Unit appears to be less involved than any of the descriptions above. Warden Herrera testified that wellness checks are essentially security checks, which have been performed in TDCJ facilities since 1980, but stated that “we pay a little bit closer attention to the ones on the [heat-restriction] list.” Hearing Tr. 4 at 6. Thus, in the summer, during the security check that is performed every 30 minutes, officers are expected to pay closer attention to the inmates that are on the heat-restriction list, which each officer receives. Warden Herrera testified that security/wellness checks for an entire dormitory, housing 56 men, take around four or five minutes to complete. Id. at 12.
The named Plaintiffs who are on the heat-restriction list all testified that there is nothing different about the security checks that occur in the summer as opposed to those that occur in the winter. Hearing Tr. 1 at 30; 89; 143; 216. Mr. King stated that, if an inmate is awake, correctional officers “just walk on past” without stopping. Id. at 30. If an inmate is asleep, the officer will wake him up and ask, “Are you alive?”26 Id. at 30; 142; 156; 216-217. The Court
26 Both Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ experts found this practice troubling. Dr. Rieger testified that he did not see what is added by waking inmates up in the middle of the night, as opposed to
65

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 66 of 101
finds that the consistency of Plaintiffs’ testimony lends credibility to their assertions; furthermore, their statements are supported by Warden Herrera’s testimony that security/wellness checks for 56 inmates take four or five minutes to complete. There are no written materials instructing officers on how to conduct wellness checks, nor are there documents that are filled out during wellness checks to ensure that they were properly done and that each inmate was observed. Hearing Tr. 4 at 26. Mr. Vail credibly testified that wellness checks, as currently performed, do little to prevent heat-related illness. Hearing Tr. 2 at 274. Although Dr. Rieger stated that wellness checks were effective in reducing heat-related illness, the checks that he described are not occurring at the Pack Unit. Hearing Tr. 7 at 95. However, even if wellness checks were conducted in a more thorough manner, Dr. Vassallo opined that the rapid onset of heat stroke means that even frequent observations of persons at high risk of heat stroke are unlikely to give adequate warning of impending heat stroke. Docket Entry No. 340-18 at 8. Thus, the Court finds that the wellness checks implemented at the Pack Unit are an ineffective mitigating measure for heat-sensitive inmates.
Employee and Inmate Training In the 2017 Heat Directive email, TDCJ states that employees and offenders should be trained to be aware of “the signs and treatment for heat-related illnesses.” Defs.’ Ex. 7 at 1. TDCJ also states, in the email, that employees and offenders should be trained and compliant with heat precaution procedures, “including knowledge of respite area locations and offender access.” Id. Finally, all employees are to be given Employee Information Cards, which contain information about symptoms and treatment of heat-related illnesses. Id. TDCJ has produced a training video that is shown to employees and inmates on a regular basis. Hearing Tr. 3 at 107.
simply checking to make sure the inmate is breathing. Hearing Tr. 7 at 97. Mr. Vail similarly expressed his opinion that this practice is problematic. Hearing Tr. 2 at 135.
66

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 67 of 101
This video shows the symptoms of heat-related illnesses, but says nothing about the availability and importance of respite. Hearing Tr. 4 at 59.
As discussed in detail in the section of this opinion dealing with respite, there appears to be very little communication to inmates about the importance of seeking respite during extreme temperatures. Such information could be useful to inmates, although it would be limited by the capacity and comfort problems with the Pack Unit’s respite program, as previously identified.
2. Heat Wave/Extreme Temperature Policy Defendants’ expert, Dr. Rieger, testified that, eventually, Texas will experience another heat wave—the question is not “if,” but “when.” Hearing Tr. 7 at 80. The Court and the parties have no way of knowing when a heat wave will occur, but it is clear that one will come.27 Given the many deaths and heat-related illnesses in TDCJ that resulted from the 2011 heat wave, the import of having detailed and thorough responses in place cannot be overestimated. This is especially true given Dr. Rieger’s testimony that, in the event of a heat wave, the current mitigation measures would not suffice to protect the inmates in the Pack Unit. Id. at 79-80. Defendants argue that they already have a heat wave policy, in the form of their “Incident Command System” (“ICS”). Docket Entry No. 641 at 31. ICS is a system used nationwide to respond to emergencies and to communicate within and between agencies. Hearing Tr. 4 at 179. Within TDCJ, ICS is initiated any time there is some type of emergency in a facility, such as a sick inmate, a fight, or an alleged sexual assault, all the way up to a complete evacuation of a unit. Id. at 179; Hearing Tr. 5 at 173. For large-scale events, such as a hurricane, the official 27 The Court takes judicial notice that “climate scientists forecast with a high degree of confidence that average temperatures in the U.S. will rise throughout this century and that heat waves will become more frequent, more severe, and more prolonged.” Daniel W. E. Holt, Heat in U.S. Prisons and Jails: Corrections and the Challenge of Climate Change, Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, i (August 2015), https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climate-change/holt_-_heat_in_us _prisons_and_jails.pdf.
67

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 68 of 101
command center is located in Huntsville, Texas, and includes various TDCJ administrators. Hearing Tr. 5 at 173. Mr. Ginsel insists that ICS is a heat wave policy, and testified that, if TDCJ believes there may be a heat wave, the ICS command center will come together “to make the determination are we going to shut down activities on the unit or are we going to evacuate offenders from that unit.” Id. at 178. Although the Incident Command System was in place in 2011, Mr. Ginsel testified that it was not initiated with regard to the heat wave that killed ten men in TDCJ facilities. Id. at 178. This casts doubt on Mr. Ginsel’s confidence that ICS will be activated, and will provide the necessary procedures, in the event of another heat wave.
Other than Mr. Ginsel, none of the witnesses thought that ICS was a heat wave policy. Warden Herrera testified that there is no heat wave policy for TDCJ or for the Pack Unit. Hearing Tr. 4 at 169. Despite acknowledging that the Pack Unit will experience another heat wave at some point in the future, and that a formal heat wave policy would be helpful in the event of a heat wave, Warden Herrera stated that he will not develop a heat wave policy unless ordered to do so by his supervisors or this Court. Id. Dr. Rieger testified that he does not think that ICS is a heat wave policy, and that he would want a written policy dictating how to respond to a heat wave. Hearing Tr. 7 at 74. Mr. Vail testified that TDCJ does not have a heat wave policy, and that, while ICS is a structure with which to respond to different types of emergencies, it contains no protocols specific to a heat wave. Hearing Tr. 2 at 141-142. Mr. Vail used the example of an escape to demonstrate his point: if an inmate escaped, TDCJ would certainly use ICS. However, it would also use its written policy dictating what specific steps to take in response to the escape, such as alerting local law enforcement, setting up roadblocks, and calling in scent-tracking dogs. Id. at142; Hearing Tr. 5 at 202. Mr. Ginsel responded that there is a separate written policy for escapes because “an escape is an escape whether you escape from one
68

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 69 of 101
prison or another.” Hearing Tr. 5 at 202. He averred that this cannot be said for a heat emergency. Id. at 203.
The Court finds that Mr. Ginsel’s testimony on this matter is not credible. It is clear to the Court and to every other witness, including a Defendant in this case, that ICS is not a heat wave policy. It is also apparent that a heat wave policy would be beneficial when the next heat wave occurs. Finally, the Court finds Mr. Ginsel’s reasoning that TDCJ cannot develop a specific written protocol for heat waves because the response to a heat wave will not be the same in every facility exceedingly unpersuasive, for the following reasons.
First, Mr. Vail and Dr. Rieger listed several protocols that could be implemented at most, or all, facilities, in the event of a heat wave. Mr. Vail testified that, in the event of a heat wave, air conditioners could be rented, more ice water could be provided, or more medical staff could be brought in. Hearing Tr. 2 at 142. Dr. Rieger stated that kitchens could be shut down to reduce heat, cold meals could be served to reduce heat gain from hot meals, recreation could be eliminated, and heat-sensitive inmates could be moved to a facility with air conditioning. Hearing Tr. 7 at 81. Both experts emphasized that these are just suggestions that could be rejected, and that TDCJ is in the best position to brainstorm as to what procedures would be most effective considering its resources and facilities. Hearing Trs. 2 at 142; 7 at 80.
Second, the “Heat Directive” email, which Defendants call a policy, lists steps that should be taken in all TDCJ facilities during the summer. Defs.’ Ex. 7. These steps include things like, “All offenders may purchase a fan if they do not already have one,” and, “Make sure window screens [in housing areas] are clean so air flow is not restricted.” Id. at 3. But the Court is aware that certain facilities in TDCJ do not have electrical outlets for personal fans. McCollum v. Livingston, 2017 WL 608665, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017). Others have windows that are
69

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 70 of 101
sealed shut, such as the expansion dormitory at the Pack Unit. Thus, TDCJ’s Heat Directive lists protocol that cannot always be followed, due to the uniqueness of each facility. This did not prevent TDCJ from creating protocols that should be followed to the best of each warden’s ability; nor should differences in facilities prevent the development of a heat wave policy.
Finally, if in considering the creation of a heat wave policy, TDCJ honestly concludes that it is impossible to list protocols to be followed at every facility, there is no reason why TDCJ could not order each facility to develop its own heat wave policy. Alternatively, TDCJ could develop a list of suggested protocols, and require that individual facilities create their own policies based on those suggestions. For these reasons, the Court is not persuaded that the difficulties of constructing a heat wave policy justify Defendants’ failure to do so. The Court does not doubt that ICS will, and should, be used during the next heat wave. But the risk that heat waves present requires preparation well beyond this system.
3. Heat-Related Illnesses at the Pack Unit Defendants make much of the fact that only five reported heat-related illnesses occurred in the Pack Unit in 2016, and that as of June 19, 2017, none had been reported in 2017. Hearing Tr. 5 at 38. The Court regards these statistics with skepticism. The Court has found that heatrelated illnesses are vastly underreported. See Section I.E.2 supra. Indeed, Mr. Pennington testified that, earlier this summer, he began to feel dizzy, had difficulty breathing, and felt “funny,” like he was going to faint. Hearing Tr. 1 at 138-139. He went to the infirmary to cool down but was not diagnosed with a heat-related illness, although the nurse told him his symptoms were a result of the heat. Id. All of the Plaintiffs described experiencing symptoms similar to those of Mr. Pennington on a regular basis, but these symptoms are very rarely reported or diagnosed as a heat-related illness.
70

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 71 of 101
Furthermore, the Court finds that Ms. McWhorter, who collects the incidents of heatreported illness across TDCJ, may have underrepresented the number of reported illnesses. For example, Ms. McWhorter’s documents indicate that six heat-related illnesses occurred at the Pack Unit in 2012. Hearing Tr. 5 at 82. Yet documents produced by TDCJ reveal 12 incidents of heat-related illness at the Pack Unit. Id. Ms. McWhorter was unable to provide an explanation for this discrepancy.
Even if the number of heat-related illnesses is as low as Ms. McWhorter testified, it does not support Defendants’ argument that the mitigation measures implemented in 2015—respite areas, cool-down showers, and wellness checks—have caused a decrease in the risk of heatrelated illness. According to Ms. McWhorter, the number of reported heat-related illnesses in the Pack Unit was five in 2012; two in 2013; three in 2014; three in 2015; and five in 2016. Defs.’ Ex. 50. Defendants’ own statistics reflect no decrease in reported heat-related illnesses since the implementation of the measures touted by Defendants. Furthermore, the Court finds that these numbers more likely reflect systemic under-reporting of heat-related illnesses in TDCJ, rather than the success of the new mitigating measures. The Court finds that this under-reporting has various causes, such as the medical reasons discussed in section I.E.2, as well as inmates’ lack of knowledge regarding the symptoms and seriousness of heat-related illness; inmates’ sense of learned helplessness from years of complaints about the heat going unheeded; requirements, such as the measuring of core body temperature with a rectal thermometer, that discourage the reporting of heat-related illness; and the instinct to treat the symptoms of heat-related illness without going to the infirmary.
Finally, the Court finds that high numbers of heat-related illnesses are not a prerequisite for a finding that a substantial risk of serious harm exists. “That the Eighth Amendment protects
71

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 72 of 101
against future harm to inmates is not a novel proposition.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993); see also Ball, 792 F.3d at 593 (“To prove unconstitutional prison conditions, inmates need not show that death or serious injury has already occurred.”) “It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33. The Court applauds the efforts that TDCJ has made to implement mitigating measures at the Pack Unit and other facilities. But Plaintiffs have shown that heat-related illnesses still occur at the Pack Unit, in spite of these mitigation measures. The record is replete with evidence of unreported heat-related illnesses experienced by Plaintiffs on a regular basis. Expert witnesses have convincingly testified that Plaintiffs face a substantial risk of harm from the current conditions at the Pack Unit. Credible evidence reveals that Defendants have no substantive plan in place in the event of a heat wave, and there is no dispute among the experts that the current mitigating measures would not suffice during a heat wave. Plaintiffs do not need to show high numbers of heatrelated illnesses at the Pack Unit to establish that they are still at risk of current and future harm. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs face a risk of current and future harm from the conditions at the Pack Unit.
H. Proposed Remedies Plaintiffs have proposed numerous remedies, should the Court find an ongoing constitutional violation. The primary remedy they seek is for the Court to order the Pack Unit to reduce the temperatures in the housing areas. Should the Court agree, and order Defendants to reduce the temperatures, no other remedies are sought. However, if the Court does not order such relief, Plaintiffs request numerous forms of alternate relief, discussed below.
72

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 73 of 101
1. Air Conditioning Despite a variety of fans and ventilators in the housing units at the Pack Unit, TDCJ has not reduced the heat index in those areas. Thus, the primary relief sought by Plaintiffs is the reduction of the indoor apparent temperatures in the housing areas to below 88 degrees. Although it is possible to cool spaces without the installation of air conditioning units, see Ball v. LeBlanc, 223 F.Supp. 3d 529, 537-541 (M.D. La Dec. 22, 2016), rev’d on other grounds, the simplest way to do so is to install some sort of air conditioning system.
a. The Effectiveness of Air Conditioning Dr. McGeehin credibly testified that “heat is one of the few things that we can point to something and say that eliminates the risk.” Docket Entry No. 460 at 155. In the case of heat, that “something” is air conditioning. Id. Dr. McGeehin specifically testified that the deaths that occurred in TDCJ facilities as a result of heat-related illness could have been prevented by air conditioning, and that air conditioning would eliminate the risk of injury or death that currently exists in the Pack Unit. Id. at 155, 157. In 1995, 90 percent of all homes in southern states were air conditioned, and that number has likely increased in the past 22 years. Id. at 156. (This statistic is the most recent one to appear in the record.) The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) produces standards by which engineers design structures and air conditioning systems. The ASHRAE 55 comfort standard has been in place since 1981, and dictates that structures should be air conditioned to about 75 degrees. Hearing Tr. 8 at 16. Dr. Vassallo testified that death rates in free society were much higher before air conditioning existed or became standard. Docket Entry No. 465 at 100. Because deaths from heat stroke were not reported, it is impossible to know how many of those deaths were caused by extreme heat. Id. But the Court finds convincing Dr. Vassallo’s hypothesis that
73

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 74 of 101
significantly more people died of heat stroke before air conditioning existed than do now. Regardless, it is clear that air conditioning effectively reduces the risk of heat-related illness, even in climates with extreme heat, such as Texas.
b. Pre-Existing Air Conditioned Beds Within TDCJ TDCJ currently has over 150,000 beds in its 109 facilities across the state. Of those beds, 32,434 are air conditioned. Hearing Tr. 6 at 24; Defs.’ Ex. 109 at 3. Twenty-eight facilities have air conditioning in all of the housing areas, 53 facilities have air conditioning in some of the housing areas, and 23 facilities have no air conditioning at all in the housing areas. Defs.’ Ex. 109 at 3. Defendants contend that none of the beds in air conditioned housing would be appropriate for the inmates at the Pack Unit, for a variety of reasons. Of the air conditioned beds throughout TDCJ facilities, 3,745 are segregation cells, and 11,616 are treatment28 beds, leaving 17,073 air conditioned general population beds. Id. Mr. Ginsel testified that approximately 3,386 of these general population beds are located in female units. Hearing Tr. 6 at 24-25. State jails, which are designed to house people sentenced to two years or less for a non-aggravated crime, contain 4,274 of the air conditioned beds. Id. at 23, 25. Transfer facilities have 2,068 air conditioned beds, and are generally less secure than long-term facilities such as the Pack Unit. Id. at 25-27. This means they would be unable to accommodate many of the inmates at the Pack Unit who have long sentences. Id. An estimated 234 beds are located in pre-release facilities, which are designed for inmates within three years of release. Id. at 27; Defs.’ Ex. 109. About 3,229 beds are used for “safekeeping,” high-security inmates, or “transient” inmates. Hearing Tr. 6 at 33. “Safekeeping” beds are used to house vulnerable populations, such as transgender or gender-nonconforming inmates, or inmates who are small in stature. Id. at 28-29; Defs.’ Ex. 109. 28 “Treatment” beds include beds used for offender programs, medical, and mental health. Placement in these beds is generally done at the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole (for programs) and medical staff (for medical and mental health). Defs.’ Ex. 109 at 3.
74

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 75 of 101
High-security beds are used for inmates with a “G5” security level, which means they are one step from going to administrative segregation—they are inmates with a history of aggression or possession of weapons in prison. Hearing Tr. 6 at 31. “Transient” inmates are those who are in between locations, for a variety of reasons—pending a move to another facility, or while an investigation into an alleged threat is ongoing. Id. at 31-32. In sum, Mr. Ginsel stated that any court order to move inmates from the Pack Unit into pre-existing air conditioned beds would force vulnerable and/or high-security inmates into bunks that are not designed and are not appropriate for them. Id. at 38.
Finally, Mr. Ginsel testified that, once all of the above-listed beds were subtracted from the approximately 17,000 non-treatment and non-segregation air conditioned beds, there would be zero beds available for anyone from the Pack Unit. Id. at 34-35. The Court notes that, until 2013, TDCJ did not know how many air conditioned beds existed system-wide. Id. at 50. The survey on which the above numbers are based was conducted, in part, because of a media inquiry. Id. at 50. The Court finds that Mr. Ginsel persuasively testified that all of the air conditioned beds in TDCJ are accounted for and in use by inmates who could not be readily or safely transferred to non-air conditioned beds.
c. Medical Providers’ Inability to Recommend Air Conditioned Housing
Medical providers have the ability to recommend that an inmate be placed in a Type-II or Type-III Geriatric facility, which are required to have air conditioning. Hearing Tr. 5 at 41. However, there are only two such facilities in all of TDCJ, and there are strict criteria for who can be housed in each. Id. at 41; Hearing Tr. 6 at 36. The Duncan Unit is the only Type-II Geriatric facility in TDCJ. Hearing Trs. 5 at 41; 6 at 35. It has 566 air conditioned beds. Hearing Tr. 6 at 35. According to TDCJ, a Type-II Geriatric facility is designed for elderly male
75

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 76 of 101
offenders and has some capacity for wheelchair-bound offenders. Defs.’ Ex. 116 at 3. But, Mr. Ginsel explained that there are also strict security considerations for assignment to the Duncan Unit. Hearing Tr. 6 at 36. The facility was originally a transfer facility, and as such has only one perimeter fence. Most facilities, including the Pack Unit, have two perimeter fences. Id. at 25-26, 36. As a result, Mr. Ginsel testified, inmates with long sentences could not be housed at the Duncan Unit. Id. at 36. Furthermore, the Duncan Unit does not have psychiatric services, so inmates with mental illness could not be housed there. Id. For these reasons, the Duncan Unit is not a viable facility in which to house inmates at the Pack Unit. The only Type-III Geriatric facility in TDCJ is located in the Estelle Unit. Id. at 38. It has 264 air conditioned beds, and is designed for individuals who are capable of some self-care but who need constant medical attention. Id; Defs.’ Ex. 109 at 1.
Ms. McWhorter, the former manager of TDCJ’s Health Services Liaison, testified that, in order for an inmate to be assigned to a geriatric unit, a medical provider would send a request to Health Services Liaison. Hearing Tr. 5 at 41. TDCJ would then determine whether that inmate meets the security criteria for those units, and whether there is space. Hearing Tr. 6 at 36.
Other than the Duncan and Estelle units, medical providers do not have the ability to recommend that an inmate be placed in air conditioned housing area because of his medical condition or medication regimen. Pls.’ Ex. 116. Indeed, TDCJ’s “Health Services Liaison Facility Types List” states explicitly that Health Services Liaison “cannot request reassignment of an offender to an air conditioned or climate-controlled facility.” Id. (emphasis in original). This is why the “heat-restriction” placed on many of the inmates at the Pack Unit includes a prohibition on working and recreating in environments above 95 degrees, but does not recommend housing in a climate-controlled environment.
76

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 77 of 101
d. The Installation and Cost of Air Conditioning the Pack Unit The parties have divergent views about the difficulty and cost associated with installing air conditioning units at the Pack Unit. The Court heard extensive testimony from both parties’ expert witnesses regarding this issue and has reviewed both expert reports. The experts testified about the cost associated with renting and purchasing air conditioning equipment. Since this is a preliminary injunction, however,29 the Court focuses on the evidence regarding the temporary installation and rental of air conditioning units. Plaintiffs’ expert, Ron Brown, testified that the cost of renting, shipping, installing, and running air conditioning units for all of the dormitories of the Pack Unit for three months would be approximately $108,000.30 Hearing Tr. 2 at 36. Defendants’ expert, Frank Traknyak, on the other hand, testified that the cost of air conditioning the dormitories for three months would cost over $1.2 million. Hearing Tr. 7 at 204. The Court finds that both experts were discredited on cross-examination, and that neither of their estimates accurately describes the cost associated with air conditioning all housing areas of the Pack Unit for three months. However, the Court finds that Mr. Brown’s estimate is closer to the actual cost, as explained below. Mr. Traknyak based his estimate on the rental of a chill water system, which is a more expensive class of equipment than the package units recommended by Mr. Brown. Hearing Tr. 8 at 45. Mr. Traknyak also testified that generators would have to be rented in order to run the units, and that the fuel alone for these generators would cost $316,000 per month. Hearing Tr. 7 at 204. However, the Pack Unit already owns a standby generator, and has excess capacity in its existing electrical supply, both of which could be used to power the air conditioning units. 29 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a preliminary injunction automatically expires after 90 days. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(2). 30 Mr. Brown also found that it would cost approximately $20,000 to air condition the gym in the Pack Unit for three months. Hearing Tr. 2 at 44-46.
77

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 78 of 101
Hearing Tr. 8 at 65-69. Although the Court is not considering the costs involved with installing permanent air conditioning at the Pack Unit at this time, the Court notes that Mr. Traknyak testified that it would cost over $22 million to install permanent air conditioning at the Pack Unit.31 Id. at 42. A large portion of this cost derives from the assumption that there would need to be significant changes to the building structure to ensure compliance with all current construction codes, such as the building code and energy code. Id. at 42. Mr. Traknyak’s testimony was significantly undermined when he testified on cross examination that he knew that TDCJ does not have to comply with building codes, but still chose to incorporate those costs into his estimate. Id. at 29-30. The Court finds that Mr. Traknyak’s estimate for the cost of temporarily air conditioning the Pack Unit is needlessly high and does not accurately reflect the true cost that would be incurred by TDCJ.
The Court also finds that Mr. Brown underestimates the cost of temporarily air conditioning the Pack Unit. Several problems with Mr. Brown’s calculations were revealed on cross-examination. Mr. Brown used industry-standard software for calculating the amount of cooling necessary to bring the Pack Unit to his design point of 85 degrees. Hearing Tr. 2 at 1415. The software accounts for a variety of factors, including the type of walls that surround the structure in question. The Pack Unit’s walls are made of insulated sheet metal. Id. at 69. However, Mr. Brown based his calculations on insulated concrete. Id. Mr. Brown testified that these two materials are similar, and that using insulated sheet metal would not have made a significant difference in the outcome of the calculations. Id. at 69-70. The software used by Mr. Brown also accounts for location, but only has certain locations to choose from, so the user must select the closest one. Mr. Brown input “Austin” as the location, which is 100 miles away from 31 Mr. Traknyak also testified that it would cost $79 million to install air conditioning at the Hutchins Unit; $135 million at the Michael Unit; $109 million at the Hodge Unit; and $79 million at the Gurney Unit. Hearing Tr. 8 at 3-4.
78

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 79 of 101
the Pack Unit. Meanwhile, Mr. Traknyak input Easterwood Airport, which is 30 miles away from the Pack Unit. Id. at 71. Mr. Brown was using an older version of the software, which does not have Easterwood Airport as an option, so Austin was the closest location. Id. at 72. Although neither of these inaccuracies likely had a large effect on the resulting estimates, they do detract from Mr. Brown’s overall credibility.
Mr. Brown also designed his air conditioning system to cool to 85 degrees, not including humidity, compared to Mr. Traknyak’s cooling point of 80 degrees. Hearing Tr. 8 at 43-44. Mr. Traknyak’s lower cooling point increases the amount of power required, and the resulting cost, of his system. Id. But the Court finds that Mr. Brown’s cooling point of 85 degrees is not adequately protective, considering the high levels of humidity at the Pack Unit. Finally, Mr. Brown did not make any room for “redundancy”—the idea that if one unit breaks, there is another on hand that can supply sufficient air conditioning. Hearing Tr 2. at 68. Mr. Traknyak, on the other hand, included 15-20% redundancy in his estimate. Hearing Tr. 8 at 60. Because of the above-described problems problems with Mr. Brown’s calculations, the Court finds that Mr. Brown’s estimate is probably slightly lower than the actual cost. However, the Court finds that Mr. Brown’s estimate is closer to the actual cost than Mr. Traknyak’s estimate.
2. Window Screens Plaintiffs request that Defendants be required to install window screens with insectresistant mesh to prevent insect infiltration, while permitting airflow from open windows. Warden Herrera testified that, when he first became warden of the Pack Unit, the windows had mesh screens that kept out all insects. Hearing Tr. 4 at 76. There was a problem with inmates cutting the screens or pushing them out in order to smuggle contraband, so the prison replaced the screens with stainless steel screens. Id. at 76-78. These screens cannot be cut through, and are
79

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 80 of 101
bolted into place. Id. at 78. However, the holes between the wires are larger, allowing insects to get through. Id. at 78-79; Hearing Tr. 8 at 93 . Mr. Vail, Plaintffs’ expert on corrections, testified that while he understands the need for the security screens, he has seen other prisons where screens that can keep out insects are placed on the outside of the security screen. Hearing Tr. 2 at 174. This way, security is not undermined, and insects are unable to enter the housing areas.
Mr. Ginsel testified that he believes placing an additional screen over the existing screen would hinder airflow into the housing areas. Hearing Tr. 5 at 154. While Mr. Ginsel has worked in corrections for many years, he is not an expert on climate or cooling, and as such his testimony on this issue must be discounted. It is certainly possible that an additional screen could hinder airflow, but the Court has been presented with no evidence upon which to make that determination.
As to cost, Mr. Farguson, TDCJ’s Director of Maintenance, estimated that installing mesh screens at the Pack Unit would cost approximately $72,000. Hearing Tr. 8 at 94; Defs.’ Ex. 120 at 4. Although Mr. Farguson forgot to input the estimated cost of the screens themselves, the Court finds that Mr. Farguson’s estimate is unrealistically high. Hearing Tr. 8 at 93-94. Mr. Farguson estimated that it would take 622 hours to install the screens—77 eight-hour days. Defs.’ Ex. 120 at 4. Mr. Farguson does not explain, in his report or his testimony, how he reached this number, or why it is so high. Mr. Farguson also estimates spending over $6,000 on paint and primer, presumably to paint the window frames, but does not explain why this is necessary for installation. Id. Accordingly, the Court discounts entirely Mr. Farguson’s testimony regarding the cost of installing window screens. The Court further finds that TDCJ’s estimate about the cost of installing window screens exemplifies Defendants’ consistent over-
80

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 81 of 101
estimation of the cost of implementing Plaintiffs’ proposed remedies throughout the preliminary injunction hearing.
The Court finds that the men living in the housing areas with windows that open should not have to choose between the potential cooling effect from the windows, and insect infestations in their dormitories. The Court further finds that there is simple solution to this dilemma: placing mesh screens outside the security screens.
3. Creation of a Heat Wave Policy for the Pack Unit Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to develop a heat wave policy for the Pack Unit. The Court has already discussed the importance of a heat wave policy, and has found unpersuasive TDCJ’s argument that the Incident Command System is a heat wave policy. Additionally, the Court (and both parties’ experts) disagree with Defendants that it would be too difficult to devise a substantive policy that would apply to all units. Even if it were, Plaintiffs request that a heat wave policy be created for the Pack Unit only. Defendants have presented no convincing reasons why this should not be ordered, should the Court find an ongoing constitutional violation.
4. Other Remedies Plaintiffs request many other remedies, such as opening all sealed windows, monitoring Plaintiffs’ water intake, granting access to on-demand showers, announcing temperatures in the dormitories, scheduling respite, conducting wellness checks with medical staff, monthly inmate training, the use of Power Breezers and IcyBreeze units, distributing individual water coolers, and more. For the reasons explained in Section III, the Court does not find it necessary to discuss these remedies at this time.
81

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 82 of 101
II. Conclusions of Law A. The Legal Standard To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs must establish “(1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011); Nichols v. Alcatel USA, Inc., 532 F.3d 364, 372 (5th Cir. 2008).32
None of the four requirements has a fixed quantitative value. Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir.1975). Therefore, in applying the four-part test, “a sliding scale is utilized, which takes into account the intensity of each in a given calculus.” Id. This requires “a delicate balancing of the probabilities of ultimate success at final hearing with the consequences of immediate irreparable injury that possibly could flow from the denial of preliminary relief.” Klitzman, Klitzman & Gallagher v. Krut, 744 F.2d 955, 958 (3d Cir.1984).
The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is discretionary with the district court. Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir.1985). However, because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, it “should not be granted unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.” Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Hidalgo Cty. Tex., Inc. v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir.2012).
32 “[A]t the preliminary injunction stage, the procedures in the district court are less formal, and the district court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay evidence.” Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. F.D.I.C., 992 F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 1993).
82

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 83 of 101
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 1. The Constitutional Requirements
The Eighth Amendment expressly prohibits “punishment” that is “cruel and unusual.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. “The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to provide “humane conditions of confinement” by ensuring that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and that “reasonable measures” are taken for inmate safety. Id.
A plaintiff must meet two requirements to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. First, “the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Conditions of confinement that deprive an inmate of “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities . . . are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, the plaintiff must show that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to that known risk. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
2. Conditions of Confinement that Violate the Eighth Amendment a. Substantial Risk of Serious Injury or Death
Plaintiffs have shown a substantial risk of serious injury or death as a result of the conditions at the Pack Unit. The Fifth Circuit has found extreme heat in prisons to violate the Eighth Amendment when insufficient mitigation measures are used. Ball, 792 F.3d 584 (affirming necessity of injunctive relief to protect inmates from high indoor temperatures); Gates, 376 F.3d at 339 (same). Outdoor conditions at the Pack Unit routinely exceed 100 degrees
83

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 84 of 101
during the summer months. During the hearing, a heat advisory was issued for the county in which the Pack Unit is located, warning that the heat index would reach “near or above 108” degrees that day. Evidence reveals that the conditions inside some of the housing areas are even hotter than those outside. Despite these conditions, which are known to cause a high risk of heatrelated illness, Defendants have not found a way to cool the housing areas to a safe temperature, or to sufficiently counteract the risk without cooling the housing areas.
The evidence further shows that heat-related illness can lead to serious injury or death quickly, with little warning, and in ways that make it difficult for those experiencing the symptoms to get the proper help. Indeed, at least 23 men have already died from heat-related illnesses in other TDCJ facilities. Although TDCJ has implemented more mitigating measures in all facilities since those deaths, the Court has found that these mitigating measures are often ineffective, and that the risk of serious injury or death remains. This risk is especially heightened for inmates who suffer from conditions or take medications that impede the body’s ability to regulate its temperature.
Defendants emphasize that they have implemented mitigating measures above and beyond those mandated by the Fifth Circuit in Ball, 792 F.3d at 599 (listing measures such as diverting cool air from the guards’ pod into the prison tiers; allowing inmates to access air conditioned areas during their tier time; allowing access to cool showers at least once a day; providing an ample supply of cold drinking water and ice at all times; and supplying personal ice containers and individual fans). But in listing those measures, the Fifth Circuit did not hold that those were the only measures necessary to meet the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. Rather, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court’s order to air condition Louisiana’s death row violated the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires district courts to order remedies
84

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 85 of 101
that eliminate the constitutional injury without more. Id. at 599. Because measures short of air conditioning existed but had not been implemented, the Fifth Circuit found that those measures could eliminate the injury in a less intrusive manner than air conditioning. Id. Implicit in the Fifth Circuit’s holding is that, if those measures were subsequently found to be insufficient to rectify the constitutional violation, other remedies, such as air conditioning, would be appropriate. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has affirmed determinations that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment despite evidence that the officials implemented some remedial measures, when those remedial measures proved inadequate to protect inmates from extreme heat. Webb v. Livingston, 618 Fed. Appx. 201, 209 n. 7 (5th Cir. 2015) (“the mere presence of remedial measures would not end the inquiry, as such measures must be adequate.”).
Although Defendants have implemented the mitigating measures contemplated by the Fifth Circuit in Ball, Plaintiffs have shown that those measures are insufficient to protect against a substantial risk of harm. Plaintiffs testified that the conditions in the housing areas are unbearable, and cause them to experience the symptoms of heat-related illnesses on a daily basis. The mitigating measures put in place by Defendants are by and large ineffective at reducing the heat stress placed on Plaintiffs’ bodies. In some cases, they even increase the heat index, as exemplified by the Power Breezers that add humidity and the fans that blow hot air on Plaintiffs’ bodies. In other cases, they create new problems, such as the open windows that allow insects into the housing areas. They do not stop Plaintiffs from experiencing the symptoms of heatrelated illnesses and do not reduce the risk of serious injury or death to a socially-acceptable level. In sum, the Court concludes, based on the findings detailed in the previous sections, that Plaintiffs have shown a substantial risk of serious illness or death from the current conditions at the Pack Unit.
85

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 86 of 101
b. Deliberate Indifference Deliberate indifference is defined as a failure to act where prison officials have knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The deliberate indifference standard is an “extremely high” standard to meet. Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). A prison official is not liable for deliberate indifference unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety. Id. The official must be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also actually draw the inference. Id. “Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence.” Ball, 792 F.3d at 594 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 826). However, a prison official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of harm may be inferred if the risk was obvious. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 829. The evidence in the record reveals that Defendants know that a risk of serious harm exists as a result of the extreme temperatures at the Pack Unit. Defendants are aware that nearly two dozen men have died of heat-related illness at TDCJ facilities, and that inmates and correctional officers regularly experience heat-related illnesses. Furthermore, their own policies reflect the known danger of the heat in Texas. For example, as stated in TDCJ’s “Training Circular” on extreme heat, “A Heat Advisory is issued within 12 hours of the onset of extremely dangerous heat conditions . . . Take precautions to avoid heat illness. If you do not take precautions, you could become seriously ill or even die.” Pls.’ Ex. 53 at 2. Similarly, as written in TDCJ’s “Heat Directive” email, “It is the time of year again, when employees and offenders may be affected by extreme heat conditions. Due to the potential for extreme heat conditions in the coming months,
86

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 87 of 101
it is imperative that everyone take precautions to help prevent or reduce heat-related illnesses.” Defs.’ Ex. 7 at 1. As to heat waves, Warden Herrera testified that he knows another heat wave will hit the Pack Unit at some point in the future, but stated that he has no intention of creating a heat wave policy unless ordered to do so by this Court or his superiors. Defendants’ expert testified that he believes there should be a heat wave policy, and that the current mitigation measures will not suffice in the event of a heat wave. Considering this evidence, the Court concludes that Defendants are aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiffs. Alternatively, the Court concludes that the risk of harm from the extreme temperatures at the Pack Unit is obvious.
Specifically with regard to the heat-sensitive subclass, the evidence shows that Defendants are aware of the increased risk of harm faced by heat-sensitive inmates. TDCJ’s Administrative Directive 10.64 discusses offenders who have been identified “as having a condition or being on a medication that makes the offender more susceptible to temperaturerelated issues.” Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 1. As stated in TDCJ’s “Training Circular”:
TDCJ and medical staff shall work together to identify offenders susceptible to temperature-related illness due to medical conditions. Medical staff shall provide correctional staff a list of offenders susceptible to temperature-related illness due to medical conditions, including offenders on prescribed diuretics or other medications known to inhibit the dissipation of heat. Pls.’ Ex. 53 at 3. Similarly, TDCJ’s “Heat Directive” instructs officials to provide the heatrestriction list, “a list of offenders identified as heat sensitive,” to all officers assigned to housing areas. Defs.’ Ex. 7 at 1. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants are aware of an increased risk of serious injury or death faced by inmates with heat sensitivities. The evidence shows that, despite knowing of the substantial risk of harm faced by all inmates at the Pack Unit, and the increased risk of harm faced by the heat-sensitive inmates,
87

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 88 of 101
Defendants have disregarded this risk. Defendants argue that they have implemented several mitigating measures since the deaths in 2011 and 2012, and that this shows that they are not deliberately indifferent. But the effectiveness of the measures implemented by TDCJ is relevant to the Court’s analysis. Webb, 618 Fed. Appx. at 209 n. 7 (“the mere presence of remedial measures would not end the inquiry, as such measures must be adequate.”).
The Court has already found that the large fans and personal fans used in the Pack Unit dormitories are ineffective, and are in fact potentially harmful, above temperatures of 95 degrees. Defendants are aware of this fact—indeed, it is written into their “Training Circular.”33 Yet they still use fans as one of the major mitigating measures in the housing areas, despite knowing that the heat index regularly reaches 95 degrees. One week before the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, Defendants placed eight “Power Breezers” in several of the housing areas at the Pack Unit. These fans release a light mist, slightly cooling the area immediately in front of the fan. However, Defendants’ own expert opined that Power Breezers would not be effective in the high-humidity environment at the Pack Unit, and would only increase the humidity, thus potentially raising the heat index.34 The Court found that Power Breezers are an ineffective mitigating measure. Additionally, the open windows in some of the housing units provide little or no cooling effect during the day, but may have some cooling effect at night. However, the gauge on the window screens is too large, allowing insects to infest the dormitories at night. If Plaintiffs were to close the windows in the housing units, though, they would lose any potential cooling effect from open windows, as well as the additional ventilation that windows provide. This exact scenario was considered by the Fifth Circuit in Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004). The Fifth Circuit held that insufficient gauge on window screens could cause an
33 See Section I.F.1, supra. 34 See id.
88

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 89 of 101
Eighth Amendment violation by exacerbating heat problems if it deterred inmates from keeping their windows open. Id. at 340.
Defendants have also emphasized the extent of their training, for inmates and correctional officers, about the risks and symptoms of heat-related illness. These training documents highlight the need to “take action” during heat advisories that often occur during the summertime. Yet TDCJ does not disseminate the advisories that it receives to the affected regions. As a result, prison officials and inmates remain unaware of the substantial risk that they face. This ignorance is exacerbated by Warden Herrera’s decision to stop measuring the indoor heat index at the Pack Unit when this lawsuit was filed.
Finally, the Pack Unit has implemented a respite program, which it touts as an extremely effective mitigation measure. The Court has found, however, that this program often requires the men at the Pack Unit—a large proportion of whom are older or have mobility impairments—to stand for long periods of time, sometimes with their noses against a wall; sit in silence; or walk from one area of the prison to another as the small respite areas become full. Furthermore, because the Pack Unit only air conditions spaces intended for use by administrators and staff, the program can accommodate only a fraction of the inmates at the Pack Unit before the normal operations of the prison would have to start shutting down, as Warden Herrera testified. And when a larger group of men attempted to access respite during the hearing, they were threatened with retaliation by at least one of the correctional officers. The Court has found that this program does not function in a way that is an effective mitigating measure when considering the extreme temperatures faced by inmates in their housing areas.
What TDCJ did not do in the face of the substantial risk of harm is also relevant to the Court’s analysis. The Court has found that TDCJ has never considered installing air conditioning
89

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 90 of 101
in any of its facilities that were not built with air conditioning, even after inmates started dying from heat-related illness. Although the Court understands that the task of retrofitting facilities is considerable, even Defendants’ expert thought that it should have been considered. Hearing Tr. 7 at 135. TDCJ has also never examined options, short of retrofitting facilities, that could place heat-sensitive inmates in air conditioned housing. Before 2013, at which point TDCJ received a media inquiry, TDCJ did not know how many air conditioned beds existed in its facilities. TDCJ has never conducted an official analysis to look into the possibility of housing heat-sensitive men and women in the pre-existing air conditioned beds. This could have been done using data that TDCJ already has, would have been a minimal burden to TDCJ, and could have resulted in protecting men and women that TDCJ knows are vulnerable to heat-related illness. Finally, the Court has found that Defendants have failed to develop a heat wave policy, despite the ten deaths that occurred in TDCJ during the 2011 heat wave. Both parties’ experts agreed that Defendants should have a heat wave policy in place, and Defendants’ expert testified that the current mitigating measures would not keep inmates safe in the event of another heat wave.35 Defendants’ reasons for failing to develop a heat wave policy are exceedingly unpersuasive.
In sum, the Court finds that, despite a significant risk of harm faced by the men at the Pack Unit, Defendants have done the bare minimum. They have implemented mitigating measures that they know, or should know, are ineffective given the extreme heat at the Pack Unit, and they have failed to consider seriously the many more effective options available to them. In doing so, they have ignored the risk of harm faced by the population they serve. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants are deliberately indifferent, and as such, Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim.
35 See Section I.F.3 supra. 90

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 91 of 101
In sum, the Court finds and concludes that:  The outdoor heat index at the Wallace Pack Unit (“Pack Unit”) regularly exceeds 100
degrees in the summer, and the conditions within some of the housing units are even hotter.  The extreme heat inside and outside the Pack Unit places stress on the human body, causing a risk of illness. This risk, while present for all, is heightened for some—men who are heat-sensitive, with conditions or medication regimes that decrease the body’s ability to regulate temperature.  The mitigation measures put in place by TDCJ and Pack Unit officials to combat the extreme heat are insufficient to decrease the risk of harm to an acceptable level.  The conditions of confinement at the Pack Unit violate the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. C. Irreparable Injury “When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, . . . most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” 11A WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE, § 2948.1 (3d ed. 1998), see also ODonnell v. Harris Cty., Texas, –– F.Supp.3d ––, 2017 WL 1735456, at *81 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2017). Plaintiffs have shown that the conditions of confinement at the Pack Unit create a substantial risk of serious injury or death. The heat-sensitive Plaintiffs have testified that they feel, on a daily basis, symptoms of heatillness, even with access to all of the mitigating measures in place at the Pack Unit.36 Plaintiffs have presented evidence that even young and healthy offenders are at serious risk in the temperatures at the Pack Unit, and that they do not have adequate access to respite in air
36 See Section I.F.1 supra.
91

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 92 of 101
conditioning.37 The Warden of the Pack Unit has credibly and consistently testified that, without an injunction from this Court, the conditions of the Pack Unit will not change.38 Hearing Tr. 4 at 79; 85; 106; 109; 118-119. As a result, Plaintiffs will continue to be denied their EighthAmendment right to conditions of confinement that do not subject them to an unacceptable risk of harm.
The record evidence shows that Plaintiffs’ injury is irreparable. Twenty-three individuals have already died from heat-related illnesses at other facilities in TDCJ. Those who experience heat stroke but do not die are at risk of being permanently disabled. Furthermore, the symptoms of heat exhaustion and heat stroke cause severe pain and suffering. Several of the plaintiffs who testified have already experienced heat exhaustion, and all of them described experiencing symptoms of heat-related illness. The heat-sensitive inmates face a particularly high risk of suffering from heat-related illness, as their thermoregulatory functions are compromised. This factor weighs strongly in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. See also Ball, 988 F.Supp.2d at 688 (irreparable harm from heat in Louisiana death row that created a high probability of developing a heat-related illness).
D. Balancing the Harms Courts “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987). “In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary
37 See id; Section I.D. supra. 38 At times, the Warden seemed to be inviting a judicial decree to prompt reforms or improvements that otherwise would never materialize.
92

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 93 of 101
remedy of injunction.” Weinberger v. Romero–Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982) (citation omitted).
Defendants produced plentiful evidence about the cost of implementing each requested remedy. Although the Court has found that Defendants’ estimates were often overstated, the Court acknowledges, and takes seriously that Defendants will incur no small cost in implementing the remedies required by this injunction. However, the evidence in the record shows that TDCJ has an annual budget of over $3 billion, and an annual maintenance budget of over $40 million. Hearing Tr. 5 at 105; Docket Entry No. 720-8 at 10. Thus, the Court finds that the remedies ordered will not negatively impact the public, because TDCJ has sufficient budgetary resources with which to implement the remedies. Even if the remedies ordered would be “fiscally catastrophic” for TDCJ, as Defendants maintain they are, the Fifth Circuit has held that “inadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for depriving any person of his constitutional rights.” Udey v. Kastner, 805 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1986).
The Court further finds that the security of the prison will not be undermined by the remedies ordered by this Court. The Court grants substantial discretion to the prison to implement the remedies in a way that takes into consideration all of the security concerns inherent in a prison. Accordingly, public safety will not be compromised. Conversely, if the Court were to fail to order remedies in this lawsuit, Plaintiffs’ safety would be severely undermined, leading to a substantial risk of irreparable injury. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs heavily in favor of granting a preliminary injunction.
E. The Public Interest “It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” ODonnell, –– F.Supp.3d ––, 2017 WL 1735456, at *83 (citing Simms v. District of
93

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 94 of 101
Columbia, 872 F.Supp.2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012) (collecting cases)). The Court has found that Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights are being continuously violated by the conditions of confinement at the Pack Unit. Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of granting a preliminary injunction.
F. Bond A federal court may waive the bond requirement. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(c); City of Atlanta v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 636 F.2d 1084, 1094 (5th Cir. 1981); Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. Casa Guzman, S.A., 569 F.2d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 1978). The Court finds that waiving the bond is appropriate in this case; Plaintiffs are indigent, see Wayne Chem., Inc. v. Columbus Agency Serv. Corp., 567 F.2d 692, 701 (7th Cir. 1977), and Plaintiffs have brought this suit to enforce constitutional rights, see City of Atlanta, 636 F.2d at 1094. No bond is imposed. III. Remedy Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), “[i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief. Preliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on the date that is 90 days after its entry, unless the court makes the findings required under subsection (a)(1) for the entry of prospective relief and makes the order final before the expiration of the 90-day period.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(2).
94

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 95 of 101
Paragraph (1)(B) of the PLRA states, “The court shall not order any prospective relief that requires or permits a government official to exceed his or her authority under State or local law or otherwise violates State or local law, unless—
(i) Federal law requires such relief to be ordered in violation of State or local law; (ii) the relief is necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right; and (iii) no other relief will correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(1)(B). “The PLRA greatly limits a court’s ability to fashion injunctive relief.” Ball, 792 F.3d at 598. “Under the PLRA, plaintiffs are not entitled to the most effective available remedy; they are entitled to a remedy that eliminates the constitutional injury.” Id. at 599, citing Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683–84 (7th Cir. 2012). “In Eighth Amendment cases, plaintiffs can only obtain a remedy that reduces the risk of harm to a socially acceptable level.” Id. The Court has concluded that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim. They have shown that conditions in the housing areas of the Pack Unit, even with all of the mitigating measures in place, subject them to a substantial risk of serious injury or death. This risk is significantly higher for plaintiffs in the heat-sensitive subclass. The Court does not minimize in any degree the limitations of the PLRA in ordering the relief necessary to cure this violation. With regard to the young and healthy inmates, given the mandate that any relief ordered be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm, the Court concludes that it cannot order the Pack Unit to lower the temperatures in the housing areas at this time. Instead, it orders the Pack Unit to implement a fully functioning respite program—one that
95

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 96 of 101
corrects the many problems identified by the Court, and one that has the capacity to accommodate, realistically and comfortably, a significant portion of the prison. The Court is concerned that, even with a fully functioning respite program in place, young and healthy inmates may still be subjected to unconstitutional conditions. This is especially so given the possibility of another heat wave in the near future. However, given the potential effectiveness of a respite program for young and healthy inmates, the Court concludes that this, along with the other mitigation measures currently in place, may correct the harm, and the Court is bound by the PLRA not to order more extensive corrective measures in the housing areas for the young and healthy inmates at this time.
As to the heat-sensitive subclass, however, the Court concludes that even a fully functioning respite program will not correct the harm. The Court heard compelling expert testimony that the measures implemented by the Pack Unit, even if functioning as intended, do not reduce the risk of substantial harm to inmates in this subclass. The conditions and medications encompassed in the heat-sensitive subclass make those Plaintiffs significantly more likely to experience heat-related illness, even with access to respite. The Court has found that heat-sensitive Plaintiffs who are already accessing respite on a daily basis are still experiencing the symptoms of heat-related illnesses. These illnesses can occur rapidly and with little warning, and can lead to serious pain or death. The only way to reduce this risk to an acceptable level is to house heat-sensitive inmates in areas with apparent temperatures lower than 88 degrees. Because TDCJ has made clear that it cannot house the heat-sensitive Plaintiffs in any of TDCJ’s preexisting air conditioned beds, Defendants must lower the apparent temperatures in the housing areas where the heat-sensitive plaintiffs reside to a heat index of no more than 88 degrees. This requirement does not extend further than necessary to correct the harm, because the Court does
96

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 97 of 101
not order Defendants to reduce temperatures to a level that may be comfortable, but simply to a level that reduces the significant risk of harm to an acceptable one.
The Court further orders Defendants to place window screens with a gauge that is small enough to guard against insects on the outside of the security screens of the dormitories. Finally, the Court orders Defendants to develop a heat wave policy for the Pack Unit that dictates the criteria for determining when action should be taken, and what those actions should be, in the event of a heat wave.
The Court concludes that the relief ordered does not require Defendants to exceed their authority under Texas law. As previously discussed, TDCJ has an annual budget of $3 billion, and an annual maintenance budget of $40 million. Although the cost of implementing the remedies is still unknown, the Court concludes that the cost will come nowhere near the annual maintenance budget for TDCJ. In fact, Defendants’ expert concluded that air conditioning all of the Pack Unit for the summer would cost $1.2 million. The Court found that this estimate was too high, and that the estimate by Plaintiffs’ expert of $110,000 was closer to the actual amount. Regardless, the Court certainly does not order Defendants to air condition all of the housing areas in the Pack Unit. And the Court does not even require any air conditioning of the areas now used to house the heat-sensitive subclass. Defendants may re-configure areas that are currently air conditioned to accommodate the heat sensitive, or move them to other facilities in Texas. Defendants have access to expertise in many different fields and can no doubt draw on that expertise in considering different options to afford the heat sensitive a safer living environment. It is within TDCJ’s authority to use its pre-existing budget to comply with this order. However, if it is determined that TDCJ does not have authority to comply with this order, the Court concludes that federal law requires the relief to be ordered, the relief is necessary to correct the
97

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 98 of 101
violation of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights, and no other relief will correct the violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.
Although normally a court is required by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to describe, in reasonable detail, the acts required by its injunction, the Supreme Court has held that in cases against state prisons, a district court must give “adequate consideration to the views of state prison authorities.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362 (1996). This Court recognizes the difficulties of running a prison such as the Pack Unit, and the various considerations that administrators must weigh when making any changes. Thus, instead of “dictat[ing] precisely what course the State should follow,” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 362, quoting with approval Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 818 (1977), in designing a more robust respite program and in determining how to lower the temperatures in the housing areas of the heat-sensitive plaintiffs, the Court orders that Defendants submit proposed remedies that comport with the Court’s order. However, because the hottest days of summer are ongoing, these remedies should be submitted within 15 days of this order. A hearing is hereby set for August 8, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., at which time Plaintiffs can respond to Defendants’ proposals. The remedies ordered by this Court must be implemented within a time frame to be determined at the hearing.
In sum, the Court orders that:  Defendants correct the numerous problems with the existing respite program identified
by the Court in this opinion;  Defendants lower the temperature in the housing areas of heat-sensitive inmates;  Defendants install window screens, with gauges that block insects, in the windows of the
housing areas;  Defendants develop a heat wave policy for the Pack Unit;
98

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 99 of 101
 Defendants propose remedies that conform to the Court’s order within 15 days. IV. Conclusion
The Court can anticipate that there will be many among the public who will recount stories of having survived abodes in hot climates without the benefit of modern technology. The Court also has personal experience to that effect. Further, the Court is well aware that, in the history of correctional institutions, technical melioration of summer heat is a late arrival.
The Court is unpersuaded that the experience of those in the free world can be fairly compared with those who are imprisoned. Choice abounds among those on the outside, whereas the availability of choices to the imprisoned is strictly controlled by third parties. In the free world, those who are hot can visit air conditioned spaces in shopping malls, museums, houses of worship, community centers, public transportation, automobiles, and in the homes of friends and family. Swimming pools may be available. And those in the free world do not have to confront the fact that the space they inhabit today will likely be the space that they will inhabit for years, and even decades, to come. Nor do they commonly suffer from the co-morbidities discussed herein.
Similarly, to deny modern technology to inmates today for the simple reason that it was not available to inmates in past generations is an argument that proves too much. No one suggests that inmates should be denied up-to-date medical and psychiatric care, or that they should be denied access to radio or television, or that construction of prison facilities should not use modern building materials. The treatment of prisoners must necessarily evolve as society evolves.
99

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 100 of 101
As Dostoyevsky said more than 150 years ago, “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.”39 Prisoners are human beings with spouses and children who worry about them and miss them. Some of them will likely someday be shown to have been innocent of the crimes of which they are accused.40 But, even those admittedly guilty of the most heinous crimes must not be denied their constitutional rights. We diminish the Constitution for all of us to the extent we deny it to anyone.
The Court has considered an extensive record consisting of hundreds of exhibits and 13 days of testimony, heard over the course of two summers. The Court has also visited the Pack Unit. The record evidence, the arguments of counsel, and the case law on prison heat all show that Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Each summer, including this one, Plaintiffs face a substantial risk of serious harm from the sweltering Texas heat, and Defendants have been deliberately indifferent in responding to this risk.
The Court does not come to its decision lightly. “Institutions charged with safeguarding the public have an extraordinary trust and a difficult task. The difficulty and importance of the task cannot defeat an equally important public trust . . . —to enforce the Constitution.” Odonnell, –– F.Supp.3d ––, 2017 WL 1735456, at *89. The punishment of men and women who have been convicted of crimes in our society is limited by the bounds of the Eighth Amendment. The Court concludes that the conditions in the Pack Unit have slipped beyond those bounds, requiring intervention by this Court and injunctive relief for Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs’ clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claims at trial, the irreparable injuries they will suffer without an order of relief from this Court, the public interest, and the
39 Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead 76 (C. Garnett trans., 1957). 40 52 men and women have been exonerated by DNA in Texas. The Cases, The Innocence Project, https://www.innocenceproject.org /all-cases/#texas,exonerated-by-dna.
100

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 737 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/17 Page 101 of 101 relative weight of the harms should the Court refuse relief all weigh strongly in Plaintiffs’ favor. Accordingly, the above-described relief is ordered.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas, on this the 19th day of July, 2017. KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
101

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 1 of 48 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

KEITH COLE, JACKIE BRANNUM, RICHARD §

KING, MICHAEL DENTON, FRED WALLACE, §

and MARVIN RAY YATES, individually and on §

behalf of those similarly situated,

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v.

§

§

BRYAN COLLIER, in his official capacity,

§

ROBERTO HERRERA, in his official capacity, and §

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, §

§

Defendants. §

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-1698

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Since 2011, at least twelve prisoners have died from heat stroke because of the sweltering temperatures inside buildings where the Texas Department of Criminal Justice houses inmates. Hundreds more have suffered heat-related illnesses, many of whom were among the elderly and disabled inmates housed at the Wallace Pack Unit. Despite this, TDCJ has done nothing to lower the temperatures inside the housing areas at the Pack Unit. As this inflicts needless suffering on prisoners, and exposes them – many of whom are sick, elderly, and disabled – to serious risk of harm, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin TDCJ from continuing this dangerous practice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, bring this lawsuit because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) refuses to cool inmate housing areas, despite the cruel and dangerously hot indoor temperatures prisoners are forced to live in.



Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 2 of 48 
2. TDCJ operates the Wallace Pack Unit (“Pack Unit”). The Pack Unit is a medical and geriatric prison where the indoor inmate housing areas are not climate controlled with refrigerated air (commonly called “air conditioning”). As a result, during the hot Texas summers the apparent temperatures routinely exceed 100 degrees inside inmate housing areas, threatening the health and welfare of all inmates living there, especially the elderly, sick, and disabled.
3. TDCJ knowingly subjects Plaintiffs and the Class to extremely hot apparent temperatures inside prisoners’ housing areas in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
4. TDCJ is acutely aware of the health risk that extreme heat poses, especially to prisoners with heat-sensitive medical conditions and disabilities. Nevertheless, TDCJ refuses to make reasonable accommodations for these prisoners with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.
5. Injunctive and declaratory relief are the only means to address TDCJ’s studied indifference to the fact that extremely hot, indoor apparent temperatures constitute cruel and unusual punishment to prisoners. Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to keep indoor apparent temperatures below dangerous levels, and mechanically lower the indoor apparent temperatures to a safe level (such as 88 degrees or lower).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), §1343 (civil rights), and §2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act). 7. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district.
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 3 of 48 
PARTIES A. PLAINTIFFS
8. Keith Cole is 63 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody.
9. Jackie Brannum is 62 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He will not be eligible for parole until 2017.
10. Richard Elvin King is 70 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody.
11. Michael Denton is 38 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody until 2024..
12. Fred Wallace is 73 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody.
13. Marvin Ray Yates is 72 years old and incarcerated at the Pack Unit. He is not expected to be released from custody until 2019. B. DEFENDANTS
14. Bryan Collier is the executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. As such, Collier is the commanding officer of all TDCJ correctional officers, guards, and TDCJ employees and contractors, and is responsible for their training, supervision, and conduct. By law, he is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all persons held in TDCJ custody. At all times described herein, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief.
3

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 4 of 48 
15. Robert Herrera is the warden of the TDCJ Pack Unit. At all times described herein, he was acting under color of state law. As the warden of the Pack Unit, he is responsible for ensuring constitutional conditions of confinement exist at the Pack Unit. He is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief.
16. Texas Department of Criminal Justice is the state prison system, an agency of the State of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 493.004. At all relevant times, it operated the Pack Unit, a public facility with programs and services Plaintiffs and other prisoners with disabilities were otherwise qualified for. TDCJ is a recipient of federal funds.
FACTS A. The Pack Unit Houses Sick, Elderly Prisoners
17. The Pack Unit is a TDCJ prison complex located in Navasota, Texas, in Grimes County.
18. Most prisoners assigned to the Pack Unit are minimum-custody inmates. 19. The Pack Unit began operating in September 1983. It presently has the capacity to house 1,478 inmates. The prison typically operates at or near capacity. 20. Like most prisons, the population of the Pack Unit is fluid, as new prisoners arrive and prisoners who have completed their sentences are released. Likewise, prisoners are frequently transferred between TDCJ prisons. 21. Despite the frequent transfer of prisoners in to and out of the Pack Unit, the population’s general characteristics (such as average age, percentage with disabilities, and percentage with heat-sensitive medical conditions) remains fairly consistent. 22. The Pack Unit is a medical facility, and houses many geriatric prisoners, prisoners with disabilities, and prisoners with chronic medical problems.
4

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 5 of 48 
23. The Pack Unit is one of the few TDCJ facilities that has wheelchair-accessible housing.
24. As of October 2014, the Pack Unit housed 188 men over the age of 65, 335 men over the age of 60, and 514 men over the age of 55. Approximately half the men at the Pack Unit are over the age of 50. These numbers are a typical age distribution for the Pack Unit. B. The Pack Unit’s Inmate Housing Is Not Air Conditioned
25. The majority of prisoners at the Pack Unit, including Plaintiffs, are housed in inmate dormitories. The dorms do not have air conditioning, or any other form of climate control technology that mechanically lowers the indoor temperatures or humidity during the summer.
26. The ventilation system at the Pack Unit cannot lower the indoor heat index below the outdoor heat index, and cannot ensure that temperatures inside the housing areas are safe and do not exacerbate numerous prisoners serious medical conditions. Rather, the ventilation system just brings in “fresh” hot air from outside, while pumping out “stale” hot air from the inside, much the same way a vent system in a car does not provide any comfort and does not lower the temperature when it is run without the car’s air conditioning.
27. Upon information and belief, TDCJ chose not to air condition the Pack Unit with refrigerated air for political and financial reasons.
28. As a consequence of the lack of air conditioning, TDCJ’s former Executive Director Brad Livingston has admitted “during the summer months there sometimes is not a large difference between the indoor and outdoor temperatures at TDCJ facilities.”
29. TDCJ’s top physicians have noted that indoor apparent temperatures can actually be dramatically higher than the outdoor temperatures: “A few years ago, [a top TDCJ executive]
5

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 6 of 48 
found that when the temperature was 98 degrees outside, we had dorms with temps up to 110 inside. It seems like the [prisoners] in that case were better off outside.”
30. Upon information and belief, Dr. Lannette Linthicum, M.D., the head of TDCJ’s Health Services Division, and Brad Livingston were aware of this at the time the observation was made. Moreover, they are certainly aware the indoor summer temperatures can be hotter than the outdoor summer temperatures now.
31. Some inmates routinely sleep on the concrete floor because the concrete is marginally cooler than laying in their bunks.
32. The windows in some of the inmate dormitories are sealed shut. 33. In the dorms where the windows do open, the temperature is not appreciably cooler when the windows are open in the summer. 34. Moreover, in the dormitories where the windows do open, opening the windows allows biting insects, like mosquitos, into the dormitories. Thus, as a practical matter, they often remain closed. 35. As a result, and as TDCJ and its officials well know, there is little difference between the indoor and outdoor temperatures at the Pack Unit. 36. Defendants also know very few parts of the prison accessible to prisoners have air conditioning, and inmates’ time in these places is strictly limited. The law library, for example, has air conditioning, but inmates can only go there a few times per week, and the law library is only large enough to hold a few dozen inmates. The education building has air conditioning, but only inmates enrolled in educational programming can go there, and it is only large enough to accommodate 25-30 prisoners at any time. The visitation building is also air conditioned, but
6

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 7 of 48 
inmates can only go to visitation one time per week, and only if they have a visitor there to see them, and only if they are eligible to receive visitors.
37. Thus, Plaintiffs are rarely allowed to go to air-conditioned portions of the prison during the summer.
38. In stark contrast, Warden Herrera’s office is air conditioned, as are all the administrative offices in the prison, and even the prison’s armory. C. The Vast Majority of TDCJ’s Inmate Housing is Not Climate Controlled
39. In fact, though TDCJ imprisons over 150,000 prisoners system-wide, there are only 551 beds available with air conditioning for inmates with medical conditions system-wide. These extremely limited beds are reserved for the patients at the most extreme risk of heatrelated illness (such as advanced-stage cancer patients), and are not available even for patients with multiple conditions that make them more susceptible to heat-related illness, injury, or death – like Plaintiffs Cole, King, Brannum, Wallace, and Yates. TDCJ’s medical providers have testified before the Texas Legislature that these beds are filled by inmates who are so sick that they will never recover, and will likely die in them.
40. TDCJ’s medical provider, the University of Texas Medical Branch, has testified there simply are not enough beds system-wide to accommodate even the prisoners with serious medical conditions who are at greater risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.
41. Dr. Glenda Adams, one of the senior medical providers at UTMB who has been designated as an expert witness in the heat stroke wrongful death litigation, testified as follows:
Q: So that Utilization Review Committee is really performing some sort of triage situation, is that right? A: Pretty much. That’s a fair description. Q: Do you know how many of those triage beds or cells you’re talking about?
7

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 8 of 48 
A: How many are there? Q: Yeah. A: Absolutely … there were 471 [in 2011]. We now have 481.1 Q: Well, do you think that’s enough to protect the prisoners who are susceptible to extreme heat or are especially vulnerable to extreme heat? A: No, but it’s all we have. Q: I understand that. And what you’re telling me is ‘look, this is an impossible situation. We have to evaluate really serious conditions on down and perform almost like a M.A.S.H. unit would in war to determine who gets these 481 beds,’ right? A: Essentially, yes. 42. In other words, TDCJ knows it does not provide enough air-conditioned beds to safely house prisoners at risk of heat-related illness, injury or death. 43. At the Pack Unit, there are only twelve air-conditioned beds available for prisoners with serious medical conditions. These beds are located in the infirmary, and are typically reserved for inmates who are very sick. 44. In other litigation, TDCJ has admitted it “knows of the high temperatures within its prisons and regard[s] it as a potential risk to the health and safety” of prisoners. 45. Likewise, Livingston admitted knowing “TDCJ ha[d] no written [policy] to address high temperatures in prisoner housing areas” before this litigation began. 46. There is no penological purpose behind refusing to provide prisoners with climate-controlled housing.  1 Dr. Adams testified about the beds available to the University of Texas Medical Branch, which provides healthcare to the majority of TDCJ prisoners. The Texas Tech University Health Science Center, which also provides care to TDCJ inmates, has additional beds available. Together, the UTMB and Texas Tech beds total 551. The Pack Unit is served by UTMB.
8

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 9 of 48 
47. In fact, the State of Texas requires county jails to keep indoor temperatures between 65 and 85 degrees. See 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 259.160.
48. Indeed, TDCJ even air conditions limited portions of inmate housing areas – such as administrative segregation and solitary confinement cells, including Death Row – at other TDCJ prisons. But decisions to place prisoners in these cells are made for security, not medical, reasons.
49. The only doctor who works at the Pack Unit has testified that air conditioning inmate living areas “would be beneficial” to protect inmates from the dangers of extreme temperatures.
50. The doctor also specifically acknowledged that extreme heat – like that commonly experienced at the Pack Unit – placed Plaintiffs at increased risk of harm.
51. Most maximum-security federal prisons in hot climates, like Texas, are routinely air conditioned. Even the prison housing terrorism suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is air conditioned.
52. In fact, the comment to the American Correctional Association standards instructs prisons to be able to “mechanically lower” temperatures in inmate housing areas. TDCJ deliberately violates this instruction as indoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit cannot be mechanically lowered.
53. Most TDCJ prisons, including the Pack Unit, were built after air conditioning became common in public buildings in Texas.
54. Indeed, TDCJ officials made an intentional decision not to air condition the prisoner housing areas at the Pack Unit. And, upon information and belief, they did so for political and financial reasons.
9

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 10 of 48 

55. Moreover, despite their knowledge of numerous heat-related injuries occurring

indoors, all of which would be prevented with air conditioning, TDCJ, including Bryan Collier

and the Texas Board of Criminal Justice, has intentionally decided to continue exposing

prisoners to extremely high indoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit despite

acknowledging these high indoor apparent temperatures put inmates at risk of heat-related

illness, injury, and death.

D. Temperatures Inside the Pack Unit are Dangerously High During the Summer

56. TDCJ routinely records the outdoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit during

the summer. According to TDCJ’s own records, the outdoor apparent temperatures at the Pack

Unit routinely exceed 100 degrees during the summer.

Year 2011

# Days: High Over 100 75

# Days: High 90-99 16

# Days: High 80-89 1

# Days: High Below 80 0

2012

45

43

2

0

2013

73

16

3

0

2014

34

47

9

2

57. This comes as no surprise to Texans, given the brutal summer temperatures and high humidity in the Houston area.
58. Pursuant to TDCJ policy and practice, Warden Herrera reviews this data daily during the summer, and knows that apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit are dangerous.
59. Despite this, Warden Herrera has not even looked into costs associated with ways to cool even a single indoor housing area.

10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 11 of 48 
60. Likewise, Director Collier is aware that apparent temperatures inside TDCJ prisons are hazardous during the summer. Even so, Director Collier and the Health Services Division took no steps to bring the dangerous temperatures down in any TDCJ facility. They did not even order a study to determine the cost before several heat-related deaths in 2011 and 2012, and being sued for injunctive and declaratory relief in this case.
61. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), summer temperatures in the future will not be lower than temperatures from 2011–2014. In fact, temperatures will likely increase in the future. E. The Extreme Temperatures at the Pack Unit Threaten Illness, Injury and Death.
A. Extreme Heat Can Injure or Kill People 62. According to the NWS, “heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States.” Over a hundred people die from exposure to extreme heat each year, and thousands are injured. On average, heat kills more people in the United States each year than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or lightning combined. 63. According to the NWS, the American Medical Association, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “[m]aintaining a consistent internal body temperature, generally 98.6° [Fahrenheit], is essential to normal physical functioning.” Excessive heat can “stress the body’s ability to maintain this ideal internal temperature. If individuals fail or are unable to take steps to remain cool and begin to experience increasing internal temperatures, they increase their risk of experiencing a range of potential adverse health outcomes.” 64. High temperatures and humidity prevent the human body from regulating its temperature. When exposed to heat, the heart will beat faster to increase blood flow to the skin,
11

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 12 of 48 
in order to dissipate heat and keep the internal organs from overheating. As the blood circulates to the skin, excess heat escapes into the cooler air. With so much blood pumped to the skin, the body struggles to maintain its normal functions.
65. Likewise, the body also cools itself through sweating. The body produces sweat, which evaporates to cool the body. But when the humidity is high, the sweat cannot evaporate, preventing the body from cooling. In addition, continued exposure to heat causes the body to lose water and become dehydrated. When the body loses enough water, it also loses oxygen.
66. Thus, when exposed to high heat and humidity, the body cannot cool itself through sweating and circulation, the body’s temperature rises, and heat-related illnesses may develop.
67. Indeed, the doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that ambient temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit can be hazardous to prisoners’ health.
68. Continued exposure to high heat and humidity can cause permanent injuries to the body, including heat stroke and death. High temperatures can also cause less deadly, but still painful, heat-related illnesses, including heat exhaustion and heat cramps.
69. Heat Exhaustion: Symptoms of heat exhaustion, according to the federal National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), include fatigue; heavy sweating; nausea; dizziness; elevated body temperature; and fast, shallow breathing.
70. According to the Mayo Clinic and TDCJ’s own training materials, heat exhaustion can quickly progress to heat stroke if the person does not cool down quickly.
71. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that heat exhaustion by itself is a serious health condition that puts prisoners at a serious health risk.
12

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 13 of 48 
72. Heat Cramps: Heat cramps can consist of “[m]uscle pain or spasms usually in the abdomen, arms, or legs,” according to NIOSH.
73. Heat cramps are extremely painful. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that heat cramps can result in severe pain.
74. Even TDCJ‘s own medical policy recognizes that pain from heat cramps “may be quite severe.”
75. Heat Stroke: NIOSH describes heat stroke as “the most serious heat-related disorder,” in which “the body temperature can rise to 106 degrees Fahrenheit or higher within 10 to 15 minutes.” Symptoms often include hot, dry skin; hallucinations; chills; headaches; confusion; and slurred speech. “Heat stroke can cause death or permanent disability if emergency treatment is not given.” According to resources published online by the Mayo Clinic, “[i]n a period of hours, untreated heatstroke can cause damage to your brain, heart, kidneys and muscles.”
76. In extreme temperatures, heat-related illnesses can arise and exacerbate quickly to cause death. According to NIOSH, “[t]he different forms of heat-related illness … increase in severity as heat strain increases. This allows for a quick, deadly progression from heat exhaustion to heat stroke.”
77. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that heat stroke can come on suddenly, and heat stroke is possible at apparent temperatures as low as 90 degrees.
78. Indeed, even TDCJ’s own medical policies and training materials recognize heat stroke is “a medical emergency,” that “the onset is often sudden,” and that “death may occur.”
13

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 14 of 48 
79. Upon information and belief, virtually all prisoners at the Pack Unit, regardless of underlying medical conditions, suffer at least some symptoms of heat-related illness or injury caused by or exacerbated by the high indoor apparent temperatures each summer. Typical symptoms include: headaches, dizziness, nausea, lightheadedness, elevated temperature, and heavy sweating.
B. People with Medical Conditions that Impair Cooling are at Additional Risk 80. Though all people suffer in the heat, people with physiological conditions that impair their bodies’ ability to cool are at increased risk of suffering heat-related illness, injury, or death. 81. TDCJ policy recognizes inmates with certain “underlying medical condition[s] . . . place them at increased risk,” including: “cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, psychiatric conditions, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, [and] thyroid dysfunction.” Heat tolerance weakens, and the risk of heat-related illness increases, for people who suffer from these conditions. TDCJ policies and procedures recognize prisoners with these conditions are at greater risk of heat-related illness, injury, and death. 82. Similarly, TDCJ’s policies state the risk of heat-related illness increases for individuals who use “anticonvulsants, anticholinergics, antihistamines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, beta blockers, [and] diuretics.” Typically, these drugs impair the body’s ability to cool itself. These medications are used to treat a wide range of illnesses and disabilities common to prisoners at the Pack Unit, including hypertension, allergies, depression, and bipolar disorder. TDCJ policies and procedures also recognize these medications increase prisoners’ risk of heat-related illness and death, and that these prisoners “should not be allowed to work or
14

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 15 of 48  recreate in environments where the apparent temperature is 95 degrees or higher.” Bryan Collier and Lannette Linthicum are actually aware of these policies and the risks they identify.
83. TDCJ also acknowledges people with the following medical conditions and disabilities are at heightened risk of heat-related illness: obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction.
84. UTMB, the medical provider at the Pack Unit, has informed TDCJ of this danger on numerous occasions.
85. TDCJ identifies approximately 448 prisoners at the Pack Unit as having medical conditions that prohibit them from working in “extreme temperatures.” The prisoners’ medical conditions place them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death, or are prescribed the medications TDCJ identifies as putting people at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.
86. This list is under-inclusive, as it did not include Plaintiffs Cole, King, or former Plaintiff Wilson, as recently as the summer of 2015 even though they also take many of the medications and suffer from heat-related disabilities TDCJ recognizes put inmates at increased risk of heat-related injury. Likewise, upon information and belief, it does not include other prisoners who suffer from heat-sensitive medical conditions, or take prescription medications that increase their risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death.
87. TDCJ also acknowledges other factors that increase the risk of heat-related illness, such as age (particularly for people over 65).
15

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 16 of 48 
88. According to the CDC, heat stroke mortality rate increases with age. For example, the rate of heat stroke deaths doubles between ages 35 and 55. The CDC also recognizes that people over the age of 65 are more prone to heat stress.
89. Yet no accommodations are made relating to the extreme heat for prisoners based on age, even though it is known to be associated with increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, and death.
90. TDCJ is well-aware that it houses inmates with disabilities (like Plaintiffs Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates) who require reasonable accommodations because their disabilities are impacted by exposure to extremely high indoor apparent temperatures. As TDCJ’s policies identify these prisoners as being at additional risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death, their need for an accommodation is obvious.
91. Upon information and belief, prisoners at the Pack Unit with these heat-sensitive disabilities experience symptoms of heat-related illness more frequently or more intensely than able-bodied prisoners. These prisoners with disabilities are also at greater risk of heat-related illness, including heat exhaustion, heat cramps, and heat stroke. C. Heat in Texas Prisons is Deadly
92. Since 1998, at least twenty- TDCJ prisoners in facilities around Texas have died of hyperthermia, or heat stroke, as set forth in the table below.
16

PrisoCnaesre 4:14-cv-01D69O8D DocumAgeent 6P2r9isonFiled in TXSD on 05D/0is7a/1b7ilitiPesage 17 of 48

A rchie White

6/29/98 48 Robertson (Abilene)

Obese Hypertension

Depression

Schizophrenia

Anselmo Lopez 7/14/98 41 Eastham (Huntsville) Schizophrenia

James Moore

7/30/98 47 Byrd Unit

Hypertension

Schizophrenia

Charles Finke Jr. 8/8/99 38 Huntsville

Depression

Gary Gemma

8/13/99 35 Coffield

Unk. medication

Carl Green

8/19/00 44 Boyd

Obesity

Cardiovascular disease

John Cardwell

8/4/01 39 Allred (Wichita Falls) Depression

Darrell Wafer

5/19/03 40 McConnell

Ricky Robertson 7/16/04 37 Darrington (Houston) Bipolar

Depression

James Shriver

8/8/07 47 Byrd (Huntsville)

Hypertension

Psychiatric medication

Dionicia Robles 8/13/07 54 Byrd (Huntsville)

Psychiatric medication

Douglas Hudson 7/25/11 62 Gurney (Tyler)

Hypertension

Larry McCollum 7/28/11 58 Hutchins (Dallas)

Diabetes

Hypertension

Obesity

Thomas Meyers 8/3/11 46 Coffield (Tyler)

Hypertension

Psychiatric medication

Robert Webb

8/4/11 50 Hodge (Tyler)

Developmental

Disability

Psychiatric medication

Alexander

8/8/11 44 Michael (Tyler)

Diabetes

Togonidze

Psychiatric medication

Hypertension

Charles Cook

8/8/11 53 Hodge (Tyler)

Developmental

disability

Psychiatric medication

Michael Martone 8/8/11 57 Huntsville

Psychiatric medication

Hypertension

Depression & Obesity

Kelly Marcus

8/12/11 36 Connally (Corpus)

Obesity & Hypertension

Kenneth James 8/13/11 52 Gurney (Tyler)

Hypertension

Daniel Alvarado 8/20/11 44 Beto (Tyler)

HIV

Psychiatric medication

Rodney Adams

8/3/12 45 Gurney (Tyler)

Psychiatric medication

Depression

Albert Hinojosa 8/29/12 44 Garza West (Corpus) Schizophrenia

Depression

17

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 18 of 48 
Hypertension & Diabetes
18

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 19 of 48 
93. Moreover, it is likely far more TDCJ prisoners were actually killed by heat because hyperthermia is an underreported cause of death by medical examiners.
94. The twenty men in the chart above all shared certain characteristics. As TDCJ knew, they all suffered underlying medical conditions and heat-sensitive disabilities that put them at much greater risk of heat stroke, including taking psychotropic drugs to treat a mental illness, suffering from diabetes or hypertension, or taking diuretics to treat hypertension.2
95. Unsurprisingly, in a 2012 email, two of TDCJ’s top physicians discussed how “the majority of heat-related deaths involve prescription drugs known to increase the risk.”
96. Many prisoners at the Pack Unit, including Plaintiffs Cole, Brannum, King, Wallace, and Yates, suffer from one or more of the above conditions, or take one or more of the heat-sensitive medications.
97. Heat can also cause or aggravate other illnesses, even triggering medical emergencies such as heart attacks. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “heat increases death rates from cardiovascular and respiratory disease by placing extra stress on an already stressed system.” Similarly, NIOSH warns that there is substantial evidence that extreme heat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death.
98. The CDC, NWS, and EPA recognize that sudden exposure to heat contributes to a variety of illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, and increases the likelihood of illness and death.
 Six wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of eight of these men are currently pending. See McCollum v. Livingston, No. 4:14-cv-3253 (S.D. Tex.); Adams v. Livingston, 4:14cv-3326 (S.D. Tex.); Webb v. Livingston, 4:14-cv-3302 (S.D. Tex.); Togonidze v. Livingston, 4:14-cv-3324 (S.D. Tex.); Martone v. Livingston, 4:13-CV-3369 (S.D. Tex.); Hinojosa v. Livingston, 4:14-cv-3311 (S.D. Tex.).
19

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 20 of 48
99. As all Texans know, however, it is not just the temperature but also the humidity that contributes to heat. The heat index is a measure of “apparent temperature,” based on ambient temperature and humidity, which the NWS says closely approximates how air temperature is “felt” by the human body. The NWS publishes a chart which illustrates how exposure to high heat indexes increases the risk of heat-related illnesses:
100. The NWS correlates heat index ranges to risk levels: a. Caution (light yellow; heat index 80-90o F) - “Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.” b. Extreme Caution (mustard yellow; heat index 91-104o F) - “Sunstroke, muscle cramps, and/or heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.” c. Danger (orange; heat index 105-125o F) - “Sunstroke, muscle cramps, and/or heat exhaustion likely. Heatstroke possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.” 20

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 21 of 48 
d. Extreme Danger (red; heat index >126o F) - “Heat stroke likely.” 101. The NWS warns that exposure to heat index greater than 105o F “may cause increasingly severe heat disorders with continued exposure or physical activity.” 102. TDCJ incorporates a version of the NWS chart into its policies and training materials, and is well aware of the facts described by the NWS. That chart is included as an Appendix to the TDCJ policy entitled “Temperature Extremes in the TDCJ Workplace,” dated November 10, 2008. The policy and chart are made available to every TDCJ warden, including Warden Herrera. 103. Like the NWS chart, TDCJ’s version recognizes that as the heat index increases, the risk of increasingly severe heat-related illnesses goes up. When the heat index exceeds 90 degrees (a typical occurrence inside the Pack Unit during the summer), according to TDCJ, “heat exhaustion” becomes “possible.” Above 105 degrees, “heat stroke” becomes “possible.” Above 130 degrees, heat stroke is “imminent.” 104. Importantly, the NWS and TDCJ charts are designed to predict the risk to people who do not suffer from medical conditions that increase their susceptibility to heat-related injuries. These charts predict the risk to “healthy” people (like Plaintiff Denton), not people who have an increased risk of heat-related illness or injury due to medical conditions, medications or age. 105. Both the NWS and TDCJ charts show that prisoners living in the Pack Unit are exposed to indoor heat indexes that put inmates at risk of heat exhaustion, and heat cramps virtually every day of the summer.
21

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 22 of 48 
106. Though TDCJ’s policies recognize that escalating extreme temperatures put prisoners at increased danger, TDCJ’s policies do nothing to provide additional protections to inmates in the extremely hot housing areas as apparent temperatures go up.
107. In fact, before this litigation began, TDCJ had no formal, written policy to protect prisoners from extreme temperatures in the indoor inmate housing areas. Now, its policy only provides a handful of vague guidelines, such as directing officers to use “prevailing winds” to allow ventilation and providing ice water to inmates.
108. TDCJ has no policy to lower indoor temperatures in inmate housing areas. 109. No mitigation measures short of climate control or a policy to re-locate inmates to cooler housing areas can adequately protect people from these extreme temperatures. So long as housing areas are dangerously hot, prisoners will inevitably suffer heat-related illnesses and injuries, and be placed at increased risk of death. 110. Indeed, TDCJ’s primary mitigation measure – water intake – created a new hazard at the Pack Unit. The Environmental Protection Agency found the arsenic and fecal coliform3 levels in the water at the Pack Unit were more than twice the recommended level under federal law and regulations. The doctor treating inmates at the Pack Unit testified arsenic in drinking water can cause bladder cancer, skin cancer, and harm the nervous system. 111. Dr. Charles Adams, M.D., the medical director supervising medical care provided at multiple TDCJ prisons, stated what should be obvious to anyone: “they need cooling.” 112. TDCJ ignored this observation, and still has not provided any “cooling” at the Pack Unit.
 3 Fecal coliform is a bacterial contaminate found in feces, and typically enters the water supply through agricultural run-off created by manure.
22

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 23 of 48 
F. Inmates and Officers at the Pack Unit Routinely Suffer Heat-Related Injuries During the Summer 114. Every summer, inmates at the Pack Unit suffer heat-related injuries. 115. Internal emails from July 2012 state that, at the Pack Unit, “the trend has been
noted that the [inmates suffering from heat-related illness] are primarily in housing” – as opposed to prisoners working outside.
116. TDCJ’s medical provider has admitted being “particularly concerned” about the conditions at the Pack Unit. In a four-day period in 2012, twelve prisoners were seen in the prison’s infirmary for heat-related illnesses. Seven of these prisoners were taking medications that placed them at increased risk of heat-related illnesses.
117. Upon information and belief, three of the prisoners treated for heat-related illness in June 2012 at the Pack Unit were not taking any medication that put them at increased risk, and did not have any medical condition that put them at increased risk of heat-related illness. Despite the absence of any additional heat-related risk factors, these prisoners were still injured by the high apparent temperatures.
118. Each summer, inmates at the Pack Unit are treated by medical staff for heatrelated illnesses and injuries caused by the hot indoor apparent temperatures.
119. Upon information and belief, it is likely that many additional prisoners are not reporting their heat-related illnesses.
120. Because of the miserable conditions created by the heat, many prisoners simply languish during the summer. Many spend their summer days avoiding any exertion that could bring on heat-related illness (including walking to the chow hall for meals), drinking arseniclaced water, and spraying themselves with water to endure the incessant heat.
23

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 24 of 48 
121. Even prisoners without medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to the heat, like Denton, suffer intensely during the summer because of the high indoor apparent temperatures.
122. Likewise, correctional officers who work in the inmate housing areas also routinely suffer in the heat. Officers routinely sweat through their uniforms, and have to towel sweat off their faces when leaving the inmate dormitories.
123. In fact, during a recent summer a 57-year-old correctional officer at the Pack Unit was taken to the emergency room after becoming dizzy. She was diagnosed with heat exhaustion and dehydration.
124. Thus, in a rare development, the correctional officer’s union has found common cause with the prisoners, and publicly supported the extreme temperature lawsuits brought against TDCJ.
125. The correctional officer’s union has made numerous public requests for the prison housing areas to be air conditioned, but TDCJ routinely ignores these requests for safe working conditions.
126. Major newspapers, including the New York Times, Houston Chronicle, and Austin American-Statesman, have editorialized that TDCJ should end the practice of failing to air condition inmate housing areas.
127. While TDCJ knows about and ignores the hazards to prisoners and correctional officers, TDCJ officials (including the former executive director, Brad Livingston) approved installing climate controlled hog barns to protect the welfare of TDCJ’s agricultural products. TDCJ’s detailed policies require that pigs live in a “comfortable environment with ventilation. Animals shall never be handled or housed in a manner that does not provide these essentials.”
24

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 25 of 48 
Misters begin to cool the pigs when the temperature goes above 74 degrees to keep the pigs “comfortable.” TDCJ policy requires temperatures be kept no higher than 85 degrees to ensure “pig comfort.” TDCJ policies even establish an “upper critical limit” for pigs at 95 degrees because temperatures above 95, according to TDCJ policies, negatively affect pigs’ “health,” and “some form of cooling” is required above this “critical limit.” High-ranking TDCJ officials even told the press these climate-controlled barns were necessary to protect vulnerable pigs from heat stroke. TDCJ has no similar policies to protect humans.
128. Even former TDCJ Institutional Division Director Rick Thaler acknowledged this is unacceptable, and that human prisoners deserve more protections than swine raised for slaughter. G. Many Plaintiffs’ Disabilities Put them at Increased Risk of Heat-Related Injury or
Death. A. Cole Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 129. Keith Cole suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he suffers from diabetes and hypertension. He also has a history of chronic cardiovascular disease, and has had two stents placed in his body. 130. Cole’s diabetes requires treatment with Glipizide. He takes a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), a beta blocker (Metoprolol), a calcium channel blocker (Amlodipine), an angiotensin receptor blocker (Losartan), and a statin (Atorvastatin), to control his hypertension and cardiovascular disease. He is also prescribed Nitrostat tablets to use “as needed” should he feel any chest pains. 131. These disabilities and medications impair Cole’s thermoregulatory system.
25

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 26 of 48 
132. Cole’s diabetes causes his body to constantly fight to stay hydrated. He cannot pump enough blood to his skin to cool his body, and his ability to sweat is extremely limited.
133. Cole has other major life activities that are impaired as well by his disabilities, and which become more severely limited by heat. He cannot stand, walk, lift, or otherwise exert himself physically without feeling chest pain and fatigue, especially during the summer when the indoor apparent temperatures are very high.
134. Because of his diabetes, the heat will make Cole feel dizzy and he cannot walk or stand properly—on some days, he can have difficulty concentrating, thinking, or reading. His diabetes also interferes with the operation of several of his major bodily systems, including his circulatory system, endocrine system and digestive system.
135. When his cardiovascular disease is uncontrolled, Cole suffers from difficulty breathing and chest pains in the high temperatures. His cardiovascular disease and hypertension impair his respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems.
136. Cole has been treated for heat exhaustion at the Pack Unit. Officers have had to take Cole to the infirmary in a wheelchair because heat illness prevented him from walking there on his own to receive treatment during the heart of the summer.
137. During previous summers, Cole has tried to spend extra time in the airconditioned infirmary after receiving treatment for his disabilities. On at least one occasion, although nurses encouraged him to spend extra time in the infirmary, Warden Herrera ordered him out of the infirmary and to return to his blazing hot dormitory.
B. Brannum Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 138. Jackie Brannum suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he has hypertension and diabetes,
26

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 27 of 48 
and is prescribed antidepressant and psychotropic drugs to treat schizoaffective disorder, a serious mental illness.
139. Brannum takes Amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker), Lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor), Pravastatin (a statin), and Propranolol (a beta blocker) to treat his hypertension and coronary artery disease.
140. Brannum is an insulin-dependent diabetic, and receives insulin injections twice a day to control his blood sugar levels.
141. Brannum suffers from chronic back pain, and takes Carbamazepine and Nortriptyline to treat his pain. (Nortriptyline is an antidepressant that also has pain-relieving properties.) He uses a walker to assist with mobility.
142. To control his schizoaffective disorder, Brannum takes Prozac (an antidepressant), and Risperidone (a psychotropic drug). When he is not taking his psychiatric medications, Brannum hears voices, and has thoughts of hurting himself. In the summer, his psychiatric medications make him feel dizzy and lightheaded because of the heat.
143. These disabilities impair Brannum’s thermoregulatory system. Heat aggravates hypertension, and has caused Brannum to experience extreme fatigue and dizziness in the past during the summer. He often feels fatigue and nausea over the summers, and he has become lightheaded many times. Brannum has also felt his heart race and had difficulty breathing when he has to move in the heat.
144. On more than one occasion during the summer, Brannum has told medical providers at the Pack Unit he fell due to dizziness.
145. Brannum has been treated in the infirmary at the Pack Unit during the summer for symptoms like severe dizziness. In September 2014, for example, Brannum had to be taken to
27

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 28 of 48 
the infirmary in a wheelchair when he “over did it” while “cleaning his dorm.” A physician at the Pack Unit stopped his prescription for a diuretic medication used to treat his hypertension because it caused him to become dizzy during the summer.
146. In May 2015, Brannum was taken to the infirmary in a wheelchair after experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath.
147. Brannum has also experienced blurred vision and “excessive sweating” during the summer, requiring treatment in the infirmary.
148. On several occasions, Brannum has experienced severe headaches during the summer months, and been treated in the infirmary.
149. Though Brannum tries to stay hydrated by drinking extra water during the summer, he has required treatment in the infirmary due to dehydration. In May 2014, he became painfully constipated and suffered from serious dizziness because he could not stay hydrated in the extreme indoor temperatures at the Pack Unit.
150. During the summer, Brannum has great difficulty sleeping due to the heat and his disabilities. The headaches caused by the heat and his disabilities cause him to have problems concentrating and thinking. Though he used to perform forced labor in the prison’s kitchen, due to his heat-sensitive disabilities, he is no longer allowed to work in the prison.
C. King Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 151. Richard King suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. King has hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. 152. King takes hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic), Atenolol (a beta blocker), Lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor), and Terozsin to treat his hypertension. He receives insulin injections twice a day and takes Metformin to control his diabetes.
28

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 29 of 48 
153. King’s conditions impair his ability to regulate his body temperature, which, in turn, interferes with his basic, everyday activities. The heat makes it difficult for King to sleep; specifically, he gets so hot at night that his mattress always seems soaked through with sweat. Compounding the strain from sleepless nights, the oppressive daytime heat taxes his body even further, leaving him exhausted. King feels so exhausted in the heat that he is unable to perform simple tasks like standing or walking for long periods of time. The short walk to the chow hall becomes so unbearable he will skip meals.
154. The heat will make King feel dizzy. He has difficulty walking during the summer, and feels like he will lose his coordination and fall over.
155. King also feels he is unable to perform basic tasks during the summer due to exhaustion from the heat and discomfort from excessive sweating. In fact, TDCJ’s medical provider has determined that King cannot perform forced labor at the prison due to his medical conditions. Yet he gets no protection from the indoor heat or humidity.
D. Wallace Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 156. Fred Wallace suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he has hypertension, obesity, and major depression. 157. Wallace takes an antidepressant (Prozac) to treat his major depression, an antihistamine (Diphenhydramine), and several medications to treat his hypertension (Gemfibrozil, Lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor), and Terazosin (an alpha blocker)). 158. These disabilities and medications impair the function of Wallace’s thermoregulatory system. TDCJ’s medical provider determined Wallace cannot perform forced labor in “extreme temperatures” or “direct sunlight” due to his disabilities and/or prescriptions.
29

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 30 of 48 
159. Likewise, Wallace’s depression prevents him from engaging in multiple major life activities. Before he went to prison (and began taking Prozac), he would not leave his house or go to work when he was depressed. His depression prevents him from sleeping, causes him to have “low energy,” and suffer from thoughts like “I’d be better off dead.” Thus, his depression impaired his major life activities or working, thinking, concentrating, and caring for himself.
160. His obesity and hypertension also interfere with major life activities. Wallace cannot climb into a top bunk due to his obesity, and TDCJ has been instructed by doctors to only assign him a lower bunk. He has been seen in TDCJ’s sleep clinic for chronic insomnia related to his obesity and depression.
161. During previous summers, Wallace has been taken to the infirmary in a wheelchair when suffering from dizziness and dehydration.
E. Yates Suffers from Heat-Related Disabilities and is at Increased Risk 162. Marvin Yates suffers from several medical conditions and/or disabilities that increase his risk of heat-related injury or death. For example, he has hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease, asthma, diabetes, arthritis, and is a cancer survivor. His body mass index is also over thirty, making him medically obese. 163. Yates takes a calcium channel blocker (Amlodipine), a blood thinner (Clopidogrel), an ACE inhibitor (Enalapril), a diuretic (Furosemide), a statin (Pravastain), and a beta blocker (Metoprolol) to treat his hypertension. His COPD requires treatment with albuterol, a steroid inhaler, and a nebulizer treatment for infections. His coronary artery disease requires treatment with a beta blocker, pravastatin, Plavix, and stents in his heart. Finally, his asthma requires treatment with medications including albuterol and a nebulizer for severe attacks, and antihistamines to control his allergies (which exacerbate his asthma).
30

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 31 of 48 
164. These disabilities and medications impair Yates’s thermoregulatory system. He cannot sweat normally to cool himself down, and the blood flow to his skin is limited. It is also difficult for Yates to perform any manual task. He cannot lift objects, perform work, walk, or even stand for an extended period of time. Yates’s blood sugar regulation is impaired by his diabetes. He needs to carry candy with him at all times to treat himself when his blood sugar level drops, and his diabetes ultimately impairs his ability to stay hydrated. His breathing is impaired: he becomes short of breath after walking short distances, like from his dormitory to the chow hall. He avoids outdoor recreation because his arthritis makes it too painful to undress and dress as fast as the guards require for the “shakedown” before he can go outside. Yates’s medications also impair his ability to think and concentrate, because they cause him to get nervous very easily. Anxiety, exhaustion, or sometimes lying down to sleep cause his bronchial tubes to constrict, making it hard to breathe. Yates’s breathing problems generally make it more difficult to get food, recreate, and sleep at the prison—and they are worsened by hot temperatures.
165. These impairments are aggravated in the summer due to high indoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit. During previous summers at the Pack Unit, he has experienced several symptoms of heat-related illnesses, including dizziness, painful muscle cramps, fatigue, blurred vision, and headaches. He has trouble sleeping in the extreme heat because he cannot catch his breath.
F. Other Prisoners at the Pack Unit are at Increased Risk of Heat-Related Injuries 166. Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates’s medical conditions are typical of other inmates at the Pack Unit. Like these Plaintiffs, many other prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from physiological conditions that place them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or
31

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 32 of 48 
death. Like these Plaintiffs, many other prisoners at the Pack Unit are prescribed anticonvulsants, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, antihistamines, antidepressants, beta blockers, and diuretics. And, like King and Yates, many other prisoners at the Pack Unit are over age 65.
167. Because TDCJ classifies the Pack Unit as a “Chronic Care I” facility, the Unit houses a disproportionate number of prisoners with chronic health needs. There are more than 700 prisoners housed there who suffer from physiological conditions or take medications that increase their risk of heat-related illness.
168. Plaintiffs take their medications because the prescriptions are necessary to protect their health from their disabilities.
G. Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, Yates, and Many Others at Pack Suffer from Qualifying Heat-Related Disabilities
169. There are hundreds of otherwise-qualified prisoners with heat-sensitive disabilities housed at the Pack Unit, including the following:
i. Hypertension 170. Hypertension is a cardiovascular disease. It is the leading cause of stroke, and a major cause of heart attacks. Serious damage is caused to the cardiovascular system when blood flow asserts high pressure on artery walls. Hypertension is often called “the silent killer.” It can cause breathing problems, and result in organ damage if untreated or exacerbated. 171. Hypertension also causes severe headaches, fatigue, obesity, and vision problems. It is a physiological condition affecting body systems, including the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. 172. As a consequence, TDCJ policy recognizes patients taking diuretics or beta blockers to treat hypertension are at increased risk of heat-related illness, and “should not be
32

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 33 of 48  allowed to work or recreate in environments where the apparent air temperature is 95 [degrees] or higher.”
173. Hypertension can substantially limit a patient’s ability to walk, stand, and breathe, and limit the operation of his respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems, especially when the patient is exposed to extreme temperatures.
174. Hypertension itself also increases a patient’s susceptibility to heat stress, and, combined with extreme heat, diminishes the body’s ability to regulate internal temperature. Thus, a patient with hypertension will be at additional risk of heat-related injuries, and suffer additional pain and punishment above and beyond what an able-bodied inmate at the Pack Unit experiences.
175. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that hypertension increases the risk of heat-related illness.
176. TDCJ is aware that hypertension increases patients’ risk of heat-related illness. 177. Approximately 728 prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from hypertension.
ii. Asthma 178. Asthma is a chronic lung disease that inflames and narrows the airways. It substantially limits sufferers’ ability to breathe, causing recurring periods of wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and coughing. Asthma also substantially limits the operation of the respiratory system. 179. Heat and humid air can trigger asthma symptoms, causing asthma patients to suffer more pain and punishment in hot environments than people without asthma.
33

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 34 of 48 
180. TDCJ’s medical provider recognizes that asthma is a condition that places patients at increased risk of heat-related illnesses. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that asthma increases the risk of heat-related illness.
181. TDCJ is aware that asthma places patients at increased risk of heat-related illness. 182. Approximately 113 prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from asthma.
iii. Diabetes 183. Diabetes is a chronic disease caused by an insulin imbalance. Insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas to control blood sugar. Diabetes results from improper insulin levels. Diabetes is a physical condition effecting the endocrine, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems. 184. Diabetes impairs the body’s ability to adjust to increases in temperatures by affecting diabetics’ ability to sweat. Sweating is critical to cool the body in extreme heat. An inability to sweat increases the body’s core temperature, profoundly aggravating the risk of heat stroke. 185. Diabetes also reduces blood circulation by impairing the action of the heart and by decreasing the ability of the body to dilate the blood vessels at the skin. Both are essential to dissipate body heat, and prevent heat stroke. 186. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that diabetes increases the risk of heat-related illness. 187. TDCJ is aware that diabetes increases the risk of heat-related illness. 188. Approximately 212 prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from diabetes.
34

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 35 of 48 
iv. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 189. COPD is a disease that makes it difficult to breathe. It includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. 190. COPD causes frequent coughing, shortness of breath, and tightness in the chest, among other symptoms. 191. COPD impairs the operation of the respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular systems. 192. Heat exacerbates COPD, because the body needs to breathe in additional oxygen to help cope with the heat. This requires additional breathing, which is impaired by COPD. 193. The doctor who cares for all prisoners at the Pack Unit has testified that COPD increases the risk of heat-related illness. 194. TDCJ is aware that COPD increases the risk of heat-related illness. 195. Approximately 84 prisoners at the Pack Unit suffer from COPD.
v. Schizoaffective Disorder 196. Schizoaffective disorder is a chronic mental illness in which a person suffers from both symptoms of schizophrenia and a mood disorder (such as major depression or bipolar disorder). Symptoms include paranoia, delusions, hallucinations, severe depression, mania, and thoughts of suicide. 197. Schizoaffective disorder requires treatment with psychotropic drugs. 198. Schizoaffective disorder impairs the operation of the brain. 199. Schizoaffective disorder limits patients ability to think, concentrate, work, care for themselves, see, hear, and sleep.
35

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 36 of 48 
200. According to TDCJ’s medical policies, psychotropic drugs increase a patient’s vulnerability to heat-related medical conditions, like heat exhaustion, and heat stroke.
201. TDCJ is aware that schizoaffective disorder (and the medications used to treat it) increase the risk of heat-related illness.
202. Approximately 66 prisoners at the Pack Unit take some type of psychotropic drug. vi. Major Depression
203. Major depression is a chronic mental illness caused by a serotonin imbalance in the brain. People with depression experience insomnia or excessive sleeping, loss of appetite, fatigue, feelings of worthlessness, irritability, persistent headaches, and problems concentrating.
204. Depression is a physiological condition affecting body systems, including the brain.
205. The doctor treating patients at the Pack Unit testified patients with depression may experience difficulty caring for themselves. TDCJ does not dispute this.
206. TDCJ’s medical provider identifies antidepressant medications, like Prozac, as putting patients at much higher risk of heat-related illness. In fact, when a patient is prescribed an antidepressant, the physician informs the patient that these medications “can affect the manner in which the body relates to excessive heat especially in the summer.” The patient is told to “contact nursing/security if they [feel] dizzy, confused, or over heated” so their vital signs can be checked. The patient is warned “excessive heat can cause life threatening conditions” and told to “drink plenty of water when the heat is extreme.” Despite this explicit warning, TDCJ does nothing to protect inmates taking such medications from the extreme temperatures inside the housing areas.
36

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 37 of 48 
207. TDCJ is aware that depression (and the medications used to treat it) increase the risk of heat-related illness.
I. Though Plaintiff Denton Does Not Suffer from Heat-Related Disabilities, He Still Experiences Symptoms of Heat-Related Illness Each Summer
208. Michael Denton has not been diagnosed with any medical conditions that make him sensitive to the heat. He also does not take any medications that make him more heat sensitive.
209. Nevertheless, Denton suffers from the heat inside his dorm during summers at the Pack Unit. He reports sweating excessively during most summers, even at rest. He also reports feeling exhausted far more easily, and difficulty sleeping, during the summer.
210. Denton has suffered from painful heat cramps while incarcerated at the Pack Unit. 211. Thus, even prisoners without heat-sensitive medical conditions suffer at the Pack Unit due to the high indoor apparent temperatures and cruel conditions.
CLASS ACTION 212. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated persons. 213. Plaintiffs propose to represent a class composed of all inmates who currently are, or who in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high apparent indoor temperatures in the housing areas. Each Plaintiff is typical of class members. 214. Plaintiffs also seek to represent the following sub-classes of people who 1) are currently incarcerated at the Pack Unit (or will be in the future), 2) are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high apparent indoor temperatures in the housing areas, and either:
37

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 38 of 48 
3a. Heat-Sensitive Subclass: (i) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death (including, but not limited to, suffering from obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, Sjogren’s syndrome, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or, (ii) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotics, antihistamines, antidepressants, beta blockers, or diuretic; or, (iii) are over age 65. Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates are typical members of this subclass.
3b. Disability Subclass: suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability. Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates are typical members of this subclass.
215. Numerosity: The joinder of each class member would be impracticable because each class is so numerous. The approximate number of class members exceeds 1,400 as the Pack Unit houses over 1,400 inmates and many other inmates could potentially be housed at the Pack Unit during some point during this litigation, or in the future. Joining all members of the class is impracticable due to the minimum 1,400 person size and the fluctuating population of the Pack Unit.
216. The subclasses are also sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23(a). Because the Pack Unit is a “Chronic Care I” facility, more than 700 inmates incarcerated there suffer from at least one medical condition or disability that would make them a class member. TDCJ itself
38

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 39 of 48 

identifies over 400 inmates who have “heat restrictions” on their forced labor assignments due to

their vulnerability to “extreme temperatures,” though this number is under-inclusive. Likewise,

upon information and belief, TDCJ houses a high number of inmates with qualifying disabilities

at the Pack Unit.

217. Approximately 200 prisoners over age 65 live at the Pack Unit. Joining all 200

prisoners over age 65 would be impracticable.

218. Identifying every inmate at the Pack Unit who is a subclass member would

require interviewing hundreds of prisoners, and reviewing each of their medical records.

Disposition of this matter as a class action will provide substantial benefits and efficiencies to the

parties and the Court.

219. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the

class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the class.

A.

The common questions of law and fact for the proposed General Class are:

1)

Are all prisoners at the Pack Unit exposed to high apparent temperatures inside

the inmate housing areas?

2)

Does exposing prisoners to the high apparent temperatures in the housing areas

at the Pack Unit violate the Eighth Amendment, by denying prisoners safe

housing and shelter from the elements?

3)

Are the members of the General Class entitled to declaratory and injunctive

relief?

39

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 40 of 48 

B.

Further, the common questions of law and fact for the subclasses are:

1) For the Heat-Sensitive Subclass:

a) Is the risk of heat-related injuries for the Heat-Sensitive Subclass increased

when members are exposed to the high apparent temperatures in housing areas

of the Pack Unit?

b) Does exposing members of the Heat-Sensitive Subclass to the high apparent

temperatures in the housing areas at the Pack Unit violate their Eighth

Amendment rights to safe housing conditions and shelter from the elements?

c) Are the members of the Heat-Sensitive Subclass entitled to declaratory and

injunctive relief?

2) For the Disability Subclass:

a) Do the members of the Disability Subclass a) suffer from a disability that

substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and b) either suffer

from a disability that increases the risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death

or receive any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability that

increases the risk of heat-related illness, injury or death?

b) Does TDCJ provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners with heat-related

disabilities exposed to high apparent temperatures in the housing areas at the

Pack Unit?

c) Is TDCJ immune from claims for injunctive and declaratory relief brought

under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act?

d) Are members of the Disability Subclass entitled to declaratory and injunctive

relief?

40

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 41 of 48 
220. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical and representative of each class and subclass member’s claims against Defendants, as identified above. The claims of Plaintiffs and the Class all arise from the same conduct by Defendants (exposing them to unsafe temperatures in the housing areas at the Pack Unit), are based not only on identical legal theories, and also seek identical remedies (injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Defendants to lower the temperatures at the Pack Unit to safe levels). The Pack Unit’s housing areas all reach roughly the same temperature levels; the high indoor apparent temperatures threaten all inmates’ wellbeing. Plaintiffs’ interest in reducing the danger of heat-related illness, injury, or death is identical to every other inmate’s interest. All members of the class are similarly injured by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
221. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Plaintiffs have no interests contrary to those of class members. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes a non-profit law firm, the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), whose mission is to protect the civil rights of low-income Texans. TCRP has prosecuted many class actions, or multi-plaintiff cases that obtained class-like injunctive and declaratory relief. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ class counsel, Edwards Law, has litigated complex commercial and civil rights cases, including class actions against multinational corporations and governmental entities. Edwards Law has extensive experience in heat-related temperature litigation against TDCJ, as Plaintiffs’ counsel represent the families of eight men who died of heat stroke in TDCJ prisons, and one other man who suffered a non-fatal heat stroke.
222. A class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy, especially since joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Each class member is irreparably harmed as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Litigating
41

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 42 of 48 
this case as a class action will reduce the risk of repetitious litigation relating to the Defendants’ conduct.
223. Plaintiffs do not seek damages, except as may be incidental to declaratory or injunctive relief.
CAUSES OF ACTION I. EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
(Against Defendants Collier and Herrera in their Official Capacities) 224. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous paragraphs as if alleged herein, and further plead: 225. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Collier and Herrera, in their official capacities, are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners at the Pack Unit caused by their choice to expose prisoners to high apparent temperatures inside the housing areas, and unnecessarily and wantonly cause the Plaintiffs pain. 226. The high indoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit pose an unreasonable risk to prisoners’ health. 227. Defendants are aware that extreme heat in their facilities’ housing areas poses substantial risk of serious injury to inmates, including Plaintiffs. Defendants’ knowledge is demonstrated by TDCJ policies and practices, as well as the well-documented history of injuries to inmates and employees at the Pack Unit. Defendants remain indifferent to the risk, failing to take obvious steps to mitigate it. 228. In light of the numerous public warnings about the risk posed by extreme temperatures from government agencies, scientific studies of the risk, warnings within TDCJ’s own policy, knowledge of TDCJ’s medical providers, and the history of inmate and staff injuries, Defendants know of the risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death that exists at the Pack Unit.
42

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 43 of 48 
229. Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by refusing to provide safe housing areas that protect inmates from exposure to extreme heat, and which annually cause injuries to prisoners.
230. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ risk of serious medical problems puts Plaintiffs at substantial risk of serious bodily injury including, but not limited to, heat stroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion, as well as the myriad symptoms associated with these conditions.
231. Defendants’ policies, practices, acts, and omissions violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendments, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
232. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, acts, and omissions, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical injury, risk of physical injury, and risk of death.
II. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND REHABILITATION ACT (Against Defendant TDCJ)
240. For purposes of the ADA, ADA Amendments Act, and Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs Wallace, Brannum, King, Yates, and Cole, and other similarly situated prisoners, are qualified individuals regarded as having a physiological or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities.
241. TDCJ fails to reasonably accommodate prisoners with heat-sensitive disabilities. These disabilities (such as asthma, COPD, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, depression, and mental illnesses treated with psychotropic medications) place prisoners at increased risk of heatrelated illness, injury, or death, and cause them to suffer more pain and punishment than ablebodied prisoners.
43

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 44 of 48 
242. TDCJ acknowledges in internal documents that people with certain disabilities (like diabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease), or who take certain medications to treat their disabilities (like psychotropics, antihistamines, antidepressants, or diuretics), are much more vulnerable to extreme temperatures. Their medical conditions prevent their bodies from regulating their temperature, putting them at much greater risk of death from heat.
243. Plaintiffs Cole, Wallace, Brannum, Yates, and King, as well as other similarlysituated prisoners, suffer from these heat-sensitive disabilities.
244. TDCJ has been, and is, a recipient of federal funds, and thus covered by the mandate of the Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act requires recipients of federal monies to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities in their facilities, program activities, and services and reasonably modify such facilities, services and programs to accomplish this purpose.
245. Further, Title II of the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act apply to TDCJ and has the same mandate as the Rehabilitation Act. 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.
246. Title II of the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act protects prisoners with disabilities because exposure to extreme temperatures also actually violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
247. The Pack Unit and other TDCJ units are facilities, and their operation comprises a program and service for Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and ADAAA purposes. Plaintiffs Cole, Wallace, Brannum, King, and Yates, and similarly situated prisoners with disabilities, are presently qualified to participate in programs, activities and services in TDCJ facilities at the Pack Unit, such as incarceration in the inmate housing areas.
44

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 45 of 48 
248. Defendants know that Brannum, Wallace, King, Yates, and Cole, and other similarly situated prisoners with disabilities, suffer from heat-sensitive disabilities, and were prescribed medications to treat their disabilities. Despite their knowledge, TDCJ’s officers intentionally discriminated against them, under the meaning of the ADA, ADAAA, and Rehabilitation Act, by failing and refusing to protect them from the extreme temperatures.
249. As alleged above, TDCJ fails and refuses to reasonably accommodate Brannum, Wallace, King, Yates, and Cole, and other similarly-situated prisoners with disabilities, while in custody, in violation of the ADA, ADAAA and Rehabilitation Act.
250. As shown above, TDCJ failed, and refused, to reasonably modify its facilities, services, accommodations, and programs to reasonably accommodate Brannum, Wallace, King, Yates, and Cole’s disabilities, as well as similarly situated prisoners.
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 251. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, ADAAA, and Rehabilitation Act against Defendants, for themselves and the class, to require TDCJ to provide safe housing conditions at the Pack Unit. 252. Without permanent injunctive relief, Defendants will continue their same perilous practices and conduct, disregarding federal legal mandates, and endangering the lives and the welfare of current and future prisoners at the Pack Unit, causing every prisoner to suffer each summer. 253. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. 254. Plaintiffs ask that the Court enjoin Defendants to maintain a safe indoor apparent temperature (e.g. maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower) inside each of the Pack Unit’s
45

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 46 of 48 
housing areas (calculated using the NWS heat index table), or enter other injunctive relief sufficient to protect the health and safety of the prisoners at the Pack Unit.
255. Plaintiffs request an order declaring the conditions under which they are housed are unconstitutional.
256. Plaintiffs Cole, Yates, King, and Brannum request an order declaring TDCJ violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act by failing to reasonably accommodate inmates with disabilities.
257. Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief to end this unlawful discrimination.
258. Plaintiffs do not seek damages. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
259. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs, including expert costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF THEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court award the following relief: A. Certify this action as a class action, as described above; B. Remedy ongoing violations of law and the Constitution by granting declaratory and injunctive relief, as set out in this First Amended Complaint, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and the class; C. Permanently enjoin Defendants to abate the risk of serious harm described above by taking steps including, but not limited to, maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower inside the Pack Unit’s housing areas (calculated using the NWS heat index table);
46

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 47 of 48 

D. Find that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this case and award them attorneys’ fees,

court costs, expert costs, and litigation expenses;

E. Grant such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just, to which Plaintiffs may

be entitled, separately or collectively.

Date: May 8, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

The Edwards Law Firm The Haehnel Building 1101 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78702
Tel. 512-623-7727 Fax. 512-623-7729

By /s/ Jeff Edwards JEFF EDWARDS State Bar No. 24014406 Attorney-in-Charge Scott Medlock State Bar No. 24044783 Michael Singley State Bar No. 00794642 David James State Bar No. 24092572 Federal ID No. 2496580

Jeremy Doyle REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP State Bar No. 24012553 Federal ID No. 24559 Nathan Smith State Bar No.: 24053060 Federal ID No. 1075505 Drew D. Pennebaker State Bar No.: 24083645 Federal ID No. 2621125 1100 Louisiana Suite 3500 Houston, Texas 77002
Tel. (713) 485-7200 Fax. (713) 485-7250

47

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 629 Filed in TXSD on 05/07/17 Page 48 of 48 
Wallis Nader State Bar No. 24092884 Southern District No. 2609150 wallis@texascivilrightsproject.org TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT— HOUSTON 2006 Wheeler Ave Houston, TX 77004
Tel. (832) 767-3650 Fax. (832) 554-9981 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature above, I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record through the Electronic Case File System of the Southern District of Texas.
/s/ Jeff Edwards JEFF EDWARDS
48

 
 Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED

No. 16-20505

August 18, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

MARVIN RAY YATES; KEITH COLE; JACKIE BRANNUM; RICHARD ELVIN KING; FRED WALLACE; LAVAR JOHN SANTEE,

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.

BRYAN COLLIER; ROBERTO M. HERRERA; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendants – Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents yet another chapter in a long saga of challenges to conditions of confinement in prisons throughout this circuit. The plaintiffs are inmates in the Wallace Pack Unit, a prison operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. They allege violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act due to the high temperatures in the prison housing areas. Plaintiffs sought, and the district court granted, certification of a general class and two subclasses, and the defendants now appeal. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we AFFIRM.

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 I.
The six named Plaintiffs are inmates in the Wallace Pack Unit, a prison operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit in 2014 against TDCJ, Bryan Collier (TDCJ’s executive director), and Roberto Herrera (the Pack Unit’s warden) (collectively, the Defendants). The Pack Unit houses approximately 1,400 inmates. Though portions of the Pack Unit are air-conditioned, it is undisputed that the inmate housing areas are not. During the summer months, indoor temperatures within the Pack Unit housing area can reach 100 degrees and consistently exceed 90 degrees. TDCJ is aware of these high temperatures as it routinely monitors the outdoor apparent temperatures at the Pack Unit during the summer months. Acknowledging that these high temperatures are a potential risk to the health and safety of the inmates in the Pack Unit and in an effort to reduce the risk from these high temperatures, Defendants claim that they provide certain “heat-mitigation” measures—including more frequent showers, cold drinking water, fans, and temporary access to air-conditioned “respite areas” outside the housing area.
Up until this lawsuit was filed, TDCJ’s policy regarding mitigation measures remained largely unchanged, despite the heat-related injuries occurring within the Pack Unit and in various other Texas prisons. Indeed, since 1998, twenty or more inmates have died as a result of excessive heat. This history led the district court to conclude that, “as a factual matter,” there was a “significant history of serious heat related illnesses” within the Pack Unit. Only in 2015, after this lawsuit was filed, did TDCJ begin its respite-area practice.
Of the six named Plaintiffs, only one is younger than 60 years old and has no medical conditions that would affect his sensitivity to heat. The remaining five named Plaintiffs range in age from 60 to 72 years and all have
2

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 one or more conditions that render them particularly sensitive to heat, including Type II diabetes, coronary arterial disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, hypertension, schizoaffective disorder, and obesity.
Plaintiffs assert two causes of action. First, they assert an Eighth Amendment claim against Collier and Herrera. Second, they claim that TDCJ has failed to provide reasonable accommodations for inmates with heatsensitive disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction requiring defendants to “maintain a safe indoor apparent temperature (e.g., maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower) inside each of the Pack Unit’s housing areas . . . or enter other injunctive relief sufficient to protect the health and safety of the prisoners at the Pack Unit.”1
Plaintiffs moved to certify three classes, one general class and two subclasses:
General Class: All inmates who currently are, or in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas. Heat-Sensitive Subclass: All people who are incarcerated at the Pack Unit, or in the future will be, that are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas, and either: (1) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heatrelated illness, injury, or death (including, but not limited to, suffering from obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or, (2) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotic, antihistamine, antidepressant, beta blocker, or diuretic; or (3) are over age 65.
1 Plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees, but they do not seek damages.
3

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 Disability SubClass: All people incarcerated at the Pack Unit, or who will be in the future, that are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas and suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability. The district court certified all three classes. It concluded that Plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that they met all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). It then determined that certification was authorized under Rule 23(b)(2). Last, the district court rejected Defendants’ argument that the Prison Litigation Reform Act—which directs that prospective relief in the prison context “shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)—must be applied as part of the Rule 23(b)(2) analysis. Defendants moved under Rule 23(f)2 for authorization to appeal the district court’s certification order, and this court granted the motion.
II. “We review the district court’s decision to certify a class for an abuse of discretion.” M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 836 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294, 301 (5th Cir. 2003)). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Bocanegra v. Vicmar Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir. 2003). This deference stems
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) provides: A court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification under this rule if a petition for permission to appeal is filed with the circuit clerk within 14 days after the order is entered. An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders.
4

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 from “a recognition of the essentially factual basis of the certification inquiry and of the district court’s inherent power to manage and control pending litigation.” Perry, 675 F.3d at 836. Nonetheless, this broad discretion must operate “within the framework of Rule 23,” and we “review de novo whether the district court applied the correct legal standards.” Id. (citations omitted).
III. It is well-established in our circuit “that the Eighth Amendment guarantees inmates a right to be free from exposure to extremely dangerous temperatures without adequate remedial measures.” Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 669 (5th Cir. 2015). Over the past several years, we have decided numerous appeals arising from cases in which inmates have challenged the heat levels within prisons located throughout this circuit. We have repeatedly upheld district court findings that the heat levels within these prisons violate the Eighth Amendment, and we have done so in the context of a class action in at least one case. In Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004), we upheld a permanent class-wide injunction based on the Eighth Amendment, which required the Mississippi Department of Corrections to “provide fans, ice water, and daily showers when the heat index is 90 degrees or above,” id. at 339–40, even though most of the inmates had the benefit of industrial sized fans as well as smaller personal fans. Id. at 334. Summer temperatures in the area averaged above 90° Fahrenheit, and the ventilation within the facility was “inadequate to afford prisoners a minimal level of comfort during the summer months,” and the inmates were “not afforded extra showers, ice water, or fans . . . when the heat index [was 90° Fahrenheit] or above.” Id. Similarly, in Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2015), we affirmed the district court’s finding that the heat within a prison housing area posed a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates, where the heat index ranged from 81.5° Fahrenheit to 107.79°
5

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 Fahrenheit and surpassed 100° Fahrenheit on five or more days during a roughly two week period. Id. at 590–91, 592–94. We did so even though the inmates had continued access to potable water and ice, and despite the defendant’s argument that “because it provide[d] the remedies [upheld in Gates], there can be no Eighth Amendment violation as a matter of law.” Id. at 590, 592. And in Blackmon v. Garza, 484 F. App’x 866 (5th Cir. 2012), we reversed the grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of TDCJ officials. Id. at 874. Though recognizing that TDCJ had taken some remedial steps, such as providing cool ice water three times a day and allowing extra showers, we concluded this was insufficient to justify judgment in TDCJ’s favor. We relied in part on the fact that “[t]here was no air-conditioning,” “the windows were sealed,” the unit “did not have a water fountain,” and “the inmates were not able to use personal fans,” though there was a large industrial fan available. Id. at 871–72.
Indeed, TDCJ officials are, or have been, defendants in numerous other cases alleging Eighth Amendment violations based on excessive heat in prison. See, e.g., Hinojosa, 807 F.3d at 661 (deciding appeal involving TDCJ prisoner who suffered a seizure at night due to high indoor temperatures, “[fell] out of his bed and was convulsing,” and died twenty minutes later); Webb v. Livingston, 618 F. App’x 201, 204 (5th Cir. 2015) (deciding appeal involving the “heat-related deaths of five prisoners who died while housed in facilities operated by [TDCJ]”); Valigura v. Mendoza, 265 F. App’x 232, 233–34 (5th Cir. 2008) (deciding appeal involving prisoner who alleged that “temperatures in the bunk area reached into the nineties and hundreds due to poor ventilation” and that “he was not able to use the restroom or showers without lengthy waits, which caused him severe discomfort”).
In short, we have repeatedly recognized the serious risk of harm that excessive heat can pose in the prison context absent adequate mitigating
6

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 measures, and we have consistently found evidence sufficient in these cases to support an Eighth Amendment violation, even when certain mitigating measures were available. It is against this backdrop that we now address the discrete issue presented in this appeal: whether the district court erred in certifying the General Class and the two subclasses.
Defendants challenge only two of the class certification criteria. First, they assert that the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs demonstrated a common question of law or fact for each of the classes.3 Second, Defendants argue that the district court erred in concluding that the proposed classes could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). As part of this second argument, Defendants reassert their contention that the Prison Litigation Reform Act precludes certification in this case. We discuss each in turn.
A. 1. Rule 23(a) states that a class may be certified “only if . . . there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). At first blush, it might seem that Rule 23(a)(2)’s requirement can be easily satisfied. After all, “any competently crafted class complaint literally raises common questions.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349 (2011) (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted). As the Supreme Court has indicated, however, Rule 23(a)(2) demands that the putative class members’ claims “must depend upon a common contention” that “must be of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the
3 Defendants do not make any argument regarding numerosity, typicality, or adequacy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
7

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350; see also Perry, 675 F.3d at 840.
Thus, what matters for Rule 23(a) “‘is not the raising of common questions—even in droves—but, rather the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.’” WalMart, 564 U.S. at 350 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 97, 132 (2009)). It is not enough, then, that plaintiffs “have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law” because laws can be violated in different ways, and so suffering a violation of the same provision of law “gives no cause to believe that all [the plaintiffs’] claims can productively be litigated at once.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350; Perry, 675 F.3d at 840 (“Further, the members of a proposed class do not establish that their claims can productively be litigated at once, merely by alleging a violation of the same legal provision by the same defendant.” (quotation marks omitted)).
“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.” Instead, a plaintiff “must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact . . . common questions of law or fact[.]” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350. And the district “must conduct a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 prerequisites before certifying a class.” Perry, 675 F.3d at 837 (alteration omitted) (quoting Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir. 1996)); Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350–51 (same). Because “class determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff’s cause of action,” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 351, we have “traditionally construed [the] directive [to conduct a rigorous analysis] to require district courts to, inter alia, ‘look beyond the pleadings to understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination of the
8

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 certification issues.’” Perry, 675 F.3d at 837 (quoting McManus v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 320 F.3d 545, 548 (5th Cir. 2003)); see also Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350–51 (same).
2. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs had demonstrated the existence of “questions of law or fact common” to the General Class and the subclasses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). For the General Class, the district court identified the following common questions: (1) “that excessive heat constitutes a condition of confinement that poses a substantial risk of serious harm to the health of all inmates”; and (2) “that TDCJ officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk posed to the inmates.” Further, the district court concluded that the “heat-sensitive subclass has the same common contentions as the General Class, but the subclass must only prove a substantial risk of serious harm, and deliberate indifference, to the inmates with heat sensitivity.” Finally, as to the disability subclass, the district court stated that “[o]ne additional common contention of the disability subclass is that TDCJ officials failed to provide reasonable accommodations to inmates suffering from disabilities that may impact (or that cause the inmates to take medication that may impact) their ability to withstand extreme heat.”
i. General Class Defendants’ overarching objection to the district court’s certification of the General Class focuses on the first common contention—that “excessive heat constitutes a condition of confinement that poses a substantial risk of serious harm to the health of inmates.” Defendants do not contest that putative class members are all exposed to essentially the same temperatures. Defendants also do not contest that Pack Unit temperatures, particularly in the summer months, are often extreme. Nor do they contest that, absent mitigation measures, every inmate in the Pack Unit is at a substantial risk of
9

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 serious harm due to the heat. They do contest, however, the ability to decide the substantial-risk-of-serious-harm question “in one stroke,” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350, in light of the various heat mitigation measures that TDCJ makes available to Pack Unit inmates.
Specifically, Defendants assert that the efficacy of TDCJ’s heatmitigation measures to reduce the risk of serious harm to a constitutionally acceptable level will largely depend on the age and health of each particular individual—for the young and healthy, they may; for the old and sick, they may not. And because the Pack Unit inmate population is diverse in both age and health, it is impossible to determine all at once whether the excessive heat in the Pack Unit “constitutes a condition of confinement that poses a substantial risk of serious harm to the health of all inmates.” So, Defendants assert that in order for this question to be “common” for Rule 23(a) purposes Plaintiffs were required to prove “that even the youngest, healthiest, and most acclimatized inmates face a substantial threat of serious harm despite TDCJ’s existing heat-mitigation measures.”
The district court made precisely this finding. It acknowledged that “[n]o two individuals have the exact same risk.” Nonetheless, it concluded that this “obvious fact [does not] destroy[ ] commonality” because “[t]he evidence calls into serious question the adequacy of TDCJ’s mitigation measures—as applied in practice—in reducing the heat risk for all the inmates, and particularly those with comorbidities that diminish their ability to thermoregulate.” In other words, the district court found, based on the expert testimony, that TDCJ’s heat-mitigation measures—more frequent showers, cold drinking water, fans, and temporary access to air-conditioned “respite areas”—were ineffective to reduce the risk of serious harm to a constitutionally permissible level for any inmate, including the healthy inmates, and the Defendants concede the existence of a common question under these circumstances. Thus, in order to
10

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 prevail, the Defendants must demonstrate that the district court’s factual finding is clearly erroneous.4
“A finding of fact is ‘clearly erroneous’ only when although there may be evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Westwego Citizens for Better Gov’t v. City of Westwego, 946 F.2d 1109, 1118 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Campos v. City of Baytown, Texas, 840 F.2d 1240, 1243 (5th Cir. 1988)). “If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, [we] may not reverse . . . even though convinced that had [we] been sitting as the trier of fact, [we] would have weighed the evidence differently.” In re Omega Protein, Inc., 548 F.3d 361, 367 (5th Cir. 2008).
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err. The district court personally toured the Pack Unit and held a four day evidentiary hearing, resulting in thousands of pages of expert testimony and other evidence from both sides related to the heat impact on the inmates in the Pack Unit. During the hearing, Plaintiffs put forward two experts—Dr. McGeehin and Dr. Vassallo—who testified regarding the inadequacies of the TDCJ heatmitigation measures. Dr. McGeehin was previously the lead scientist with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) regarding health effects from extreme heat and heat waves; he has over fifteen years of experience in this area. Dr. Vassallo is a licensed physician and a recognized expert in the field of thermoregulation and hyperthermia, with over twenty-five years treating heat stroke and heat-related disorders. Dr. Vassallo has previously served as an
4 Defendants argue that the district court stopped short of finding that TDCJ’s heatmitigation measures were ineffective as to all inmates by concluding only that the evidence called their effectiveness into “serious question.” We conclude that the district court’s opinion can only fairly be read as concluding that TDCJ’s heat-mitigation measures are ineffective to sufficiently reduce the risk of serious harm as to all inmates.
11

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 expert witness in lawsuits challenging prison conditions, and this court has (at least) twice upheld district court findings that relied heavily on Dr. Vassallo’s testimony. See Ball, 792 F.3d at 593–94; Gates, 376 F.3d 339–40.
Dr. McGeehin testified that while showers are helpful “for the short term,” “giving a person a shower and then putting them back into a very hot, humid environment has limited effect.” Likewise, Dr. Vassallo testified that “taking extra showers” did not reduce the health risks of extreme heat to a “statistically significant” degree. This conclusion was supported by peerreviewed studies included in the record, indicating that “[t]aking extra showers or baths and using fan ventilation during a heat wave were associated with a trend toward lower risk of death but were not statistically significant.”
Dr. McGeehin’s testimony relied on peer-reviewed publications indicating that while fans may have a mitigating effect, they are actually counterproductive at higher temperatures: “Although fans provide a cooling effect by evaporating sweat, fan use can pose a significant risk when the heat index exceeds . . . 99 degrees Fahrenheit . . . because it serves to increase heat stress by blowing air that is warmer than body temperature over the skin surface.” He also indicated that the CDC does not recommend the use of fans when the temperature is above 95 degrees Fahrenheit, which frequently occurs in the Pack Unit. Dr. Vassallo likewise testified that “[f]ans are not protective at temperature[s] [of] 90 degrees with the humidity of 35 percent or more.”
As to air-conditioned “respite areas,” Plaintiffs also put forward evidence calling into question the effectiveness of TDCJ’s air-conditioned “respite areas.” For example, Dr. Vassallo testified that these respite areas are not “an adequate plan to deal with the heat risk” precisely because they are only temporary and so “the time [the inmates] are not in air-conditioning, they are subjected to the temperatures at the Pack Unit which are risky and cause harm, including sickness, morbidity and mortality.” Moreover, Dr. Vassallo
12

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 noted that the harmful effects of excessive heat can begin to occur before an individual might feel the need to go to an air-conditioned space: “Q. Is it possible for someone to start having cognitive problems from heat illness before they realize they need to go to air-conditioning? A. Of course.” Thus, according to Dr. Vassallo, because Pack Unit inmates must take the initiative to go to an air-conditioned respite area, they may not know they are in imminent danger until it is too late, and, especially at night, prison officials are unlikely to notice either. Finally, Plaintiffs offered affidavits from inmates in the Pack Unit indicating that access to air-conditioned “respite areas” is not “on demand,” and such rooms are often not available. The district court found these affidavits credible on this point—a determination to which we owe significant deference. See In re Omega Protein, 548 F.3d at 367 (“Findings based on the credibility of witnesses demand even greater deference.”). As Dr. McGeehin observed, while respite areas might theoretically be an effective measure, their effectiveness depends on being available to inmates upon request.5
Both of Plaintiffs’ experts indicated that the conditions in the Pack Unit, including the heat-mitigation measures, posed a substantial risk of harm to the inmates. In her expert report, Dr. Vassallo stated that “[t]he current measures used to mitigate these serious risks . . . are inadequate to sufficiently reduce the serious risk of harm to the inmates.” Upon reviewing TDCJ’s most up-to-date mitigation policy, Dr. McGeehin indicated that “it has some improvements in it, but it still has major areas of concern.” When asked whether “there [are] any really effective way[s], other than air-conditioning, to mitigate the risk of heat at the Pack Unit,” Dr. Vassallo said, “No.”
5 Notably, the district court could not determine whether an official policy regarding respite areas exists because “the only policy or practice of allowing inmates to access respite areas is . . . stated in an email, and cannot be found in a separate policy.”
13

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 Defendants put forward the testimony of Dr. Means and Dr. Reiger, who testified regarding the various factors relevant to an individual’s heat risk and concluded that the heat-mitigation measures at the Pack Unit were effective to reduce the risk of serious harm. Dr. Means is a former employee of TDCJ— a defendant in this case—and is herself a defendant in related wrongful death actions. The district court found that Dr. Means “was unable to directly answer most of the questions by Plaintiffs’ counsel,” was “nonresponsive to questions posed by [the district court],” and “appeared incapable of admitting to anything she did not view as helpful to her side’s case.” Consequently, the district court “found her to be biased and, frankly, unbelievable,” and therefore “[did not] credit any part of her testimony.” Notably, Defendants do not contest this finding. While Dr. Reiger testified that the heat-mitigation measures in the Pack Unit rendered the risk of harm “quite reasonable,” this conclusion was countered by the testimony of Dr. Vassallo and Dr. McGeehin, who, as already noted, concluded that the various heat mitigation measures that Defendants employ are of limited value in reducing inmate risk. Moreover, the district court specifically found Dr. Reiger’s testimony less credible, given that he consistently misremembered statements made by inmates regarding the availability of respite areas. Such credibility determinations fall squarely within the district court’s purview. See, e.g., Env’t Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 824 F.3d 507, 529 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e are extremely deferential to a district court’s assessment of witness credibility[.]”). Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, “[i]f the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, [we] may not reverse it even though convinced that had [we] been sitting as the trier of fact, [we] would have weighed the evidence differently.” In re Omega Protein, 548 F.3d at 367. Upon careful review of the record before us,
14

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 we conclude that the district court’s “account of the evidence is plausible,” id., and we are not “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See Westwego, 946 F.2d at 1118. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding that TDCJ’s heat-mitigation measures are ineffective to reduce the heat-related risk of serious harm below the constitutional baseline.
This being so, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the presence of a “question[ ] of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). As already noted, Defendants concede that “[c]ommonality required Plaintiffs to prove that TDCJ’s existing heatmitigation efforts necessarily mitigated the risk of high temperature for all class members or for none of them.” The district court found the latter to be true and, again, that finding is not clearly erroneous.6
ii. Subclasses Defendants also challenge the district court’s certification of the two subclasses. As noted, the district court certified a “heat-sensitive” subclass and a “disability” subclass. The heat-sensitive subclass, like the General Class, is asserting an Eighth Amendment claim. Likewise, the disability subclass
6 The district court also concluded that whether “TDCJ officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk posed to the inmates” was a separate common question. The Supreme Court has determined that “for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2) even a single common question will do[.]” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 359 (alterations omitted) (quotation marks omitted); see also Newberg on Class Actions § 3:20 (5th ed.). This holding is consistent with our prior decision in Forbush v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc., 994 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement is satisfied where there is “at least one” common question of law or fact). However, a later decision of ours—Applewhite v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 67 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 1995)—held that “class certification requires at least two issues in common.” Id. at 573 (emphasis added). Given that we are bound under the rule of orderliness to follow our earlier precedent, and must in any event adhere to Supreme Court precedent, we reaffirm that Rule 23(a)(2) requires only that a plaintiff demonstrate at least one common question of law or fact, notwithstanding Applewhite’s contrary holding. Accordingly, we have no cause to assess whether the district court’s second asserted common question satisfies Rule 23(a)(2).
15

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 asserts an Eighth Amendment claim, but also relies on a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. And, as noted, the district court determined that both subclasses shared the common questions it identified for the General Class.
Defendants’ primary objection to subclass certification is similar to their objection to General Class certification. They argue that the existence of a substantial risk of serious harm cannot be collectively determined because the risk of serious harm from excessive heat varies even among those with conditions rendering them susceptible to heat.
We reject Defendants’ challenge to certification of both subclasses. The district court found that TDCJ’s heat mitigation measures are not effective to bring the risk of serious harm below the constitutional baseline for any Pack Unit inmate—which includes the inmates within the subclasses who have some condition making them particularly susceptible to heat. In addition, the district court concluded that the disability subclass had the “additional common contention . . . that TDCJ officials failed to provide reasonable accommodations to inmates suffering from disabilities that may impact . . . their ability to withstand extreme heat.” We find no error.
B. 1. In addition to meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a), a plaintiff must also demonstrate that a proposed class satisfies one of the criteria articulated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Here, the district court certified the classes under Rule 23(b)(2), which permits class certification where “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).
16

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 It is well-established that “[i]nstead of requiring common issues, [Rule] 23(b)(2) requires common behavior by the defendant toward the class.” In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360, 365 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd. v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 624 F.3d 185, 198 (5th Cir. 2010) (same). Thus, we have held that Rule 23(b)(2) certification is available if three requirements are satisfied: (1) “class members must have been harmed in essentially the same way”; (2) “injunctive relief must predominate over monetary damage claims”; and (3) “the injunctive relief sought must be specific.” Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Found., 493 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Perry, 675 F.3d at 845. The specificity element requires plaintiffs to “give content” to the injunctive relief they seek “so that ‘final injunctive relief may be crafted to describe in reasonable detail the acts required.’” Perry, 675 F.3d at 848 (quoting Shook v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Cty. of El Paso, 543 F.3d 597, 605–06 (10th Cir. 2008)). The Supreme Court has further expounded on Rule 23(b)(2): The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them. In other words, Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant. Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 360 (quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
2. In their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs request the following injunctive relief for the General Class and both subclasses: Plaintiffs ask that the Court enjoin Defendants to maintain a safe indoor apparent temperature (e.g., maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower) inside each of the Pack Unit’s housing areas (calculated using the NWS heat index table), or enter other
17

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 injunctive relief sufficient to protect the health and safety of the prisoners at the Pack Unit. The district court concluded that the General Class and both subclasses “easily” met the standard for Rule 23(b)(2) because: (1) “the conditions of confinement [i.e., non-air-conditioned housing areas] apply uniformly to the class of inmates as a whole”; and (2) “[o]ther mitigation measures, such as providing ice water and fans, and the availability of respite areas, are similarly applied uniformly to all the inmates.” For this reason, the district court concluded that “[i]njunctive or declaratory relief . . . would be appropriate respecting the class as a whole if an Eighth Amendment violation were to be found,” whether “air-conditioning is indeed needed to cure the violation, or if less drastic measures (such as ordering TDCJ to create and adhere to a more definitive policy regarding respite areas) are shown to suffice . . . .” Defendants argue that certifying the classes under Rule 23(b)(2) was not appropriate. In essence, Defendants contend that the district court’s order does not “identify specific injunctive relief that could apply to the entire class or subclasses” or “explain how [that] single form of injunctive relief—whether it be air conditioning or something less—would necessarily be appropriate (or not) for the entire class.” According to Defendants, the district court improperly “assumed” that a single form of injunctive relief “would necessarily be required for all class members or none of them.” The district court did not abuse its discretion. By its terms, Rule 23(b)(2) looks to whether the defendant’s conduct applies “generally to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) does not require “common issues,” but rather “requires common behavior by the defendant towards the class,” In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d at 365, such that “class members . . . have been harmed in essentially the same way.” Perry, 675 F.3d at 845. Here, there is no serious question that Defendants have engaged in common behavior that “appl[ies]
18

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 generally to the class[es].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). All inmates, regardless of age or health, are subject to the same policy on climate control (i.e., their housing units are not air-conditioned), all have the same heat-mitigation measures available to them (whether or not those measures are effective), and all are (allegedly) harmed in essentially the same way—i.e., by exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm because of exposure to excessive heat. Thus, the same action/inaction by Defendants is the source of any injury for the entire General Class and the subclasses.
Defendants lean heavily on Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirement that “the injunctive relief sought . . . be specific,” Perry, 675 F.3d at 845, and that there be “content” given “so that ‘final injunctive relief may be crafted to describe in reasonable detail the acts required.’” Id. at 848 (quoting Shook, 543 F.3d at 605–06). Few of our cases expound on the “specificity” requirement. In one— Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation—we held that Rule 23(b)(2) certification was inappropriate where the plaintiffs sought to compel the defendants to provide “mutually affordable healthcare.” 493 F.3d at 524–25. There, we faulted the plaintiffs for not “identify[ing] any way to determine what a reasonable or ‘mutually affordable’ rate is for the wide variety of medical services offered by [the defendant].” Id. at 524.
We find this requirement satisfied here. While Plaintiffs requested that the district court “enjoin Defendants to maintain a safe indoor apparent temperature” (which admittedly offers little content), they also identified specific relief in “reasonable detail” that would fit this standard: “maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower.” The district court—of course aware of Plaintiffs’ requested relief—identified air-conditioning as a remedy that “would provide relief to each member of the class.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 360. While the district court did not specify the precise temperature (as the complaint does), Rule 23(b)(2) does not require that every jot and tittle of
19

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 injunctive relief be spelled out at the class certification stage; it requires only “reasonable detail” as to the “acts required.” Perry, 675 F.3d at 848. For this reason, this case is quite unlike Maldonado, where the requested injunctive relief (the provision of “mutually affordable health care”) lacked any meaningful content and provided no guidance.7
Defendants contend that the district court “fail[ed] to explain how a single form of injunctive relief . . . would necessarily be appropriate (or not) for the entire class.” It seems that Defendants take issue with the district court’s failure to explain how air-conditioning as a possible remedy could provide class-wide relief from injuries caused by excessive heat. The answer, of course, is self-evident, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to state the obvious. And, in any event, the district court heard expert testimony on this issue.
C. Defendants also argue that the district court’s Rule 23(b)(2) certification was prohibited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The relevant provision of the PLRA provides: Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
7 The Plaintiffs are not seeking damages in this case, so there is no issue as to whether “injunctive relief . . . predominate[s] over monetary damage claims[.]” Maldonado, 493 F.3d at 524.
20

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 The district court reasoned that the PLRA “does not prohibit[ ] classwide relief in this case” because it only “prohibits relief that is unnecessary to correct the alleged Eighth Amendment violation.” So, while the district court recognized that the PLRA’s restrictions on injunctive relief would later come into play, it concluded that they were irrelevant to class certification. Defendants argue that a district court is required to take Section 3626(a)(1)(A) into account when undergoing its Rule 23(b)(2) analysis. The rationale for this position is straightforward: Rule 23(b)(2) requires district courts to determine whether a single injunction (or declaratory relief) could remedy violations as to all class members; but, the PLRA limits the scope of permissible prospective relief to that which is “necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs,” id. § 3626(a)(1)(A); so, to be at all meaningful, a district court’s Rule 23(b)(2) analysis should only take account of injunctive relief that the PLRA would authorize it to award as a remedy. Defendants make this argument while acknowledging that one of our sister circuits has already rejected it. See Shook v. El Paso Cty., 386 F.3d 963, 969–71 (10th Cir. 2004). As is always the case when interpreting legal text, our task is to give effect to the language Congress has enacted, not to read additional meaning into the statute that its terms do not convey. See, e.g., Lewis v. City of Chicago, Ill., 560 U.S. 205, 217 (2010) (“Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted.”). It follows that when a statute is silent with respect to a particular subject, we will not construe the statute to nonetheless reach the matter. Indeed, “[t]he principle that a matter not covered is not covered is so obvious that it seems absurd to recite it.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 93 (Thomas/West 2012). This is especially true where the claim is that Congress has implicitly altered one provision of law via another provision; in such cases, Congress “ordinarily
21

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 provides a relatively clear indication of its intent [to do so] in the text[.]” See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1520 (2017).
The text of Section 3626(a)(1)(A) plainly says nothing at all about class actions or the requirements for class certification. Nor have Defendants directed us to any other provision of the PLRA—or any other statute for that matter—that would support applying Section 3626(a)(1)(A) at the class certification stage. There is therefore no basis for engrafting Section 3626(a)(1)(A)’s requirements onto Rule 23(b)(2).
In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Congress rarely seeks to effect a fundamental change in law through circuitous means. “Congress . . . does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Assocs., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). Rule 23(b)(2)—unlike the PLRA— does not require that the injunctive relief underlying the certification decision (or ultimately awarded as a remedy) be the bare minimum necessary to cure the violation as to each inmate. Applying Section 3626(a)(1)(A) at the class certification stage would work a considerable restriction on the availability of class action suits in the prison context. These lawsuits overwhelmingly involve Eighth Amendment claims, which require proof: (1) that the inmate “is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm”; and (2) that the defendant prison official was “deliberately indifferent” to that risk. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). As is true in this case, determining whether particular conditions pose a substantial risk of serious harm or whether there was deliberate indifference will often depend on characteristics that vary across a prison population. Imposing Section 3626(a)(1)(A)’s requirements at the class certification stage would pose a substantial barrier to class certification in a significant number of prison condition challenges. Absent some indication in the text of Section
22

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 3626(a)(1)(A), we cannot conclude that Congress intended that provision to alter the well-established requirements of class certification sub silentio.
Defendants’ argument is also in tension with our decision in Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126 (5th Cir. 1996), where we held that the PLRA is not implicated at all until the district court actually sets its hand to fashioning injunctive relief. Williams involved a prison case that was certified as a class action prior to the PLRA’s enactment. See id. at 128 & n.4, 133. The district court had not yet awarded prospective relief, and so we determined that Section 3626(a)(1)(A)—which only applies to prospective relief—“ha[d] yet to be triggered.” Id. at 133. The same principle applies here. Because the district court has not yet come to the point of awarding injunctive relief, “the provisions of [Section 3626(a)(1)] have yet to be triggered[.]” Id.
Relying on our decision in Ball v. LeBlanc, Defendants argue that the PLRA categorically prohibits an injunction requiring that the Pack Unit be airconditioned. This is not so. In Ball—which was not a class action case—we held that a permanent injunction requiring that a prison facility be air-conditioned was overbroad under the PLRA because the evidence produced at trial showed that “there [were] many acceptable remedies short of facility-wide air conditioning” that could possibly cure the Eighth Amendment violation. 792 F.3d at 598–99. In other words, Ball held that air-conditioning was not appropriate in that case because other acceptable and less-intrusive remedies had yet to be tried—not that air-conditioning was necessarily an impermissible remedy. Id. at 599. We also held that a facility-wide injunction was not appropriate under the PLRA because only the three named plaintiffs were at issue. Id. at 599–600.
Neither of these holdings precludes class certification here. Just as in Ball, if Plaintiffs obtain a favorable judgment at trial and it appears that airconditioning the Pack Unit “extend[s] . . . further than necessary to correct the
23

Case: 16-20505 Document: 00514123062 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-20505 violation,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), the district court would be required to tailor any injunctive relief to adhere to the PLRA. As the district court noted, “[i]f an Eighth Amendment violation is found, this Court will need to determine whether air-conditioning the housing areas is indeed the least intrusive means of correcting the violation, or whether augmenting the mitigation measures that are already in place at the Wallace Pack Unit would be sufficient to remedy the violation.” Nothing in Ball, however, requires the district court to make this determination at the point of certifying a class, and we do not pass judgment on the issue either.8
We hold that Section 3626(a)(1)(A) does not alter the requirements for certifying a class action under Rule 23(b)(2).
IV. Accordingly, because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the General Class or the subclasses, we AFFIRM.
8 The Defendants also cite to Gates v. Cook. In Gates, which was a class action case, the district court entered an injunction requiring, inter alia, that the defendant “provide fans, ice water, and daily showers when the heat index is 90 degrees or above . . . .” 376 F.3d at 339; see generally id. at 339–40. Of course, just because Gates affirmed a different injunction on a different record does not speak to whether the Plaintiffs’ requested relief in this case would be permissible under the PLRA.
24

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 771 Filed in TXSD on 08/08/17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 2
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
August 08, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KEITH COLE, et al, Plaintiffs,
vs.
BRYAN COLLIER, et al, Defendants.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-1698 § § § §

ORDER Pursuant to this Court's Memorandum and Opinion (Doc. No. 737) of July 17, 2017, Defendants were asked to redress unconstitutional practices and conditions within the Pack Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Before this Court is Defendants' Response to the Court's Memorandum and Opinion Setting out Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. No. 769). The parties appeared before the Court on August 8, 2017 to discuss the proposed remedies. Upon consideration of the parties' submissiom and the applicable law, the Court orders that: • Defendants begin transfers of all heat-sensitive people who are incarcerated in the Pack Unit. Transfers must begin forthwith and be concluded within three weeks of entry of this order. • Defendants begin installation oftemporary window screens, to be concluded within two weeks of entry of this order. • Defendants begin procurement, fabrication, and installation of permanent window screens, to be concluded within twenty-six weeks of entry of this order.

- - ---------
Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 771 Filed in TXSD on 08/08/17 Page 2 of 2

• Defendants post the Notice to Offenders regarding respite areas (Exhibit 1 to

Defendants' Response to the Court's Memorandum and Opinion Setting out Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law) in common areas forthwith, as a temporary measure while

the parties confer regarding updated language for the Notice to Offenders.

• The parties confer regarding the content and delivery of respite training and the content

and wording of the respite Notice to Offenders.

• The parties confer regarding the heat wave policy, including but not limited to the

definitions of excessive heat and heat wave.

• The parties jointly provide the Court with an updated heat wave policy, training plan,

and Notice to Offenders regarding respite areas within ten days of entry of this order. If

the parties are unable to agree on a joint submission, they may file proposed plans

separately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

~ay SIGNED in Houston, Texas, on this the

ofAugust, 2016.

KEITH P. LLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 820 Filed in TXSD on 09/14/17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 2
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
September 15, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KEITH COLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-1698

BRYAN COLLIER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Before this Court is Defendants' opposed Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction Due to Emergency Hurricane Evacuations (Doc. No. 796). Upon consideration of Defendants' motion, Plaintiffs' response (Doc. No. 813), Defendants' reply (Doc. No. 819), the parties' prior submissions and testimony regarding the preliminary injunction, and the applicable law, the Court denies Defendants' motion to modify the preliminary injunction. Defendants request that the Court temporarily suspend the preliminary injunction requirement that Defendants identify members of the heat-sensitive subclass and house them in areas where the apparent temperature remains below 88 degrees. (Doc. No. 796 at 3.) In its Memorandum and Opinion dated July 19, 2017, this Court found that there is a substantial risk of serious injury or death as a result of overheating. (Doc. No. 737 at 83-85.) The Court also found that the risk of serious illness or death can only be reduced to acceptable levels for the heatsensitive subclass by housing these heat-sensitive individuals in areas with apparent temperatures of 88 degrees or lower. (Doc. No. 737 at 96.) Approximately 600 individuals who are currently housed in the Pack Unit as a result of the hurricane evacuations are heat sensitive. (Doc. No.
1

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 820 Filed in TXSD on 09/14/17 Page 2 of 2

796-1 at 1.) The risk of harm to these individuals when they are housed in dangerously hot areas

has not changed. The record shows that multiple avenues are available through which TDCJ can

comply with the requirement to house heat-sensitive members of the subclass in areas with a safe

temperature, including transfer to air-conditioned beds in other units or use of temporary air-

conditioning in the Pack Unit.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to modify the

injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

L/~ SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the I

of September, 2017.

KEI~!Si{c (~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 854 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/17 Page 1 of 3

United States District Court

/

Southern District of Texas

ENTERED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

October 12, 2017

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

David J. Bradley, Clerk

HOUSTON DIVISION

KEITH COLE, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BRYAN COLLIER, eta/,
Defendants.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-01698 § § § §

MEMORDANUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction issued in this case, pending final disposition of this case. (Doc. No. 848.) The history and facts of this action are set out in greater detail in the Court's prior memorandum and order entered on July 19, 2017. (Doc. No. 737.) Plaintiffs request that the Court renew the provisions of the current preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 737) and add dates certain for the heat index restriction for the heat sensitive subclass. Defendants do not oppose the motion. Defendants' lack of opposition is conditioned on the parties' agreement that neither party makes any concession regarding the merits and neither side shall be prejudiced by seeking or agreeing to any extension of the preliminary relief or any findings required to extend the preliminary relief. 1 Nevertheless, this Court must analyze the evidence presented to ensure that a continuing preliminary injunction remains necessary to correct an ongoing constitutional violation. See 16 U.S.C. § 3626(a). After considering the evidence presented throughout this matter, the arguments of counsel, and all applicable law, the Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs' motion should be granted. The Court finds and concludes as follows:
1 Defendants do not concede the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or the Court's preliminary injunction order. The Court finds that Defendants have not waived any argument or defense.
1

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 854 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/17 Page 2 of 3
I. THE COURT REAFFIRMS ITS PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
The Court finds that the evidence presented during the hearings in this matter will be
applicable during the summer of 2018, in the absence of an order from this Court. The evidence
shows that temperatures and the heat index at the Wallace Pack Unit are consistently
dangerously hot during summer months, and therefore will be dangerously hot in the summer of 2018.2 The evidence further shows that a Court order will be necessary to ensure that the same constitutional violations do not recur in 2018.3 No intervening precedent since the Court's
preliminary injunction memorandum and order changes the Court's legal analysis.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence before the Court, the arguments of
counsel, all applicable filings, and the applicable law, the Court incorporates the findings and
conclusions contained in its July 19, 2017 order. Doc. No. 737. Based on these findings and
conclusions, the Court orders that the preliminary relief set forth in its July 19, 2017 order shall
continue in effect, subject to the clarification set forth below.
II. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE 88 DEGREE HEAT INDEX RESTRICTION FOR THE HEAT SENSITIVE SUBCLASS SHOULD BE IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD THROUGH OCTOBER 30, 2017 AND APRIL 15, 2018 THROUGH OCTOBER 30, 2018.
The Court finds that the heat index in the area near the Pack Unit seasonally exceeds safe
levels for prolonged periods of time. Based upon the "Local Climatological Data" data provided
by the National Centers for Environmental Information, an arm ofthe National Oceanic and
2 See, e.g., Plaintiffs' 2017 Hearing Exhibit 5; Doc. Nos. 693 & 693-1; National Centers for Environmental Information, Local Climatological Data for Brenham Municipal Airport, available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/LCD/stations/WBAN:53928/detail (last accessed Oct. 5, 2017). The Court takes judicial notice of the hourly temperature and humidity data for Brenham Municipal Airport for the period from January 1, 2006 through October 4, 2017. 3 See, e.g., Doc. No. 720-11, p. 15, Deposition of C. Ginsel, p. 57:8-15; Doc. No. 720-13, pp. 1012, Deposition ofL. Linthicum, pp. 206:21-208:10; Doc. No. 721.
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 854 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/17 Page 3 of 3
Atmospheric Administration, it is evident that the heat index outside of the Wallace Pack Unit often exceeds 88 degrees Farenheit for prolonged periods of time from approximately April15 through October 30 each year.4
Accordingly, the Court finds that the 88 degree Farenheit heat index restriction for the heat sensitive subclass enumerated in its July 19, 2017 order shall be in effect during the annual period of April 15 through October 30 to protect the subclass from a substantital risk of serious harm, including violations of their constitutional rights, as discussed in the prior order. The Court further finds that requiring a specific annual date range for the heat index restriction will assist TDCJ in its planning for compliance and ease the burdens of compliance, thus protecting the constitutional rights of the subclass in a manner that is narrrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
Plaintiffs' motion to extend the preliminary injunction is GRANTED. TDCJ is hereby ORDERED to propose any changes or clarifications to its plan for compliance, consistent with the foregoing, by February 9, 2018. Plaintiffs shall respond no later than March 23, 2018. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on October JJ_, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 See National Centers for Environmental Information, Local Climatological Data for Brenham Municipal Airport, available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdoweb/datasets/LCD/stations/WBAN:53928/detail (last accessed Oct. 5, 2017). The local climatological data includes air temperature and relative humidity, measured every twenty minutes. The heat index can be calculated from this data by using the National Weather Service online calculator. See National Weather Service, Heat Index Calculator, http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/htmllheatindex.shtml (last accessed Oct. 5, 2017).
3

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 955 Filed in TXSD on 01/12/18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 2
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 16, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KEITH COLE, et al, Plaintiffs,
·v.
BRYAN COLLIER, et al, Defendants.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-1698 § § § § §

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction issued in this class action. The history and facts of this action are set out in greater detail in the Court's prior order entered July 19, 2017 and October 12, 2017. See Docket Entry 737 & 854. Defendants' lack of opposition is conditioned on the parties' agreement that neither party makes any concession regarding the merits and neither side shall be prejudiced by seeking or agreeing to any extension of the preliminary relief or any findings required to extend the preliminary relief. 1 Nevertheless, this Court must analyze the evidence presented to ensure that a continuing preliminary injunction remains necessary to correct an ongoing constitutional violation. See 16 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(1). After considering the evidence presented throughout this matter, the arguments of counsel, and all applicable law, the Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs' motion should be GRANTED. The Court finds and concludes as follows:

1 Defendants do not concede the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or the Court's preliminary injunction order. The Court finds that Defendant has not waived any argument or defense.

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 955 Filed in TXSD on 01/12/18 Page 2 of 2

The Court finds that the evidence presented during the hearings in this matter will be equally applicable, in the absence of an order from this Court, during the summer of 2018. As to the facts, the evidence shows that the summer of 2018 wi II again be dangerously hot,2 and that a Court order will be necessary to ensure that the same constitutional violations do not recur in 2018.3 Further, no intervening precedent changes the Court's legal analysis.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence before the Court, the arguments of counsel, all applicable filings, and all applicable law, the Court incorporates the findings and conclusions contained in its July 19, 2017 and October 12, 2017 orders. Docket Entry 737 & 854; see FED. R. CIV. PROC. 65(a)(2). Based on these findings and conclusions, the Court ORDERS that the preliminary relief set forth in its July 19, 2017 order shall continue in effect, subject to the clarification in Doc. 854.
Accordingly, TDCJ is hereby ORDERED to propose any changes or clarifications to its plan for compliance, consistent with the foregoing, by February 9, 2018. Plaintiffs shall respond no later than March 23, 2018.

./!- SIGNED in Houston, Texas, on this the

)t___
day of January, 2018.

KEITH . LISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 See, e.g., Plaintiffs' 2017 Hearing Exhibit 5; Docket Entries 693 & 693-1. 3 See, e.g., Docket Entry 720-11, p. 15, Deposition of C. Ginsel as TDCJ 30(b)(6) representative, p. 57:8-15; Docket Entry 720-13, pp. 10-12, Deposition of L. Linthicum, pp. 206:21-208:10; Docket Entry 721.
2

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

KEITH COLE, JACKIE BRANNUM, RICHARD §

KING, MICHAEL DENTON, FRED WALLACE, §

and MARVIN RAY YATES, individually and on §

behalf of those similarly situated,

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v.

§

§

BRYAN COLLIER, in his official capacity,

§

ROBERT HERRERA, in his official capacity, and §

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, §

§

Defendants. §

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-1698

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Plaintiffs Keith Cole, Jackie Brannum, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Michael Denton, and Marvin Ray Yates, individually and on behalf of those similar situated, and Defendants Bryan Collier in his official capacity, Robert Herrera in his official capacity, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), enter into this Settlement Agreement and Release (Settlement Agreement”), subject to the approval of the Court. The Parties, in consideration of the mutual promises, agreements, and covenants contained herein, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, stipulate and agree as follows:

I. RECITALS WHEREAS, on June 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their original class action Complaint for
injunctive and declaratory relief only in this matter in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, alleging that Defendants engaged in conduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the ADA, the ADAAA, and the Rehabilitation Act; and
1

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 2 of 28
WHEREAS, the Court entered a preliminary injunction on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims finding Plaintiffs were substantially likely to prevail at trial (Doc. 737, p. 90);
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are prosecuting the Action on behalf of a Class and Subclass of TDCJ inmates residing at the Wallace Pack Unit in Navasota, Texas; and
WHEREAS, Defendants deny the allegations of the Action, deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, and deny any causation of harm or damage to the Settlement Class, as defined below; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants recognize that the outcome of the Action is uncertain, and that pursuing the Action to judgment would entail significant risk, cost, and delay; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have discussed and explored at length the legal and factual issues in the Action, and have participated in mediation sessions with the Honorable Scott Brister (Ret.) of the Texas Supreme Court concerning the issues raised by Plaintiffs in the action. Consequently, the Parties have agreed to a settlement of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class, including an agreement to resolve Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other terms necessary for a global settlement of the Action, subject to Court approval; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to compromise all claims for injunctive, equitable, or declaratory relief that were asserted or could have been asserted based upon the facts alleged in the Action by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Class, including all claims addressed in Plaintiffs’ complaint; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, by and through Class Counsel, have made a thorough investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations asserted in the Action,
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 3 of 28
engaged in extensive discovery and investigation of the Plaintiffs’ claims, and considered the law applicable to the claims asserted in the Action, including the defenses that Defendants would likely assert and Defendants’ pending appeals, and concluded after carefully considering the facts and applicable law, that it is in the best interest of the Settlement Class and Subclass to enter into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the uncertainties of continued litigation and to ensure a benefit to Plaintiffs and to the Members of the Settlement Class and Subclass; and
WHEREAS, Defendants, by and through their counsel, have concluded that settlement is desirable to avoid the time, expense, and inherent uncertainties of defending protracted litigation; to avoid further disruption of Defendants’ duties due to the pendency and defense of the Action; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced in this type of class litigation, recognize the risks and costs of prosecution of this Action, and believe that it is in Plaintiffs’ interest, and the interest of all Class and Subclass Members, to resolve this Action, and that the proposed Settlement is adequate, fair, and reasonable, and provides significant benefits and is in the best interests of the Class and Subclass; and
WHEREAS, significant arm’s length settlement negotiations have taken place between the Parties, and, as a result, this Settlement Agreement has been reached in good faith by all parties, without collusion, and subject to the approval of the Court; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shall not be deemed or construed to be an admission or evidence of any violation of any federal or state statute, rule or regulation, principle of common law or equity, or of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever by Defendants, or of the truth of any of the claims asserted in the Action, or elsewhere, but that nothing herein shall prevent Plaintiffs from enforcing the terms of this agreement; and
3

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 4 of 28
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the certification of the Settlement Class in connection with this Agreement shall have no bearing on the question whether the claims asserted in the Action are or were appropriate for class treatment in the absence of settlement;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, in consideration of the agreements, promises, and covenants set forth in this Settlement Agreement, acting in good faith and subject to the approval of the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, that all Class and Subclass claims and the Action alleged against Defendants identified herein be, and hereby are, compromised, settled, released, and discharged in accordance with the terms set forth below. II. DEFINITIONS As used in this Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below. Where appropriate, terms used in the singular shall be deemed to include the plural and vice versa. 2.1. “Action” shall mean the case captioned Keith Cole, Jackie Brannum, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Michael Denton, and Marvin Ray Yates, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. Bryan Collier in his official capacity, Robert Herrera in his official capacity, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Case No. 4:14-cv-1698, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and the claims asserted therein. 2.2. “Plaintiffs” and/or “the Class” shall have the meaning articulated in Section III(A) – “Class Membership” – of this Settlement Agreement. “Class Members” shall have the same meaning as “the Class.” 2.3. “The Subclass” shall have the meaning articulated in Section III (A) – “Class Membership” of this Settlement Agreement.
4

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 5 of 28
2.4. “Defendants” shall mean Bryan Collier in his official capacity, Robert Herrera in his official capacity, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2.5. “Class Counsel” shall mean Jeff Edwards, Esq. and the Edwards Law Firm. 2.6. “Class Representatives” shall mean Keith Cole, Jackie Brannum, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Michael Denton, and Marvin Ray Yates. 2.7. “Defendants’ Counsel” shall mean the Office of the Attorney General, and attorneys assigned by the Attorney General of Texas to represent the Defendants in this Action. 2.8. “Court” shall mean the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Hon. Keith Ellison, or such other judge as may be assigned to hear matters in the Action. 2.9. “Pack Unit” or “The Pack Unit” shall mean the Wallace Pack Unit in Navasota, Texas, including both the main building of the unit and the Trustee Camp co-located with those main buildings. 2.10. “Settlement Agreement,” “Agreement,” and/or “Proposed Settlement Agreement,” shall mean the express written terms (and only those terms) of this document (and only this document) once signed by all Parties to this Action, and by both Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel. 2.11. “Approval Motion” shall mean the motion filed with the Court in this Action in support of approval of this Proposed Settlement Agreement. 2.12. “Final Approval Order” shall mean the Court’s Order approving the Proposed Settlement Agreement. III. SETTLEMENT CLASS RELIEF AND CONSIDERATION
In consideration of a full, complete, and final settlement of the Action, and the Releases below, and subject to the Court’s approval, the Parties agree to the following relief:
5

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 6 of 28
Class Membership 1. Solely for purposes of this Settlement Agreement, and subject to Court approval, the Parties agree that this Action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of a Settlement Class and Subclass as follows: The general Settlement Class (the “Class”) shall be constituted by the inmates incarcerated at the Wallace Pack Unit on or between the dates of July 19, 2017 and August 8, 2017, and any inmates housed at the Pack Unit when this agreement is executed. Neither Class Representatives nor Class Counsel shall be deemed to represent or speak for any inmate moved into the Pack Unit after August 8, 2017, other than any inmates still housed at the Pack Unit when this agreement is executed; nor shall Defendants be bound by any obligation to such inmates originating in this Agreement or this Action other than the inmates expressly identified in Attachment A. Inmates who are not Members of the Class or Subclass, as defined herein, shall not gain any rights as a result of this Action, and shall not be bound by this Agreement or by the Settlement of this Action, or have any rights or causes-of-action extinguished thereby. The Class and Subclass members are specifically listed, by inmate name and identification number, in Attachment A hereto. The Parties agree and warrant that each of them has reviewed and investigated Attachment A; made their best efforts using all available resources to verify that the inmates listed on it completely and accurately reflect the identities of all Class Members, as the Class is defined in this paragraph; and brought to the attention of the other Party the identities of any inmates they believe may have been improperly included or excluded from Attachment A. This is reflected in the Declaration of Bryan Collier, attached hereto as Attachment B. The Parties agree and warrant that after performing this due diligence, each of them believes, as of the date of the execution of this Agreement, that Attachment A is
6

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 7 of 28
complete and accurate. Attachment A shall be appended to any preliminary and/or final order
concerning settlement approval. The Class shall not be further expanded or added to.
2. Subclass Definition: The Parties agree that they have used their best efforts to identify
agreed factors that could contribute to an elevated risk of heat injury and/or illness. The Parties
agree that multiple considerations should be taken into account when assessing the relative risk
posed by each such condition, which may vary from minor to serious. The Parties agree that
multiple co-morbidities, certain medical conditions, and certain pharmaceuticals pose more
substantial risks than the risks posed by other medical conditions and/or pharmaceuticals. The
Parties agree that qualified expert physicians may assess the degree of risk posed by each factor
that can materially contribute to heat sensitivity, and that it is proper for TDCJ to prioritize the
protection of those inmates at a relatively higher risk. For purposes of this settlement only (in
which the Pack Unit will be air conditioned), the Parties agree that the settlement heat-sensitive
Subclass (“Subclass”) shall be defined to include those inmates listed on Attachment A who are
presently are in or later come into one or more of the following twenty-six (26) categories (listed
in no particular order), and to exclude all other inmates, whether those inmates are Class
Members or not:
A. Inmates who are 65 or older. B. Inmates diagnosed with Coronary Artery Disease. C. Inmates diagnosed with Congestive Heart Failure. D. Inmates diagnosed with Cardiovascular Disease. E. Inmates diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis. F. Inmates diagnosed with a Sweat Gland disorder. G. Inmates diagnosed with Sjogren’s syndrome. H. Inmates diagnosed with Asthma, EXCEPT inmates diagnosed with mild/intermittent
Asthma – i.e., those patients prescribed albuterol inhaler ONLY and not prescribed inhaled or oral steroids and/or long-acting beta-agonist inhalers. I. Inmates diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) EXCEPT inmates prescribed albuterol inhaler ONLY and not prescribed inhaled or oral steroids and/or long-acting beta-agonist inhalers.
7

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 8 of 28
J. Cirrhotic inmates who are also receiving a diuretic, or daily laxatives, or the nonabsorbable antibiotics Rifamixin or Neomycin (an inmate need only be prescribed one of the three to be included).
K. Inmates diagnosed with Obesity. L. Inmates with BMI above 40. M. Inmates with BMI between 35 and 40. N. Inmates with BMI between 30 and 35. O. Inmates receiving Antipsychotic drugs. P. Inmates receiving Lithium. Q. Inmates receiving Tricyclic antidepressants. R. Inmates receiving diuretics. S. Diabetes, if accompanied by diagnosed resultant target organ damage which increases
risk of heat-related injury and/or illness, to include diagnosed neuropathy. T. Inmates receiving bupropion. U. Inmates chronically receiving high-activity anticholinergic medications, including but
not limited to 1st generation antihistamines. V. Inmates receiving beta blockers. W. Hypertension uncontrolled by medication and resulting in target organ damage which
increases risk of heat-related illness and/or injury. X. Inmates diagnosed with active psychiatric conditions, defined as schizophrenia,
schizo-affective disorder, and/or dementia/Alzheimer’s disease, psychosis, and bipolar disorder, but excluding inmates diagnosed with drug-induced psychiatric conditions resolved or resolvable by drug treatment. Y. Inmates with developmental disabilities. Z. Inmates receiving the anti-convulsant drugs carbamazepine (Tegretol), topiramate (Topamax), and zonisamide.
3. Inmates included in either the Class or Subclass shall have the ability to voluntarily “opt
out” at any time up to and after a final approval of any class settlement. They shall be removed
from the relevant class membership for all purposes and may not opt back in. “Opt outs” shall
be monitored by the Class Counsel, as specified herein, and reported to the Defense Counsel and
the Court in the regular course of business. The Parties agree that upon release from TDCJ
incarceration (including release to a halfway house or to Federal incarceration, but not to include
the achievement of “trustee” status), an inmate’s status as a Class and/or Subclass Member shall
be forever extinguished, not to be resurrected even if the inmate is subsequently sentenced by a
court to serve incarceration in a correctional institution in the TDCJ system.
8

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 9 of 28
A. Air Conditioning 1. All housing areas in the Pack Unit will be air conditioned, using temporary measures, from April 15, 2018 to October 15, 2018; and from April 15, 2019 to October 15, 2019. The heat index in the Pack Unit housing areas shall not exceed 88 degrees Fahrenheit during these time periods; except that, in the event of an equipment malfunction resulting in the heat index rising above 88 degrees, TDCJ shall repair or replace the malfunctioning equipment, or otherwise provide housing areas below 88 degrees Fahrenheit heat index to Subclass members, as expeditiously as possible, but in no longer than 96 hours. If there is an equipment malfunction lasting longer than twenty-four (24) hours during the any period from April 15 to October 15 any year which results in the indoor heat index rising above 88 degrees Fahrenheit, TDCJ shall notify Class Counsel on the first business day after the disruption. If, during an equipment malfunction, the heat index rises above 88 degrees as measured at the Pack Unit by Defendants, or if Plaintiffs notify Defendants that the heat index is above 88 degrees at the Brenham Municipal Airport weather station, TDCJ shall provide the following temporary mitigation measures:
• Access to air-conditioned “respite” areas for an unlimited amount of time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, upon request by any inmate;
• Access to cool showers of unlimited length, 24 hours a day, seven days a week; • Public postings and training warning inmates of the heat and encouraging them to
avail themselves of “respite” areas and cool showers; • Cold drinking water accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week; • Notify Class Counsel on the first business day of or after the disruption of air
conditioning with subsequent updates on any business day which the disruption continues, including by identifying the areas without operating equipment; describing
9

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 10 of 28
the expected timeline to repair or replace the equipment; providing all temperature, heat index, and humidity records for such time as the air conditioning is disrupted; and providing the identities of all affected inmates if requested; and, • Implement all measures listed in TDCJ’s then current “Annual Heat Directive”. 2. Subject to legislative approval, TDCJ will install permanent air-conditioning in all housing areas of the Pack Unit by May 1, 2020. Permanent air conditioning will keep the heat index at 88 degrees Fahrenheit or less in those housing areas; except that, in the event of an equipment malfunction resulting in the heat index rising above 88 degrees, TDCJ shall repair or replace the malfunctioning equipment or otherwise provide housing areas below 88 degrees Fahrenheit heat index to Subclass members, as expeditiously as possible, but after no longer than 96 hours. If there is an equipment malfunction lasting longer than twenty-four (24) hours during any April 15 to October 15 period, TDCJ shall notify Class Counsel on the first business day after the disruption. If, during an equipment malfunction, the heat index rises above 88 degrees as measured at the Pack Unit by Defendants or if Plaintiffs notify Defendants that the heat index is above 88 degrees at the Brenham Municipal Airport weather station, TDCJ shall provide the following temporary measures: • Access to air-conditioned “respite” areas for an unlimited amount of time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, upon request by any inmate; • Access to cool showers of unlimited length, 24 hours a day, seven days a week; • Public postings and training warning inmates of the heat and encouraging them to avail themselves of “respite” areas and cool showers; • Cold drinking water accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 11 of 28
• Notify Class Counsel on the first business day of or after the disruption of air conditioning with subsequent updates on any business day which the disruption continues, including by identifying the areas without operating equipment; describing the expected timeline to repair or replace the equipment; providing all temperature, heat index, and humidity records for such time as the air conditioning is disrupted; and providing the identities of all affected inmates if requested; and,
• Implement all measures listed in TDCJ’s then current “Annual Heat Directive”. 3. If for any reason permanent air conditioning is not achieved by May 1, 2020, temporary air conditioning will be provided during any April 15 to October 15 period while any Class or Subclass member is present at the Pack Unit. 4. Class and Subclass members will be housed at the Pack Unit unless they voluntarily optout as provided above and described in further detail below, or are subject to involuntary transfers out of the Pack Unit to receive medical treatment or for legitimate prison security reasons as discussed below. It is the intent of this agreement to provide that all Class and Subclass members who do not affirmatively opt-out shall receive an air-conditioned housing assignment for the duration of their current incarceration. Class Members requiring medical beds not available at the Pack Unit shall be transferred to air-conditioned medical beds elsewhere in the system for so long as the medical need persists. Class and Subclass members not currently residing at the Pack Unit will be moved back to the Pack Unit no later than the date of the execution of this Agreement, unless already residing in an air conditioned medical bed at another unit if there are no appropriate medical beds available at the Pack Unit, or already residing in an air-conditioned parole-voted programming bed. Inmates not in the Class or Subclass, as defined herein, will be moved out of the Pack Unit, as previously represented to the Court.
11

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 12 of 28
B. Transfers 1. Because of a medical condition, Class and Subclass members may be temporarily or permanently transferred to medical facilities that are air conditioned as directed by qualified medical personnel. 2. Because the Pack Unit has only dormitory housing, it may not house G4 offenders or G5 offenders. These classifications require cellblock housing. The Pack Unit also does not have administrative segregation housing. If a Class or Subclass member acquires a heightened security classification or must be placed in administrative segregation, he will be transferred from the Pack Unit. Class members shall be moved to other air-conditioned housing facilities in accordance with their reclassifications. 3. During medical appointments and other necessary travel within the TDCJ system, Subclass members shall be transported in air-conditioned vehicles. C. Other Heat Mitigation Measures 1. Other heat mitigation measures mandated in the Court’s preliminary injunction orders shall not be included as part of any settlement, and shall not be mandated by any Final Order, except as necessary to address heat indexes above 88 degrees during an equipment failure as described above. D. Programming 1. All conditional parole-voted programs shall be offered in air-conditioned facilities to Class and Subclass members, except the Innerchange Freedom Initiative, which is a voluntary program.
12

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 13 of 28
E. Class Member Rights Enforcement 1. Subject to Court approval stating their rights under any Class settlement, Class and Subclass Members shall be provided a memorandum in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C. Class members shall be informed that any claimed violations of any Class settlement shall be exclusively submitted to Class counsel, the Edwards Law Firm. The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to dispose of any such claims at the request of Class counsel. F. Attorneys’ Fees 1. Solely for the purposes of enforcing payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses, the Parties agree that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205. The Parties agree and stipulate that Plaintiffs’ fair, reasonable, and necessary attorneys’ fees and expenses in this case are $4,500,000, and agree that payment of fees and expenses in this amount is a material term of this agreement. The Parties recognize that approval of the Attorney General of Texas, the Governor of Texas, and the Texas Legislature are necessary before payment of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in this amount. The Parties expressly agree that this amount ($4,500,000) represents a fair, reasonable, and necessary attorneys’ fee for litigation of this duration and complexity. 2. In the event that Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $4,500,000 have not been paid in full by September 30, 2019, TDCJ agrees to (a) a stipulation of judgment in the amount of $4,500,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% from January 30, 2018, to be entered in the Court, and (b) to waive all rights of appeal related to such stipulation of judgment. The Parties further agree that the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over all issues related to attorneys’ fees and expenses.
13

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 14 of 28
IV. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 4.1. Approval Motion. Promptly upon execution of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs, acting as Class Representatives, through Class Counsel, shall file an Approval Motion. The Approval Motion shall request that this Court approve the Settlement Agreement and enter an Approval Order including provisions:
a. Certifying the Settlement Class and Settlement Subclass, superseding any prior proposed or court-approved classes, constituted as described in Section III(A) of this Agreement, for the sole purpose of effectuating this settlement;
b. Appointing Keith Cole, Jackie Brannum, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Michael Denton, and Marvin Ray Yates as representatives of the Class and Subclass;
c. Appointing Class Counsel as counsel for the Class and Subclass; d. Granting preliminary approval to this Settlement by order substantially in the
form attached as Attachment D (the Approval Order), and finding this Settlement sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to allow Notice to be disseminated to the Settlement Class and Subclass; e. Approving a Settlement Notice and Request for Exclusion/Opt-Out notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Attachment D; f. Setting a schedule for proceedings with respect to final approval of this Settlement; and g. Providing that, pending entry of a Final Approval Order and Judgment, no Settlement Class or Subclass Member (either directly, in a representative capacity,
14

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 15 of 28
or in any other capacity) shall commence or continue any action against the Released Parties asserting any of the Class Released Claims. Defendants and Defendants’ Counsel shall not oppose the Approval Motion. 4.2 Best Efforts. The Parties acknowledge that prompt approval, consummation, and implementation of the Settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement are essential. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in good faith to carry out and effectuate this Settlement Agreement. 4.3 Finality. This Settlement Agreement shall become Final upon the occurrence of the following events:
(a) An Order by the Court certifying the Settlement Class has been entered;
(b) A Dismissal Order has been entered, including dismissal of all claims in this Action against Defendants by Members of the Settlement Class and Subclass who do not exclude themselves (“opt-out”), with prejudice, incorporating the Release on behalf of all members of the Settlement Class and Subclass; and,
(c) The time for appeal of the Dismissal Order and Final Judgment has expired, or, if an appeal is noticed, it has been dismissed or the final judgment has been affirmed in its entirety and the affirmance has become no longer subject to further appeal or review (the “Effective Date”). V. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY
Neither the acceptance by Defendants of the terms of this Settlement Agreement nor any of the related negotiations or proceedings constitute any admission with respect to the merits of the claims alleged in the Action, the validity of any claims that could have been asserted by any of the Settlement Class or Subclass Members in the Action, or the liability of any Defendant in the Action, other than as specifically stated in this Agreement. This Settlement Agreement shall not be used, offered, or received
15

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 16 of 28
into evidence in the Action for any purpose other than pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626 to enforce, to construe, or to finalize the terms of the Settlement Agreement or to obtain the preliminary and final approval by the Court of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. V. NOTICE, OBJECTIONS, AND REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION 6.1 Notice to the Settlement Class shall be provided in the forms approved by the Court in
the Approval Order. 6.2 Class Counsel, with cooperation from Defense Counsel, shall be responsible for all of the following:
a. Disseminating within fourteen days of the execution of this Settlement Agreement to the Class Members the Settlement Notice and Request for Exclusion/Opt-Out notice approved by the Court, substantially in the form attached hereto as Attachment E; b. Answering inquiries from Class Members about Opt-Out rights and/or Objections to the Settlement. With regards to this subpart, within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement, Class Counsel and Defense Counsel shall provide notice to the Class and Subclass members (consistent with the terms of this Agreement and with Attachment E, as approved by the Court), including an explanation of the opt out procedure; c. Keeping track of opt-outs and objections to the Settlement, advising any Class or Subclass Members who express a desire to Opt-Out, as set forth below; and promptly and on an ongoing basis notifying Defense Counsel and the Court, of all such opt-outs and objections by Class and/or Subclass Members, within forty days of receipt of such; and d. Necessary monitoring of compliance with this agreement. e. Such other tasks as Class Counsel and Defense Counsel mutually agree, or as required by the Court.
16

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 17 of 28
f. For performance of these duties which shall be concluded upon the entry of Final Judgment, Class Counsel shall be entitled to an additional attorneys’ fee of $219/hour (with the first 20 hours to be provided pro bono), not to exceed $48,000 annually, in addition to the fee in Section III(F). Class Counsel shall quarterly submit any such requests for attorneys’ fees in performance of these duties. TDCJ shall pay all reasonable fee requests within 45 days of receipt. In the event of a dispute regarding these attorneys’ fees, the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. 6.3. TDCJ, in cooperation with Class Counsel, shall be responsible for (a) posting a copy of the Settlement Notice in each housing area and the law library of the Pack Unit, and (b) maintaining sufficient copies of the Opt-Out form (Attachment E) in the Pack Unit’s law library such that a copy of the form is always available for use by any Class or Subclass member seeking to opt out.
6.4 Requests for Exclusion/Opt-Out Procedures a. Class Counsel, with cooperation from Defense Counsel, will provide to all Class and Subclass Members, within fourteen days of the Court’s Approval Order, the “Class Action Exclusion/Opt-Out Notice,” approved by the Court, substantially in the form of Attachment E, attached hereto, explaining the Members’ right to request exclusion from the Class and Subclass and the procedures for doing so, and including the form (approved by the Court) for inmates to complete if they wish to exclude themselves from the Class. b. The Parties will request, as part of the Approval Order, that the Court require that any Class or Subclass Member who wishes to exclude himself (“opt out”) from the class action and from this Settlement submit the approved form to the Court, whereupon, the Court may approve a request for exclusion on the basis of the Class or Subclass
17

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 18 of 28
Member’s written request; or, if necessary, may hold a hearing before approving or denying the request. c. Class or Subclass Members shall be permitted to exclude themselves (“opt-out”) from the Class and/or Subclass so long as the Court is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the inmate is not making the request as the result of any actual external compulsion or threats sufficient to override their free will. Inmates shall be free to choose to exclude themselves from the class (“opt-out”) on the basis that they wish to leave the Pack Unit in order to obtain benefits not available at the Pack Unit (including, but not limited to: preferred geographical location; proximity to family and/or friends; access to educational, trade, or vocational programs located elsewhere; preferred religious programming, communities, and/or amenities located elsewhere.). An inmate’s choice to exclude himself from the Class and/or Subclass, once approved by the Court, shall be irrevocable. d. The Parties will also request that the Court enter an Order, at least seven days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, requiring any Class or Subclass Member who wishes any objection to this Settlement to be considered, to file with the Court a written objection, by the Objection Date. To state a valid objection, an objecting Class or Subclass Member must provide to the Court the following information in his written objection: (i) the name of the lawsuit; (ii) full name, inmate number, and current housing assignment; (iii) a statement of the position(s) the objector wishes to assert, including the factual and legal grounds for the position; and (iv) the objector’s signature and the date of the signature.
18

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 19 of 28
e. Subject to approval of the Court, any objector may appear, in person, by telephone pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(f)(1), or by counsel, at the Final Approval Hearing held by the Court, to (i) show cause why the proposed Settlement should not be approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable; or (ii) object to any petitions for attorneys’ fees and costs. f. Any person who fails to raise an objection or opposition to this Settlement in the manner described herein shall be foreclosed from making such objection or opposition. Any person that fails to file a timely written objection shall have no right to file an appeal relating to the approval of this Settlement. VI. RELEASE AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 7.1 Binding and Exclusive Nature of Settlement Agreement. On the Effective Date, the Parties and each and every Settlement Class and Subclass Member shall be bound by this Settlement Agreement and shall have recourse exclusively to the benefits, rights, and remedies provided herein. No other action, demand, suit, or other claim for equitable or injunctive relief may be pursued against the Released Parties with respect to the Class Released Claims. 7.2 Release by Class Members. On the Effective Date, all Class and Subclass Members hereby fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish, and discharge any and all injunctive, equitable, or declaratory relief claims, liens, demands, actions, and causes of action of any nature that they have, had, may have, or could have raised against Defendants and Released Parties, arising out of any of the legal and/or factual allegations and/or legal claims of the Action. 7.3 Releases by Class Representatives. On the Effective Date, the Class Representatives in their individual capacities hereby fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish, and discharge any and all claims, liens, demands, actions, and causes of action of any nature that they have, or had been made against Defendant and Released Parties, arising out of any of the allegations of the
19

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 20 of 28
Action, and hereby expressly waive and relinquish any and all claims they had raised arising out of the allegations of the Action. This release is intended to be a general one covering claims or demands brought in this litigation by the Class Representatives in their individual capacities. 7.4 Assumption of Risk. In entering into this Settlement Agreement, each of the Parties assumes the risk of any mistake of fact or law. The Parties and the Class and Subclass Members recognize and warrant that even if they later discover facts in addition to or different from those which they now know or believe to be true, they nevertheless agree that, upon entry of the Final Approval Order and accompanying Judgment, Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass Members fully, finally, and forever settle and release all of the Released Claims. If either Party should later discover that any fact which the Party relied upon in entering this Settlement Agreement is not true, or that the Party’s understanding of the law or facts was incorrect, the Party shall not be entitled to modify, reform, or set aside this Settlement Agreement, in whole or in part, by reason thereof. The Parties agree that at the time this Settlement Agreement was executed, there were unsettled issues of relevant law, and the Parties agree to honor this Agreement regardless of developments in the law after execution. The Parties acknowledge that the foregoing waiver and release was bargained for and is a material element of the Settlement Agreement. 7.5 Upon issuance of the Final Approval Order by the Court: (i) the Settlement Agreement shall be the exclusive remedy for any and all Class and Subclass Members; (ii) Defendants shall not be subject to liability for injunctive or declarative relief to any Class or Subclass Member for reasons related to the Action, except as explicitly set forth herein; and (iii) Class and Subclass Members shall be permanently barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting any and all of the Released Claims against Defendants.
20

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 21 of 28
7.6 Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order or Final Judgment in any way, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over (i) the enforcement of this Settlement Agreement, the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment; and (ii) the “opt-out” of Class and/or Subclass Members from the Class and/or Subclass. 7.7 The Parties agree that the Court found in a Preliminary Injunction Order that there was a substantial likelihood that trial in this matter would result in a finding that Class members’ federal rights were violated by conditions at the Pack Unit. The Parties agree that Defendants appealed that preliminary finding to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and intended to contend at trial on the merits in U.S. District Court that no such violations exist. The Parties agree that at the time of this Settlement Agreement, both the trial in this case and the appeal of the Preliminary Injunction Order remained pending, and the final outcomes at both trial and appeal remained uncertain. The Parties agree that, for settlement purposes only, the measures provided by this Settlement Agreement are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the alleged violations of the federal rights of the Plaintiffs, Class, and Subclass, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct these alleged violations of the Plaintiffs, Class, and Subclass’ federal rights. The Parties further agree that the measures provided by this settlement will not cause any adverse impact on public safety or operation of the criminal justice system. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). The Parties agree that the Settlement Agreement extends no further than necessary to enforce the alleged violations of the Class and Subclass members’ federal rights, and that the scope of all the remedies included in the Settlement Agreement are proportional to cure the alleged violations. It is the express intent of the Parties for this provision to comply in all respects with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) for purposes of enforcing this agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the Hon. Keith Ellison presiding. The
21

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 22 of 28
Parties represent, and will jointly ask the Court to find, that the Settlement Agreement complies in all respects with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The Parties agree that the provisions of this section, and of this Settlement Agreement, do not constitute, and shall not be construed to constitute, any admission or acknowledgement by Defendants that any federal rights of Class Members have been violated, or respecting any alleged liability, fault, omission, or wrongdoing of any kind, without prejudice or limitation, however, to the ability of Class Counsel to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). 7.8 Upon the permanent installation of air conditioning, the Parties shall notify the Court and ask for the case to be dismissed with prejudice. Class and Subclass members may continue to opt out following dismissal of the case. Defendants anticipate installation of permanent air conditioning at the Pack Unit will be completed before the summer of 2020. Defendants agree not to move to terminate any temporary relief afforded by the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the terms herein before the installation of permanent air conditioning at the Pack Unit. Defendants agree to provide written notice to Class Counsel 60 days before filing any termination motion. Defendants agree not to move to decertify the Class or Subclass. Defendants agree they will not appeal any of the relief the parties request the Court approve, including, but not limited to, the installation of temporary or permanent air conditioning, or the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses. VIII. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, COVENANTS 8.1. Class Representatives and Class Counsel, who are signatories hereto, represent and warrant that they have the authority, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass, to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement, and to consummate all transactions contemplated thereby. This Settlement Agreement has been duly and validly executed and
22

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 23 of 28
delivered by Class Counsel and Plaintiffs and constitutes their legal, valid, and binding obligation. 8.2. Defendants represent and warrant that they have the authority to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated thereby; except that, the Settlement Agreement, and all its terms, are expressly conditioned upon approval by the Texas Legislature, pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 111; and subsequent signature by the Governor of Texas. IX. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1. Construction and Interpretation. This Settlement Agreement is entered into only for purposes of settlement. In the event the Final Approval Order is not entered or is subsequently reversed by an appeal, the Parties agree to use their best efforts to cure any defect(s) identified by the Court. If, despite their best efforts, the Parties cannot cure said defects, this Settlement Agreement, including any releases or dismissals hereunder, is cancelled, and no term or condition of this Settlement Agreement, or any draft thereof, or of the discussion, negotiation, documentation or other part or aspect of the Parties’ settlement discussions, shall have any effect, nor shall any such matter be admissible in evidence for any purpose, or used for any purposes whatsoever in the Action or any other proceeding, and any judgment or order entered by the Court in accordance with the terms of this agreement shall be treated as vacated. 9.2. Settlement Class and Subclass Member Signatures. The Parties agree that, because the Settlement Class and Subclass Members are so numerous, it is impractical to have each Settlement Class Member execute the Settlement Agreement. The Notice will advise all Settlement Class Members of the binding nature of the Releases and of the remainder of the Settlement Agreement, and in the absence of a valid Request for Exclusion, such Notice shall
23

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 24 of 28
have the same force and effect as if each Settlement Class and Subclass Member executed this Settlement Agreement. 9.2. Modification in Writing. This Settlement Agreement may not be modified or amended except in writing and signed by all the Parties. This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire, fully integrated agreement between the Parties, and supersedes all prior written and unwritten agreements and understandings pertaining to the settlement of the Action. 9.3. Counterpart Originals. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 9.4. Reasonable Extensions of Time. The Parties to this Settlement Agreement reserve the right, by agreement and subject to the Court’s approval, to grant any reasonable extensions of time that might be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, and to correct any non-substantive mistakes or typographical errors contained in any of the Settlement papers. 9.5. Drafting of the Settlement. The determination of the terms of, and the drafting of, this Settlement Agreement has been by mutual agreement after negotiation, with consideration by and participation of all Parties and their respective counsel. Since this Settlement Agreement was drafted with the participation of all Parties and their counsel, the presumption that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafter does not apply. There was no disparity in bargaining power among the Parties to this Settlement Agreement. 9.6. Parties to Bear Costs. Except as otherwise provided in this Settlement Agreement, each party to this Settlement Agreement shall bear his own costs of the Action to date.
24

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 25 of 28

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 26 of 28

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 27 of 28

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 989-4 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/18 Page 28 of 28

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1061 Filed on 03/23/18 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 23, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1061 Filed on 03/23/18 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1061 Filed on 03/23/18 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 35
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 08, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KEITH COLE, individually, and

§

JACKIE BRANNUM, RICHARD KING,§

MICHAEL DENTON, FRED

§

WALLACE, and MARVIN RAY

§

YATES, individually and on behalf of §

those similarly situated,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

BRYAN COLLIER, in his official

§

capacity, ROBERTO HERRERA, in his §

official capacity, and TEXAS

§

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

§

JUSTICE,

§

§

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-1698

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Plaintiffs in this class action are incarcerated in the Wallace Pack Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice prison system. Plaintiffs brought the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act to end TDCJ’s policy

and practice of exposing them to extreme, unsafe heat. They allege that the extreme heat that

they face each summer subjects them to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the

Eighth Amendment, and infringes on the rights of disabled prisoners to reasonable

accommodations.

After nearly four years of contentious litigation, the parties reached agreement on a class

settlement, which requires TDCJ to air-condition the housing units in which class members

1

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 2 of 35
reside. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, directed notice to the class, and held a final fairness hearing.
Based on the memorandum and documents in support of the proposed settlement, the parties’ arguments at the preliminary approval hearing, the filed objections, the parties’ and objectors’ arguments at the final fairness hearing, the remainder of the record, and the relevant law, this Court approves the proposed settlement for the reasons set forth below. I. BACKGROUND
Keith Cole, Jackie Brannum, Richard King, Michael Denton, Fred Wallace, and Marvin Ray Yates brought this case, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated (hereinafter, collectively, “Plaintiffs”), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to mitigate the risks of exposure to extreme heat at the Wallace Pack Unit (“Pack Unit”), operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Plaintiffs filed this action on June 18, 2014.1 (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs brought claims against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Bryan Collier, the executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and Robert Herrera, the warden of the Wallace Pack Unit (hereinafter, collectively, “TDCJ”). (Doc. No. 629.) On behalf of themselves and the class, Plaintiffs alleged that exposure to high apparent air temperatures inside the housing areas of the Pack Unit violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act on behalf of themselves and a subclass of people with disabilities that cause sensitivity to heat.
1 The original named plaintiffs in this case were Marvin Yates, Keith Cole, David Bailey, and Nicholas Diaz. (Doc. No. 1.) As named plaintiffs were released on parole, additional plaintiffs were added to the case. (See Doc. Nos. 245, 629.)
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 3 of 35
The Court certified the case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in June 20162 and amended its certification order in March 2018. (Doc. Nos. 473, 1065.) The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court’s initial class certification order after an interlocutory appeal. Yates v. Collier, 868 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2017) (pet. for en banc review pending).3 In its order amending certification, the Court certified a general class of all incarcerated people who are still in TDCJ custody who were assigned to live at the Pack Unit between July 19, 2017 and August 8, 2017, or were living at the Pack Unit on March 6, 2018, as identified in Exhibit 1 to the Court’s March 27, 2018 Order Amending Class Certification, Approving Class Notice, and Setting Date For Fairness Hearing (hereinafter “Class”). (Doc. No. 1065.) The Court also certified a subclass of those who had medical conditions causing heat sensitivity, as listed in Exhibit 2 to the Court’s March 27, 2018 order (hereinafter “Subclass”). Id.
This case has been extensively litigated over the past four years. The Court held evidentiary hearings on class certification and two motions for preliminary injunctions. The Court entered its first preliminary injunction during the summer of 2016, requiring TDCJ to provide safe drinking water to inmates to mitigate the risks of excessive heat. (Doc. No. 477.) The injunction expired while TDCJ’s interlocutory appeal was pending. Yates v. Collier, 677 Fed. Appx. 915 (5th Cir. 2017). The Court entered its second preliminary injunction in July 2017, after a nine-day evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 737.) The Court found that TDCJ was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
2 The Court initially certified a general class of “all inmates who currently are, or in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas,” a heat-sensitive subclass, and a disability subclass. (Doc. No. 473.) 3 The parties stayed all pending appeals pending the Court’s approval of the class settlement.
3

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 4 of 35
punishment. (Id. at 91.) The Court required TDCJ to take additional steps to protect all class members from the risk of heat exposure, and to house subclass members with conditions causing heat sensitivity in areas where the indoor apparent air temperature did not exceed 88 degrees Fahrenheit. (Id. at 98-99.) TDCJ developed a plan, which the Court approved, to enhance heat mitigation measures for all class members, and temporarily to relocate heat-sensitive subclass members to air-conditioned housing in other TDCJ prisons. (Doc. Nos. 769, 771.) The Court extended the July 2017 preliminary injunction, finding that the heat index outside of the Pack Unit often exceeds 88 degrees Fahrenheit for prolonged periods from approximately April 15 through October 30 each year, such that the relief ordered by the July 2017 injunction was required during these periods. (Doc. Nos. 854, 955.) TDCJ appealed the Court’s July 2017 preliminary injunction. The appeal was pending when the parties reached agreement on settlement. (See Doc. Nos. 989, 1016 (fully-executed settlement, hereinafter “Settlement”).)
The parties reached agreement on a settlement in principle on January 31, 2018 and moved this Court for preliminary approval of class settlement and amendment of its class certification order on March 6, 2018. (Doc. No. 989.) Plaintiffs Mr. Brannum, Mr. King, Mr. Denton, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Yates signed the Settlement (hereinafter “Class Representatives”); Mr. Cole did not. The Court granted preliminary approval, amended its class certification order, ordered that notice be sent to the class, and set a final fairness hearing for May 8, 2018. (Doc. No. 1065.) The Court held the fairness hearing as scheduled and heard argument from counsel and, via telephone, from all objectors who wished to speak.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of the Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343.
4

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 5 of 35
II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The Settlement brings significant relief to the class, remedying the harms at the center of
Plaintiffs’ case: the dangers of exposure to excessive heat. The Settlement requires cooling of the air in housing areas of the Pack Unit during
periods of likely extreme heat. The Settlement requires TDCJ to air-condition the housing areas of the Pack Unit to maintain indoor heat indices at or below 88 degrees Fahrenheit between April 15 and October 15 each year. (Settlement at 9.) Between April 15, 2018 and October 15, 2018, and between April 15, 2019 and October 15, 2019, TDCJ will install temporary air conditioning at the Pack Unit, to keep heat indices at the Pack Unit at or below 88 degrees Fahrenheit. Subject to legislative approval, TDCJ will install permanent air conditioning in all housing areas of the Pack Unit before April 15, 2020, to keep the heat index at 88 degrees Fahrenheit or less. (Settlement at 10.) If for any reason permanent air conditioning is not installed on or before April 15, 2020, temporary air conditioning will be provided in all Pack Unit housing areas during any April 15 to October 15 period in perpetuity, so long as any Class member is present at the Pack Unit, to keep the indoor heat index in the Pack Unit housing areas at or below 88 degree Fahrenheit. (Settlement at 11.)
The Settlement provides protections in the event of equipment malfunction. If there is an equipment malfunction for longer than twenty-four hours that causes the heat index to rise above 88 degrees Fahrenheit, TDCJ will notify the Edwards Law Firm (hereinafter “Class Counsel”) and provide temporary heat mitigation measures. (Settlement at 9.)
Even if Class members are involuntarily transferred to other units for medical or security reasons, the temperature limitation will continue to apply to them. The Settlement requires TDCJ to house all Class members in air-conditioned environments with heat indices at or below 88
5

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 6 of 35
degrees Fahrenheit at any other prison where TDCJ may incarcerate a Class member for the duration of the Class member’s present term of incarceration. (Settlement at 11.) Because of Class members’ medical conditions, Class and Subclass members may be temporarily or permanently transferred to medical facilities that are air-conditioned as directed by qualified medical personnel. Because the Pack Unit has only dormitory housing, it may not house prisoners with certain security classifications4 or prisoners who require administrative segregation. If a Class or Subclass member acquires a heightened security classification or must be placed in administrative segregation, he will be transferred from the Pack Unit to other airconditioned housing facilities in accordance with the re-classifications.
The Settlement further provides that TDCJ will transport Subclass members in airconditioned vehicles whenever Subclass members leave the Pack Unit for medical appointments or other travel within the TDCJ system during their present term of incarceration. (Settlement at 12.)
The Settlement also includes measures to ensure that heat-related protections do not interfere with Class members’ access to parole-related programs. TDCJ will provide all conditional parole-voted programs to Class and Subclass members in air-conditioned facilities during the Class members’ current terms of incarceration, except for the Innerchange Freedom Initiative, which is a voluntary faith-based program that teaches certain values and life skills. (Settlement at 12.)
In exchange for the above commitments from TDCJ, Class members release any and all injunctive, equitable, or declaratory relief claims that they have against TDCJ arising out of any
4 Prisoners with G4 or G5 classifications cannot reside at Pack, since they must be housed in cells (subject to limited exception for G4 prisoners).
6

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 7 of 35
of the legal and/or factual allegations of this action. (Settlement at 19.) Class members do not release claims for damages. See id. Class members may voluntarily opt out of the Class. Class members who wish to opt out may do so by submitting an agreed opt-out form to Class Counsel. The opt-out form requires a statement of the reasons the individual wishes to opt out.
Class Counsel are responsible for monitoring compliance with the agreement. (Settlement at 16.) Class and Subclass members shall submit in writing notice of any alleged violations of the Settlement to Class Counsel. Class Counsel may raise the issues with the Court, which will retain continuing jurisdiction over such claims and over attorneys’ fees and expenses. (Settlement at 13.) The settlement provides for Class Counsel to recover attorneys’ fees for their compliance monitoring. (Settlement at 14.)
TDCJ agrees to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $4,500,000 for attorneys’ fees and expenses. (Settlement at 13.) III. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
A. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) establishes the requirements for settlement of a class action. Under Rule 23(e), the Court may only approve a proposed class settlement after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(2). Before granting final approval of a class settlement, the Court “must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(1). B. Notice “A settlement notice need only satisfy the broad reasonableness standards imposed by due process.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 628 F.3d 185, 197 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Notice is sufficient when it gives class members the information that
7

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 8 of 35
is reasonably necessary for them to decide whether to object to a settlement. Id.; see also Wal– Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 114 (2d Cir. 2005) (“The settlement notice must fairly apprise the prospective members of the class of the terms of the proposed settlement and of the options that are open to them in connection with the proceedings.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court finds that Class members received sufficient notice to meet this standard. Members of the Class and Subclass received notice of the key terms of the proposed settlement through two primary avenues.
First, each Class and Subclass members received a copy of the Class Action Notice and Opt Out Form that was approved by this Court in its order granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. (Doc. No. 1065 at 3, Exh. 3; Doc. No. 1159-1 at 1-2.) A Spanish-language version of the form was also provided. (Doc. No. 1159-1 at 1-2.) The notice apprised Class and Subclass members of the pendency of this litigation; of the elements of the Settlement benefitting the Class and Subclass members; that Class Counsel will be paid attorneys’ fees and expenses by TDCJ (and the amount thereof) in connection with the Settlement and that the motion for approval of the Settlement includes a request for approval of such payment of fees and expenses; of Class and Subclass members’ opportunity to object and opt out of the Class and Subclass; of the identity and contact information of Class Counsel; and of the date of the fairness hearing.
Second, Class Counsel held group presentations at the Pack Unit regarding the Settlement. (Doc. No. 1159-1 at 2.) TDCJ has represented that all inmates had the opportunity to attend one of the presentations, and that over 1,000 Class members did attend. Id. Class members also had the opportunity to review the Settlement itself, which was made available to them in the Pack Unit law library. (Doc. No. 1175 at 1, Exh. 1.)
8

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 9 of 35
Full opportunity has been afforded to members of the Class to participate in the fairness hearing, including the opportunity for objectors to appear by telephone. As discussed in more detail below, numerous Class members filed objections to the Settlement and many of these individuals appeared at the fairness hearing. The Court finds that this notice was adequate and complied with Rule 23(e) and due process.
C. Fairness, Reasonableness, and Adequacy The Fifth Circuit has identified six factors that a court should consider to determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate: (1) whether the settlement was a product of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the factual and legal obstacles prevailing on the merits; (5) the possible range of recovery and the certainty of damages; and (6) the respective opinions of the participants, including class counsel, class representative, and the absent class members. Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Reed v. General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir. 1983). When a class settlement is reached through arm’slength negotiations after meaningful discovery, a “presumption of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness may attach.” Wal-Mart Stores, 396 F.3d at 116; 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 13:45 (5th ed.). Judicial and public policy favor compromise of class actions. Wal-Mart Stores, 396 F.3d at 116.
1. Evidence of Fraud or Collusion “The Court may presume that no fraud or collusion occurred between counsel, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.” Klein v. O’Neal, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 632, 651 (N.D. Tex. 2010). There is no evidence of collusion between the parties in the record. The parties vigorously litigated this case for years prior to settlement, and the compromise they reached
9

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 10 of 35
substantially benefits the Class. The parties reached agreement after arm’s-length negotiations, conducted in good faith. (Doc. No. 989-9 at 7-8.) A neutral mediator facilitated the settlement negotiations. Id. Counsel did not negotiate attorneys’ fees until after they reached agreement on the substantive terms. Id. This factor weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement.
2. Complexity, Expense, and Duration of Litigation The complexity of this case, likelihood of delay, and likelihood of significant transaction costs weigh in favor of approval of the Settlement. See Ayers v. Thompson, 358 F.3d 356, 369 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding risks of protracted litigation and transaction costs in civil rights case weigh in favor of settlement). It is likely that there will be significant delay and additional litigation if the Settlement is not approved. Although the parties had already litigated motions for class certification and preliminary injunctions before this Court, a petition for en banc review of the class certification decision and a third interlocutory appeal were both pending when the parties agreed on the Settlement. A trial on the merits was also pending, and the parties have represented that the outcome of a trial would likely be appealed to the Fifth Circuit. (See Doc. No. 989 at 22.) Absent settlement, the litigation would almost certainly have continued for years, with no assurance of as favorable a resolution. This factor weighs strongly in favor of approval of the Settlement.
3. The Stage of Litigation and the Available Discovery Completion of discovery and significant litigation weigh in favor of a finding that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. When discovery has been completed and legal issues decided, the parties and the court have sufficient information with which to evaluate the merits of their positions. Ayers, 358 F.3d at 369. There has been extensive discovery in this case, including more than forty depositions and the exchange of more than 430,000 pages of records.
10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 11 of 35
(Doc. No. 989-9 at 1-2.) There were more than two weeks of evidentiary hearings, extensive motion practice, and rulings by this Court on two motions for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. Nos. 477, 737.) The parties were therefore able to evaluate their respective positions when negotiating the Settlement. The Court can look to the prior hearings and its prior decisions when determining the adequacy of the Settlement. This factor again weighs strongly in favor of approval of the Settlement.
4. The Probability of Success on the Merits The probability of the Plaintiffs’ success on the merits is the most important factor for courts to consider when evaluating a class action settlement. Parker, 667 F.2d at 1209. “A district court faced with a proposed settlement must compare its terms with the likely rewards the class would have received following a successful trial of the case.” Reed, 703 F.2d at 172. Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. This Court has already found that conditions of confinement at the Pack Unit violated the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 737 at 8391.) Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ ultimate success was not guaranteed, as appeals of this Court’s decisions were pending at the time of settlement. The parties faced uncertainty regarding what remedy the Court would order after a full trial and whether such remedy would withstand a likely appeal. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) limits the injunctive relief available to remedy constitutional violations arising from prison conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) (courts may only order relief that is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means to remedy the constitutional violation). Determining the proper remedy for heat-related Eighth Amendment violations requires a detailed, fact-specific inquiry that is often the subject of appellate review.
11

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 12 of 35
See, e.g., Ball v. LeBlanc, 881 F.3d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 2018). This factor weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement.
5. The Range of Possible Recovery The Settlement provides substantial benefit to the Class. The relief sought in the complaint helps establish the benchmark against which courts can compare the settlement terms. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977). Plaintiffs sought air-conditioning of the Pack Unit in their complaint, and the Settlement provides this relief. Air-conditioning the housing areas of the Pack Unit will effectively protect Pack Unit residents from the dangers of extreme heat. It is far from certain that Plaintiffs would achieve the relief agreed upon in the Settlement, should the case progress. Indeed, the Settlement provides greater relief than the relief granted by this Court in the second preliminary injunction. Under the injunction, subclass members with heat sensitivity were required to be housed in cooled areas, but members of the general class were not. Rather, TDCJ was required to improve its heat mitigation measures. Under the Settlement, the Class and Subclass will have air conditioning in their housing units, which will reduce the risk of heat injury and harm. This factor weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement.
6. The Opinions of Class Counsel, Class Representatives, and Absent Class Members about the Settlement
When assessing the fairness of a settlement, the Court must look to the opinions of Class Counsel, the Class Representatives, and absent Class members. “The endorsement of class counsel is entitled to deference, especially in light of class counsel’s significant experience in complex civil litigation and their lengthy opportunity to evaluate the merits of the claims.” DeHoyos v. Allstate Corp., 240 F.R.D. 269, 292 (W.D. Tex. 2007). Class Counsel, who have substantial experience litigating civil rights and other complex cases, view the Settlement as a
12

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 13 of 35
significant victory for the Class. (See Doc. No. 989-9 at 2-5, 9.) Class Representatives Michael Denton, Fred Wallace, Jackie Brannum, Richard King, and Marvin Yates, have submitted declarations describing their satisfaction with the Settlement. (Doc. Nos. 989-26, 989-27, 98928, 989-29, 989-30.) For example, Mr. Yates states that he and other Class members will be much better off not having to live in unbearable summer heat and that the use of air-conditioned vehicles for medical transfers will make it safer for him to get medical care. (Doc. No. 989-26 at 2.)
When considering the opinions of absent class members, courts must look at both the number and nature of the objections to the settlement. Reed, 703 F.2d at 174. The Fifth Circuit has affirmed approval of settlement even where class representatives and a significant percentage of class members objected to the settlement. Id. (affirming approval of settlement over the objections of twenty-three of twenty-seven named plaintiffs and nearly forty percent of the 1,517 member class).
Twenty-two Class members filed a total of twenty-eight objections with the Court.5 Less than two percent of Class members filed objections to the Settlement.6 Below is discussion of the issues raised in the Class members’ objections. The Court also received objections from
5 Doc. Nos. 1083, 1084, 1086, 1089, 1090, 1091, 1096, 1100, 1101, 1104, 1119, 1121, 1122, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1136, 1137, 1147, 1151, 1152. Mr. Charles Malouff filed one of his objections on behalf of himself and approximately sixty other prisoners. (See Doc. No. 1151.) 6 The Class contains approximately 1,286 people. When the Court granted preliminary approval and modified the class definition, there were 1,326 people in the Class. Class Counsel have represented that forty individuals were released from TDCJ custody, and are thus no longer part of the Class, when notice was distributed. (Doc. No. 1159 at 1.) If the sixty individuals who signed onto the Malouff objection are included in the percentage calculation, then approximately six and a half percent of Class members objected to the Settlement.
13

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 14 of 35
individuals who are incarcerated in the TDCJ system but are not Class members.7 These individuals do not have standing to object to the proposed Settlement, since they are not bound by the Settlement. See In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010, 910 F. Supp. 2d 891, 941 (E.D. La. 2012), aff'd sub nom. In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014). This “stems from the fundamental purpose of fairness review under Rule 23(e)—to ensure that absent class members are not bound by an unfair settlement.” Id. The Court therefore does not consider their objections in its analysis.
After reviewing the concerns raised by Class members in their filings and at the fairness hearing, the Court finds that the objections lack merit and/or do not identify deficiencies sufficient to outweigh the significant benefits of the Settlement.
a) Individual Actions and Damage Recovery Some Class members object to the Settlement because they want to preserve their right to bring individual actions, including actions for monetary damages. See, e.g., Gresham Amended Objection (Doc. No. 1122), Hall Objection (Doc. No. 1129), Thomas Objection (Doc. No. 1136), Malouff Amended Objection (Doc. No. 1124), Archer Objection (Doc. No. 1137). Objections to the lack of monetary recovery appear to be based on misapprehension of the relief sought in this action and a misunderstanding of the release of claims. Plaintiffs never sought monetary damages in this case. The Settlement does not provide for monetary damages, and it does not foreclose class members from independently pursuing claims for damages. (Settlement at 19.) The Court clarified the meaning of the release at the fairness hearing. The Settlement does include a release of claims for injunctive or declaratory relief that could have been raised against Defendants in this action, as follows:
7 Doc. Nos. 1098, 1103, 1118, 1120, 1123, 1140, 1141. 14

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 15 of 35
On the Effective Date, all Class and Subclass Members hereby fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish, and discharge any and all injunctive, equitable, or declaratory relief claims, liens, demands, actions, and causes of action of any nature that they have, had, may have, or could have raised against Defendants and Released Parties, arising out of any of the legal and/or factual allegations and/or legal claims of the Action. (Settlement at 19.) The Court finds that the release of claims is reasonable. Class members were provided an opportunity to opt out of the Settlement if they did not want to release their individual claims for injunctive relief related to the claims in this action. The Court finds that objections based on preservation of rights to bring individual actions lack merit.
b) Criminal Liability Seven Class members object to the fact that the Settlement does not include a finding of criminal liability against TDCJ and its employees. See, e.g., Franklin Objection (Doc. No. 1083), Baity Objection (Doc. No. 1084), Ellis Objection (Doc. No. 1104), Parker Objection (Doc. No. 1132). This objection is based on a misunderstanding of the relief sought in this case and the scope of this Court’s authority. Private citizens cannot bring criminal charges. Criminal liability for Defendants was never a part of this case. Objectors seek something that this Court cannot order as part of this action. The Court finds that objections to the Settlement’s silence regarding criminal liability are not relevant.
c) Impact of the Settlement on Precedential Effect of the Court’s Prior Rulings
Several Class members object that the prior holdings in the case will not have a precedential effect if the Settlement is approved. See, e.g., Garrett Objection (Doc. No. 1127), Cole Objection (Doc. No. 1121). Some of them intend to use the precedent to “substantiate” their own claims, while others are concerned that other inmates in the TDCJ system who are not part of the Class will not be able to rely on the case. Again, these objections appear to be based on a
15

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 16 of 35
misunderstanding of the Settlement’s effect. The precedential effects of this Court’s prior orders are not altered by the Settlement. The Court finds that objections based on alleged loss of precedent are without legal foundation.
d) Lack of Air Conditioning in Other Parts of the Pack Unit A few Class members object to the Settlement because it requires TDCJ to provide air conditioning in the housing areas but not in other areas of the Pack Unit. (Settlement at 9.) Class members argue that the Settlement should provide for air conditioning in the dining area, gym, hallways, and other areas. See, e.g., Britton Objection (Doc. No. 1125), Blackwell Objection (Doc. No. 1126), Smith Objection (Doc. No. 1130). They believe that air-conditioning these areas is necessary to protect prisoners’ health and safety. An additional Class member objects that the dayroom at Trusty Camp is not air-conditioned. Malouff Objection (Doc. No. 1151). Class Counsel raised the complaint with TDCJ, which has agreed to install air conditioning in the Trusty Camp day room. (Doc. Nos. 1160 at 13-14, 1160-2 at 1.) Although prisoners will be exposed to some risk of harm by TDCJ’s failure to aircondition all areas of the Pack Unit, the parties’ agreement to air-condition the housing areas of the Pack Unit is a reasonable compromise of the claims. “Compromise is the essence of a settlement.” Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330. Plaintiffs rarely receive all desired relief through settlement. Exposure to high heat is a significant concern. People with heat sensitivities may experience heat-related illness within just a few hours of exposure to a heat index above 88 degrees. (See Doc. No. 737 at 39.) However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act and Fifth Circuit precedent limit this Court’s ability to grant relief that mitigates all heat-related risk: The Court may only order relief that is narrowly drawn to correct the constitutional injury. See Ball, 881 F.3d at 352. Here, Plaintiffs have negotiated relief that is greater than the relief ordered by the
16

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 17 of 35
Court in the preliminary injunction and likely greater than the relief available should the case proceed through trial. Housing areas are air-conditioned for all Class members, not only for members of the heat-sensitive Subclass. Class members will be transported in air-conditioned vehicles and will be housed in air-conditioned units if they need to be transferred out of the Pack Unit. The objectors’ concerns are understandable in light of the risks that arise with even brief exposure to high temperatures, but do not weigh against approval of the Settlement.
e) Concerns about Adequacy of Air Conditioning Two Class members object to the Settlement on the basis that the temporary air conditioning that TDCJ has already installed is not working well. See Malouff Objection (Doc. No. 1091), Parker Objection (Doc. No. 1132). Other Class members object that the Settlement lacks sufficient protections to ensure that air conditioning operates well, such as surprise inspections. See, e.g., Franklin Objection (Doc. No. 1083). The Settlement contains provisions to ensure that the air conditioning works. Under the terms of the Settlement, Class Counsel will monitor implementation of the agreement and may bring concerns about compliance to this Court. (Settlement at 16-17.) Additionally, TDCJ is required to notify Class Counsel if the air conditioning malfunctions for 24 hours or more and the indoor heat index goes above 88 degrees. (Settlement at 9.) If such an outage occurs, TDCJ must provide temporary heat mitigation measures. (Settlement at 9-10.) The Court finds these measures to be sufficient to address the concerns raised by objectors regarding efficacy of the air conditioning.
f) Effect of Settlement on Program Participation A few Class members object that certain educational programs are not available in airconditioned facilities, thus requiring class members to opt out of the class to pursue educational
17

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 18 of 35
opportunities. See, e.g., Dobbins Objection (Doc. No. 1089). Mr. Dobbins is concerned that the Settlement will prevent Class members from getting parole.
The Settlement will not interfere with Class members’ parole eligibility. Under the Settlement, TDCJ must offer all conditional parole-voted programs in air-conditioned facilities for Class members, with the exception of the Innerchange Freedom Initiative, which is a voluntary program. (Settlement at 12.)
Mr. Dobbins and other objectors are correct that certain educational programs will not be available to Class members in air-conditioned settings. The Settlement does not require TDCJ to provide air-conditioned facilities for optional programming. The Court is indeed concerned that Class members might have to choose between educational opportunity and their constitutional rights to be free of substantial risk caused by extreme heat. The Court finds that the parties reached a reasonable compromise on the issue of air conditioning for programming that is not offered at the Pack Unit. The Court finds that objections based on the lack of air conditioning for all educational programs do not weigh against approval of the Settlement.
g) Loss of Class Membership upon Release from Custody Three Class members object to the fact that current Class members will lose their protections when they are released from custody. They anticipate that they or other class members might violate parole or commit other offenses, and then be subject to the same heatrelated risk upon return to TDCJ custody. See, e.g., Cole Objection (Doc. No. 1121), Stewart Objection (Doc. No. 1131). The Court urges Class members to do their best to avoid recidivating. In the event that a person is again incarcerated, he will no longer be a Class member and is not foreclosed from bringing his own claim for relief. It is possible, though not guaranteed, that he will return to the Pack Unit, which will be air-conditioned. The Court finds
18

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 19 of 35
that objections based on loss of Class status upon release do not weigh against approval of the Settlement.
h) Retaliation Fifteen Class-member objectors allege that TDCJ officers have retaliated against them and/or other Class members through various forms of mistreatment. See, e.g., Baity Objection (Doc. No. 1084), Adams Objection (Doc. No. 1100), Gresham Objection Supplement (Doc. No. 1119), Britton Objection (Doc. No. 1125), Cole Advisory (Doc. No. 1133), Archer Objection (Doc. No. 1137). A few objectors provide specific examples of alleged retaliation, such as running fans in cold weather, writing up frivolous disciplinary violations, and excessively waking people up for wellness checks at night. The objectors who discuss retaliation do not fully explain the connection between the alleged retaliation and specific deficiencies in the Settlement itself. Rather, the allegations of retaliation support their general concerns regarding adequacy of representation and the efficacy of the Settlement to address constitutional harms. The Court takes allegations of retaliation seriously, but such allegations are not cause to find the Settlement unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable. The Settlement establishes a mechanism for Class members to raise concerns about violation of their rights under the Settlement. Class members may inform Class Counsel of alleged violations, and Class Counsel will investigate such violations and bring them to the attention of the Court if the parties cannot resolve the dispute. (Settlement at 13.) Indeed, Class Counsel have already responded to some of the issues raised by Class members in their objections. For example, objectors complained that the airconditioned housing in the Estelle Unit, where Pack Unit residents are sent for medical care, lacked mattresses, bedding, toilet paper, and other necessities. Class Counsel followed up on these concerns and TDCJ remedied the problem. (See Doc. Nos. 1160 at 27, 1160-1.) Some of
19

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 20 of 35
the issues that objectors have raised may require further investigation by Class Counsel, which Class Counsel will undertake as part of their monitoring and enforcement role. The Court retains jurisdiction over enforcement of the Settlement, and may address substantiated claims of retaliation that are directly related to the Settlement and raised by Class Counsel. (Settlement at 13, 21.)
Objectors have also alleged incidents that are not clearly related to this case. For example, one person alleges that TDCJ unjustly segregated him and used pepper spray on him. See Hunter Objection (Doc. No. 1128). Such incidents are not within the scope of this action, as they are unrelated to heat risk and mitigation and there is no evidence that they were employed as retaliation against an individual for exercising his rights under the current preliminary injunction or the pending Settlement. If people want relief for alleged mistreatment that is not directly related to this case, they may comply with TDCJ’s grievance procedures, and, if appropriate, file a separate action with a court of proper jurisdiction. The Settlement does not preclude such actions.
The allegations of retaliation are not reason to find that the Settlement is not fair, reasonable, or adequate.
i) Unsettled Property Claims A few individuals have alleged that TDCJ has not fully compensated them for property lost or damaged by TDCJ while transferring prisoners pursuant to the Court’s July 2017 preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Gentry Objection (Doc. No. 1101), Cole Objections (Doc. Nos. 1121, 1133), Stone Objection (Doc. No. 1150). Specific property complaints are outside the scope of this action, and would not be addressed by modification to the Settlement. The parties already created and implemented a property complaint procedure to address property complaints
20

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 21 of 35
related to the transfer period. (See Doc. No. 890; Minute Entry for Oct. 30, 2017.) Any further claims individuals have regarding lost or damaged property must be pursued through grievance procedures and private actions. Class members have not released claims for monetary damages, including claims for property loss or damage. If the case were to continue without the Settlement, the Court would not address individual property complaints, since they are outside the scope of this case. Property-related objections to the Settlement therefore lack merit.
j) General Allegations of Unfairness Numerous objectors generally allege unfairness and insufficiency of the Settlement. See, e.g., Franklin Objection (Doc. No. 1083), Gresham Objection (Doc. No. 1086), Newman Objection (Doc. No. 1096). The objectors also allege that the Settlement does not address constitutional violations by the Defendants that occurred during the course of the case. The general objections to the Settlement are deficient. Objections must contain factual support. Reed, 703 F.2d at 173. These general allegations are unsupported by specific factual allegations. The Settlement does provide significant relief for the constitutional violations alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint by dramatically reducing the risk of harm from exposure to extreme heat. A settlement that “substantially remedies any class injury” should be approved. Id. Further litigation is unlikely to bring greater relief. This weighs in favor of approving the Settlement. See Ayers, 358 F.3d at 373.
k) Additional Concerns that are Outside the Scope of this Case Class members also raised objections based on conditions of confinement that are not directly related to this case and would not be part of the relief in this case—whether the relief is achieved through litigation or settlement.
21

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 22 of 35
One Class member objects to the Settlement for failing to include injunctive relief protecting religious freedoms. Lares Objection (Doc. No. 1090). Mr. Lares argues that the Settlement is deficient because it does not prohibit TDCJ from retaliating against prisoners by infringing on their religious freedoms. While religious freedoms are a vitally important right, they are not related to the claims in this case. Mr. Lares may follow TDCJ’s grievance procedures and bring a separate action to address alleged violations of his religious rights. To the extent TDCJ is acting in a retaliatory manner because of this case, the Settlement allows for monitoring and continuing jurisdiction as discussed in subsection (h), above.
Class members also asked that the water system be tested for metals and that prisoners receive blood testing for arsenic and other substances. See Malouff Objection (Doc. No. 1151). Water quality is only relevant to this case to the extent water is a component of TDCJ’s heat mitigation protocol. (See Doc. No. 477.) The Settlement provides for air conditioning to mitigate heat risk. Mr. Malouff’s concerns regarding water safety are thus outside the scope of this case. Mr. Malouff may follow TDCJ’s grievance procedures and bring a separate action to address alleged violations of his constitutional rights to safe drinking water.
Objections related to conditions of confinement outside the scope of this case do not show the Settlement to be unfair, unreasonable, or inadequate.
l) Adequacy of Class Counsel Nine Class-member objectors make general allegations that Class Counsel have not adequately represented their interests. They allege that Class Counsel are self-serving, deficient and negligent, but do not allege specific examples or facts in support. See, e.g., Franklin Objection (Doc. No. 1083), Baity Objection (Doc. No. 1084), Adams Objection (Doc. No. 1100), Ellis Objection (Doc. No. 1104).
22

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 23 of 35
The Court finds these unsupported allegations to be meritless. Class Counsel have been unstinting in their efforts and unsparing in their financial commitments. They have also been creative and articulate advocates for the rights of Class members related to the claims at issue in this case. The Court has found no evidence of fraud or collusion by parties or counsel in reaching settlement. Further, the settlement negotiations were overseen by a mediator, which is an indicator of procedural fairness. Jones v. Singing River Health Servs. Found., 865 F.3d 285, 295 (5th Cir. 2017).
Numerous objectors request the appointment of independent counsel. See, e.g., Franklin Objection (Doc. No. 1083), Baity Objection (Doc. No. 1084). There is no automatic right to the appointment of counsel in civil actions. Castro Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 354-55 (5th Cir. 2001). The Court has found Class Counsel to be exemplary and denies the requests for appointment of counsel. The Court finds objections based on Class Counsel’s representation to be meritless.
m) Sufficiency of Notice Additional Class members object that the process for informing Class members of the Settlement was flawed. They allege that not all Class members were able to review the Settlement, as posted versions were removed by individual Class members. However, the parties have provided the Court with evidence that the Settlement was made available, and remains available, in the Pack Unit law library. (Doc. No. 1175.) Objectors also allege that Class Counsel did not listen and respond to each Class member’s concerns at the presentations Class Counsel held regarding the Settlement. Reasonable notice does not require a presentation on a proposed settlement, let alone an extensive question-and-answer session between class members and counsel. The procedural and notice requirements of Rule 23 have been met and exceeded.
23

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 24 of 35
n) Additional Procedural Objections One Class member also objects to the existence of an opt-out mechanism. Adams Objection (Doc. No. 1100). Mr. Adams is concerned that TDCJ will force people out of the Class through retaliatory treatment. The existence of an opt-out mechanism is not a basis for objecting to the Settlement, since the Court itself ordered the parties to create an opt-out mechanism. While the Court understands the logic of Mr. Adams’ concern, the Court ordered the opt-out mechanism after receiving requests from Class members to opt out of the Class. As of the fairness hearing, only eighteen individuals had opted out of the Class. (See Doc. No. 1159-1.) Further, the Settlement’s provisions for monitoring and continuing jurisdiction will protect against retaliation. One Class member is concerned that the Class-membership cut-off date changed between the draft of the agreement shown to the Class Representatives and the final proposed Settlement. Cole Objections (Doc. Nos. 1121, 1133). The prior draft had an April 15 cut-off date, while the current version has a March 6 cut-off date. This change has not negatively impacted the Class. There is no procedural deficiency with regard to class notice, because the correct version of the Settlement was provided to Class members, and the correct class definition appeared in the class notice and the Court’s preliminary approval order. (See Doc. No. 1065, Exh. 3.) Mr. Cole also argues that Class members should have the opportunity to vote to approve the Settlement. The Court finds this proposal to be unmanageable. Rule 23 sufficiently protects the rights of absent class members through the notice process, the requirement that this Court provide class members an opportunity to object and be heard at the fairness hearing, and the final approval process. Further, individuals have been granted the opportunity to opt out of the action and bring their own claims for relief if they find the Settlement to be inadequate.
24

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 25 of 35
7. Result of the Six-Factor Analysis All six factors favor approving the proposed settlement. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e). The terms are approved. D. Prison Litigation Reform Act Because this case addresses prison conditions, the Court must determine whether the settlement complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Private settlements are not subject to the PLRA’s limitations, but agreements that are subject to judicial enforcement are within the scope of the statute’s requirements. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c), (g). The Court will retain continuing jurisdiction to dispose of claimed violations of the Settlement at the request of Class Counsel or TDCJ’s counsel. (Settlement at 13, 17, 21.) The PLRA therefore requires that the relief provided for by the settlement “is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The court must also “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(1)(B). In its order of July 19, 2017 granting Plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief, the Court made a preliminary finding that Plaintiffs were substantially likely to prevail on claims that conditions at the Pack Unit violated Class and Subclass members’ federal rights. The Court incorporates the factual findings in its July 19, 2017 order granting the second preliminary injunction and in its October 12, 2017 order extending the preliminary injunction. (Doc. Nos. 737 at 8-71, 854.) Exposure to extreme heat will continue to cause a substantial risk of serious injury or death to members of the Class, absent the mitigation measures required by the Settlement. The
25

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 26 of 35
Court finds that, absent the relief agreed to in this Settlement, the extreme heat conditions described in the July 19, 2017 order will continue to exist every year between April 15 and October 15 in perpetuity. The provision of temporary air conditioning during the summer months is necessary to mitigate the risk sufficient to correct the alleged violation of the Class and Subclass’ federal rights, until permanent air conditioning is installed. The relief afforded extends no further than is necessary to correct the constitutional harms, and the relief will not adversely impact public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. The parties concur that the Settlement meets the requirements of the PLRA. IV. APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
A. Legal Standard Courts may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of a class action settlement. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(h).8 The Court may grant the prevailing party a reasonable attorneys’ fee in an action to enforce 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 or in an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 12205. The Parties agree that Class Counsel are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1988 and 12205. As part of its duty to review and approve a class action settlement, the Court must determine whether the agreed-upon attorneys’ fees are reasonable. Strong v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 137 F.3d 844, 849 (5th Cir. 1998). Courts encourage litigants to resolve fees by agreement. Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 720 (5th Cir. 1974). When the amount of fees is agreed upon, is separate and apart from the class settlement,
8 Plaintiffs must inform the Class of the fee application, including the scope of the fee. See In re: Nat’l Football League Players Concussion Injury Litig., 821 F.3d 410, 446-47 (3d Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs have done so, as the Class Notice included a clear statement of the agreed-upon fee. (See Doc. No. 1065, Exh. 3.)
26

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 27 of 35
and has been negotiated after the other terms have been agreed, the attorneys’ fee is presumed to be reasonable. See DeHoyos, 240 F.R.D. at 322-23. This is the case here, as the fees were agreed upon after the injunctive relief was negotiated and the Plaintiffs sought only injunctive relief. The Court must nevertheless undertake its own analysis of the reasonableness of the fee.
Courts use the lodestar method to determine a reasonable fee. Strong, 137 F.3d at 850. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the reasonable hours expended by a reasonable fee. Id. Once the lodestar has been calculated, the Fifth Circuit applies the Johnson factors to assess the reasonableness of the fee and may use a multiplier to adjust the lodestar upward or downward. Id. The twelve Johnson factors are: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the issues, (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the undesirability of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19. If a factor has already been accounted for in the lodestar calculation, it may not be used to adjust the lodestar. Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987 F.2d 311, 320 (5th Cir. 1993).
B. Analysis 1. Lodestar Calculation
Class Counsel have provided detailed accounting of the work they performed in this case. (See Doc. Nos. 989-9; 989-11 through 989-25.) As of March 6, 2018, Class Counsel performed 9,909.5 hours of work, for total fees of $4,428,466.25. (Doc. No. 989-8.) Class Counsel also recorded $300,721.99 in expenses, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Class
27

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 28 of 35
Counsel reported an additional 389.1 hours of work since preparing the motion for preliminary approval, incurring an additional $178,615.00 in fees, for a total of $4,607,081.25. (Doc. No. 1159-1 at 3-4.)
While the number of hours expended is high, the amount is reasonable in light of the significant time required to effectively litigate this action. Discovery included 40 depositions and review of over 500,000 pages of documents. (Doc. No. 989-9 at 7.) Motion practice included class certification, summary judgment, motions to dismiss, discovery disputes, and preliminary injunctions. Class Counsel expended additional time defending three interlocutory appeals. Additionally, the Court recognizes that prison litigation can be particularly time-consuming, as counsel must travel to and from remote prisons to interview witnesses, and may devote many hours to following up on communications from Class members, to whom they owe significant duties under Rule 23. Finally, Class Counsel exercised billing judgment, omitting numerous hours spent reviewing emails, writing correspondence, holding telephone calls, and traveling. (Doc. No. 989-9 at 10.)
Class Counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are experienced in class action litigation and civil rights work and are highly skilled, as evidenced by their success at many stages of this litigation. (See Doc. Nos. 989-9 at 4; 989-21 through 989-23.) The hourly rates sought by Class Counsel are fair and reasonable for attorneys of their experience ($650/hour for Jeff Edwards, $550/hour for Michael Singley, $525/hour for Scott Medlock, $570/hour for Jeremy Doyle, $450/hour for Nathan Smith, $475/hour for Sean Flammer, $400/hour for David James, $350/hour for Brian McGiverin, $300/hour for Wallis Nader, $225/hour for Emma Hilbert and Hannah Herzog, $185–150/hour for professional legal support
28

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 29 of 35
staff, and $100/hour for law clerks). Courts have found similar rates to be reasonable in other civil rights litigation. See DeHoyos, 240 F.R.D. at 322-23.
2. Application of the Johnson Factors Having found the hours expended and hourly rates to be reasonable, the Court now assesses the reasonableness of the lodestar in light of the Johnson factors. The Johnson factors support a fee of $4,500,000. This action involved novel and difficult issues. Plaintiffs’ claims involve complex areas of constitutional and statutory law, and are further complicated by the PLRA and the class action mechanism. The case involved complex factual issues, including institutional policies and practices and medical and scientific issues. The multiple appeals in this case, including a request for en banc review, are further indication of the case’s complexity and novelty. Skilled attorneys were necessary to perform the legal services properly. This was a complex action in a specialized area of law. Defendants put forth a vigorous defense. Class Counsel are experienced, reputable, and able, and brought their expertise in complex litigation and civil rights to bear in successfully litigating this action. Class Counsel obtained extraordinary results in this case. When prisoners are kept in extreme heat, they cannot escape the unsafe conditions. They must rely on the institution’s voluntary compliance with constitutional requirements, or, as in this case, they must seek relief from the courts. Class Counsel have successfully vindicated Class members’ rights, reducing the harm of extreme heat for all Class members. The risk of harm from extreme heat will be effectively mitigated by the provision of air conditioning in the Pack Unit. Class members will be guaranteed air conditioning, in housing and transportation, for the remainder of their time in
29

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 30 of 35
TDCJ custody. Class members have already benefitted from the relief granted in the existing preliminary injunctions, and will continue to benefit as the Settlement is implemented.
The time and labor required in this case were significant, Class Counsel took the case on a contingent basis, and Class Counsel’s litigation of this case precluded other employment. As discussed previously, there has been extensive discovery, motion practice, appellate practice, and evidentiary hearings in this case. Class Counsel spent over 10,000 hours on this case, at the expense of other employment opportunities. (See Doc. No. 989-9 at 12-13.) Counsel devoted thousands hours to this important litigation, with no guarantee of eventual compensation.
Although the vindication of constitutional and civil rights is of great societal import, cases such as this one are often seen as undesirable by attorneys. Cases involving civil rights, class actions, and incarcerated clients are often costly, time-consuming, and difficult. This case is complex and required years of effort by Class Counsel, without assurance of final success on the merits and recovery of fees. When the case was initiated and for the several years it was pending, Class Counsel were facing the distinct possibility that they would receive nothing, not even recoupment of their enormous out-of-pocket expenses. The fee-shifting statutes applicable to civil rights actions play an important role in ensuring that attorneys will take on cases to protect individuals’ rights, where the litigant lacks resources and seeks minimal monetary relief. See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968); City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 575 (1986) (“If the citizen does not have the resources, his day in court is denied him; the congressional policy which he seeks to assert and vindicate goes unvindicated; and the entire Nation, not just the individual citizen, suffers.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Class Counsel took on this case despite its undesirability and helped the Class vindicate their rights.
30

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 31 of 35
The lodestar amount would reflect a market-based fee. The Court has found that the expenditure of time and the rates charged are reasonable. This is already accounted for in the lodestar.
Although this case was protracted because of its complexity, Class Counsel pursued the litigation in a timely, vigorous manner, as appropriate to the urgent rights at stake. Counsel also has a strong relationship with their clients. Class Counsel have worked with Plaintiffs for multiple years and have visited numerous Class members in prison, both before and after filing the lawsuit. (Doc. No. 989-9 at 7.)
Similar awards have been granted in suits that seek injunctive relief. Numerous courts have approved similar, or greater, fee awards in cases seeking injunctive relief. See, e.g., Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar of over $6,000,000); DeHoyos, 240 F.R.D. at 323 (approving fee of $11,720,000).
The Court finds that the attorneys’ fees and expenses specified in the Settlement are fair and reasonable.
3. PLRA Requirements The PLRA sets particular requirements for attorneys’ fees in prisoner litigation. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d). As detailed above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ fees and expenses were directly and reasonably incurred in a good faith effort to prove an alleged violation of Plaintiffs’ federal rights, the amount of the fees and expenses are proportionately related to the relief required for the alleged violation, and the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in obtaining relief addressing the alleged violation. The rate caps of the PLRA do not apply here. First, Defendants have agreed to pay $4,500,000 in fees, and not to invoke the rate caps. Second, Plaintiffs brought claims under the
31

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 32 of 35
ADA and Rehabilitation Act, which are governed by their own fee provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 29 U.S.C. § 794, and are not subject to the PLRA caps. See Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2003).
Even if the Court applied the PLRA rate caps, the agreed-upon fees and expenses of $4,500,000 would be reasonable. Attorneys’ fees in an action subject to the PLRA cannot be based on an hourly rate that is greater than $220.5/hour.9 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3). Class Counsel expended 10,298.6 hours working on this case, for a total lodestar of $2,270,841.30 at the PLRA rate. Courts may adjust the lodestar by a multiplier to achieve a reasonable fee in PLRA cases. Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1103 (9th Cir. 2016). The Court finds that a multiplier of 1.9 is appropriate here to ensure the lodestar reflects a reasonable fee in light of the Johnson factors. The Johnson factors, discussed in detail above, weigh in favor of a multiplier. “The most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award in a civil rights suit is the degree of success obtained.” Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The extraordinary results achieved necessitate use of a multiplier. Additionally, the time-consuming nature of this case, uncertainty of recovery, and difficulty prisoners find in acquiring representation in civil rights litigation particularly weigh in favor of an upward adjustment. Applying a 1.9 multiplier, plus expenses, leads to a total award of $4,615,320.46, which is greater than the agreed-upon amount.
9 The statutory cap is “150 percent of the hourly rate established under” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”). Most courts use the maximum authorized CJA rates, rather than the rate actually paid to court-appointed counsel. Depriest v. Walnut Grove Corr. Auth., No. 3:10-CV-00663-CWRFKB, 2017 WL 4228751, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 22, 2017) (collecting cases); see also Carruthers v. Israel, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2017). The maximum rate for fiscal year 2018 is $147. See The Judiciary FY 2018 Congressional Budget Summary at 37.
32

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 33 of 35
V. CONCLUSION In the resolution of litigation over collective constitutional rights, doubts and dissents—
even from those knowing none of the facts—are inevitable. The Court has spoken to each of these of which it is aware.
But, the scale of the parties’ accomplishment remains undiminished. The State of Texas, a group of prisoners, and far-sighted counsel for both have collaborated to save lives, redress illness, reduce misery, achieve constitutionality, and do justice. The Court salutes all those who have labored so long and done so much.
This case addresses the fundamental rights to health and safety of over a thousand prisoners. The Settlement brings extraordinary relief to the class, effectively mitigating the risks to their health that they regularly encounter in extreme temperatures. For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and that attorneys’ fees in the amount agreed upon by the parties are fair and reasonable. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
1. The Settlement submitted by the parties is finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
2. The Settlement is in the best interests of the Class and Subclass, and the parties are directed to consummate and to implement the Settlement in accordance with its terms. The provision of equitable relief shall take place in accordance with the Settlement.
3. This Court awards Class Counsel attorneys’ fees and expenses of four million and five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000.00), as negotiated and agreed by the parties. Said fees and expenses are determined by the Court to be fair, reasonable, and appropriate for the work expended to date.
33

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 34 of 35
4. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement between the parties, the Court finds the Plaintiffs, solely for purposes of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 42 U.S.C. § 12205, are prevailing parties. In the event that Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $4,500,000 have not been paid in full by September 30, 2019, TDCJ agrees judgment will be entered against TDCJ in the amount of $4,500,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% from January 30, 2018.
5. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over any issues related to attorneys’ fees and expenses.
6. This order expressly resolves only Class and Subclass members’ claims for injunctive, declaratory, or other equitable relief.
7. Without affecting the finality of this Final Order and Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement, the Court retains exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any disputes relating to or arising out of the administration, enforcement, implementation, consummation, or interpretation of the Settlement.
8. In addition, without affecting the finality of this judgment, the parties, including each member of the Class and Subclass as defined in this Order, are hereby deemed to have submitted irrevocably to the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court for any suit, action, proceeding, or dispute arising out of or relating to this Order or the Settlement.
9. The Court finds, solely for purposes of approving the Settlement and maintaining its continuing jurisdiction only, that the relief agreed to in the settlement is necessary to remedy the alleged violations of the Class and Subclass members’ federal rights, and the relief extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violation of the Class and Subclass’ federal rights. The relief will not cause any adverse impact on public safety or
34

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1188 Filed in TXSD on 06/08/18 Page 35 of 35 the operation of the criminal justice system. Therefore, the Court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) until installation of permanent air conditioning is installed at the Pack Unit, and as otherwise necessary to resolve any alleged violations of the Settlement and administer the Settlement (including permitting Class members to opt out). The Court expressly finds that the Settlement complies with all requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d). IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 8th day of June, 2018.
HON. KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
35

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1449 Filed on 08/09/19 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
August 09, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1449 Filed on 08/09/19 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1504 Filed on 12/11/19 in TXSD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 8
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 11, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KEITH COLE, et al,
Plaintiffs, VS.
BRYAN COLLIER, et al,
Defendants.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-1698 § § § §

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt, to Show Cause, and for

Sanctions. (Doc. No. 1459). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have repeatedly violated the

settlement agreement (Doc. No. 989-4) and this Court’s orders this past summer by allowing

temperatures in units housing class members to exceed 88℉, failing to notify Class Counsel of those excessively hot temperatures, and then misrepresenting conditions and preventing Class

Counsel from discovering such violations of the agreement. Defendants have conceded that they

violated the terms of the settlement agreement by allowing the temperatures to exceed 88℉ for a period of time in July and August 2019 in the LeBlanc Unit and then by failing to notify Class

Counsel of those temperatures. They also concede that certain misrepresentations were made to

Class Counsel and the Court regarding the temperatures in the LeBlanc Unit, the availability of

thermostat temperature readings in the LeBlanc Unit, and the availability of the LeBlanc warden

and executive administration officials during a scheduled inspection of the LeBlanc Unit.

For Defendants’ violations of the settlement agreement and misrepresentations to both

Class Counsel and this Court, Plaintiffs request that the Court find Defendants in contempt, order

a show cause hearing, and order various sanctions against Defendants, including fines, discovery,

1

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1504 Filed on 12/11/19 in TXSD Page 2 of 8
and attorneys’ fees. After careful consideration of all filings, evidence presented at the hearings held on this Motion, and applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS in part Plaintiffs’ Motion as it relates to attorneys’ fees, discovery, and a show cause hearing. The Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiffs’ request for a finding of contempt and DENIES Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions in the form of fines.
I. BACKGROUND Much has been written about the course of this litigation; the Court will not recount the full
facts here. The events that are most relevant to the present Motion occurred in July and August of 2019. In mid-July 2019, Class Counsel began receiving complaints from class members about temperatures in both the Stiles Unit and the LeBlanc Unit. (Doc. No. 1459, at 10–11). Defendants later admitted that the Stiles Unit was having mechanical issues with its chillers beginning in June 2019, and that a temporary rental chiller was not put in place until July 24, 2019. (Doc. No. 1472, at 6–7). However, Defendants failed to report the high temperatures to Class Counsel, as they are required to do by the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 1459, at 11).
The primary focus of this Motion, however, is on the events that occurred in July and August 2019 in the LeBlanc Unit. In mid-July, Class Counsel reported to Defendants’ counsel that class members were complaining of high temperatures in the LeBlanc Unit dorms. (Doc. No. 145941, at 2). Defendants represented through their attorneys that temperatures had been maintained at acceptable levels, and that, although there had been a mechanical issue in mid-July, the air conditioning had been repaired immediately. (Doc. No. 1459-41, at 2; Doc. No. 1459-46, at 2). Defendants also provided a document that purported to list all air conditioning work and maintenance issues at the LeBlanc Unit in July 2019, all of which were resolved immediately. (Doc. No. 1459-47, at 3). However, Defendants later revealed that this document was not
2

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1504 Filed on 12/11/19 in TXSD Page 3 of 8
comprehensive, and that there were in fact long-standing problems with cooling in the LeBlanc Unit. (Doc. No. 1488, at 8–9). It remains unknown who at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) made this document. Id. at 7.
Class Counsel continued to receive complaints from class members, so they requested a site inspection, and one was scheduled for August 8. (Doc. No. 1459-51, at 7). However, on the morning of August 7, Defendants’ counsel notified Class Counsel that, due to a family emergency, the warden would not be able to attend the inspection. Id. at 3. In addition, Defendants’ counsel stated that senior TDCJ officials were out of town for an American Correctional Association conference. Id. Defendants’ counsel represented that, for those two reasons, the inspection had to be moved to August 12. Id. However, Defendants later admitted that previous representations that the warden had a family emergency, or that the warden and senior TDCJ officials were required to be present for an inspection to take place were false. (Doc. No. 1472, at 2; Doc. No. 1472-19, at 84:16–89:15).
Upon the Court’s order, the inspection took place as originally scheduled, on August 8. (Minute Entry 8/7/2019). At the inspection, Class Counsel discovered temperatures that far exceeded the 88℉ heat index maximum required by the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 1472, at 2; Doc. No. 1459, at 14). Class Counsel also discovered that, although Defendants’ counsel had stated that LeBlanc Unit staff had been regularly monitoring temperatures, the only thermostats in the Unit were mounted inside the air conditioning components, and thus, were not visible to staff members without assistance from maintenance staff. (Doc. No. 1472, at 2). Defendants have since admitted that the LeBlanc Unit air conditioning system was malfunctioning since at least early August and, despite maintenance conducted throughout the summer, the LeBlanc Unit was not cooled to appropriate temperatures. (Doc. No. 1472, at 2, 8; Doc. No. 1472-23). Defendants also
3

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1504 Filed on 12/11/19 in TXSD Page 4 of 8
failed to notify Class Counsel about the air conditioning malfunction or elevated temperatures, in violation of the terms of the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 1472, at 2).
Defendants have since moved all class members out of the LeBlanc Unit. Id. at 8. Defendants have also moved all class members who can live in the Pack Unit back to the Pack Unit, and consolidated the remaining class members into as few units as possible. Id. at 10–11. All housing areas where class members reside now have Kestrel thermometers mounted permanently on the walls.1 Id. at 11. These thermometers measure heat indices automatically and download the data onto smart phones via an app. Id. Defendants provided Class Counsel with heat index readings from all housing areas with class members on a weekly basis through October 15, 2019. Id. at 12. Defendants have also set out various policy changes that will govern the processing of heat-related grievances by class members, housing reassignments of class members, and notification of elevated temperatures in units housing class members. Id. at 11–12. However, Defendants have still failed to explain who was responsible for the many misrepresentations made to this Court and to Class Counsel. (Doc. No. 1488, at 11–12, 13–14). They have also failed to reveal how long LeBlanc Unit was out of compliance and how it remained out of compliance for so long without any action on the part of TDCJ. Id. at 15–16.
In addition to Defendants’ violations in the Stiles and LeBlanc Units, Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants have violated the terms of the settlement agreement by repeatedly transporting class members in buses that are not air conditioned and by failing to provide parole-voted programs for class members in air-conditioned facilities. (Doc. No. 1459, at 17–18). Defendants admit to one instance of using an un-air-conditioned bus to transport class members. (Doc. No. 1472, at 8–
1 Although there are class members at Hospital Galveston, no permanent devices have been installed there because TDCJ does not own the facility. However, temperature and heat index readings are being taken using a handheld device. (Doc. No. 1472, at 11).
4

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1504 Filed on 12/11/19 in TXSD Page 5 of 8
9). They claim that the delay in provision of parole-voted programs was due to personnel resignation, not class members’ status as class members in this litigation. Id. at 10.
II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal courts possess inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). That power includes “the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991). Such conduct includes “disobedience to the orders of the Judiciary, regardless of whether such disobedience interfered with the conduct of trial.” Id. at 44 (quoting Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798 (1987)). Courts must use their inherent power to sanction “with restraint and discretion.” Id. For example, where a court orders payment of attorneys’ fees as a sanction against a party that acted in bad faith, the fees must be compensatory, and not punitive. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017). However, courts have the discretion to impose even particularly severe sanctions, where necessary. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44; see also Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1412 (5th Cir. 1993) (“The ultimate touchstone of inherent powers is necessity.”).
III. ANALYSIS There is no dispute that Defendants violated the terms of the settlement agreement, which
is enforceable as an order by this Court. Defendants have themselves admitted that they failed to maintain indoor heat index temperatures below 88℉ in both the Stiles and LeBlanc Units, failed to notify Class Counsel when temperatures exceeded 88℉, and transported class members on nonair-conditioned buses on at least one occasion. Additionally, Defendants have also admitted that they had previously made several serious misrepresentations to both Class Counsel and this Court.
5

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1504 Filed on 12/11/19 in TXSD Page 6 of 8
Defendants’ actions not only put class members’ lives in danger, but also prevented discovery of these dangerous conditions.
The Court is heartened that Defendants are, finally, being candid and are taking steps to remedy the shortcomings of their internal systems. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants have yet again violated the clear terms of an agreement that Defendants themselves helped craft. This repeated pattern of violations has serious consequences for individuals in TDCJ’s custody. Thus, Defendants’ failure to stymie these violations over two years after the Court’s initial preliminary injunction and over one year after the Court approved the settlement agreement is of particular concern to the Court, and Defendants’ promises that they will do better without intervention by this Court fall flat.
The Court is reluctant to impose fines, as the money used to pay those fines would be that of the taxpayers, not of the individuals who have the power to act. However, the Court does agree with Plaintiffs that further discovery is necessary. Despite numerous hearings, during which multiple witnesses testified, it is still unclear who is responsible for Defendants’ failure to abide by the settlement agreement. None of Defendants’ witnesses were able to say who was responsible for the misrepresentations and misleading documents that were sent to Class Counsel. Responsibility was too easily pushed to unnamed mid-level TDCJ officials. The Court is not convinced that Defendants will be able to change institutional behavior if they do not first identify why previous violations occurred in the first place. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for further discovery on the violations of the settlement agreement that occurred in July and August of 2019. Class Counsel may take five depositions of TDCJ officials of Class Counsel’s choosing to assess the extent of the violations from this previous summer and examine the basis of misrepresentations made to Class Counsel and the Court. Class Counsel may also make reasonable
6

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1504 Filed on 12/11/19 in TXSD Page 7 of 8
written discovery requests that relate to the violations of the settlement agreement in July and August of 2019, and the related misrepresentations made by Defendants to Class Counsel and the Court. The Court also grants Plaintiffs’ request for a show cause hearing, which will be scheduled upon motion by Plaintiffs.
In addition, the Court finds that Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and expenses is reasonable. Given Class Counsel’s unforeseen labor required to unearth Defendants’ violations, as well as the additional work now required by added discovery and future monitoring, Class Counsel is expending much more time and effort than expected at the time the settlement agreement was drafted. The Court thus orders that Defendants compensate Class Counsel at market-based rates for activities related to investigating conditions at TDCJ units housing class members during July and August of 2019, activities associated with bringing the present Motion for Sanctions, and activities associated with any discovery and monitoring that this Court orders based on the present Motion. Because that amount is not yet set, the Court orders that Class Counsel submit any requests for attorneys’ fees and expenses after the conclusion of discovery stemming from the present Order.
The Court declines to decide whether to hold Defendants in contempt of court and defers its decision until a later date.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions as
to sanctions in the form of discovery and attorneys’ fees. Class Counsel may take up to five depositions of TDCJ officials of their choosing. Class Counsel may also serve written discovery requests relating to Defendants’ violations of the settlement agreement that took place during July and August 2019, and the ensuing misrepresentations made to Class Counsel and this Court. Class
7

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1504 Filed on 12/11/19 in TXSD Page 8 of 8 Counsel may also file their requests for attorneys’ fees and expenses after the close of discovery. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Show Cause Hearing, the date of which is to be set upon motion by Plaintiffs. The Court DEFERS decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt. The Court DENIES all other requests for sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 11th day of December, 2019.
KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8

 
 Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886772 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2019

LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK

United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TEL. 504-310-7700 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE,
Suite 115 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
March 25, 2019

Mr. David J. Bradley Southern District of Texas, Houston United States District Court 515 Rusk Street Room 5300 Houston, TX 77002

No. 18-20216 Dir TDCJ, et al

David Bailey, et al v. Bryan Collier, Exct USDC No. 4:14-CV-1698

Dear Mr. Bradley, Enclosed is a copy of the judgment issued as the mandate.

Sincerely, LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk

By: _________________________ Angelique B. Tardie, Deputy Clerk 504-310-7715
cc w/encl:
Mr. Jeff S. Edwards Mr. David James Mr. Darren Lee McCarty Mr. Scott Charles Medlock Mr. James Moore Ms. Leah O'Leary Mr. Michael C. Singley Ms. Briana Marie Webb Donald Adams, Ricky Adams, Anthony Aguilar, David Aguilar, Frank Alvarado, Lakeith Amir-Sharif, Rodney R. Anzaldua, Lawrence R. Avelar Jr., Derek M. Bailey, Anthony Ray Banks, Usiaf Banna, Gary Barnett, Ronnald

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886772 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2019
L. Barrow, Howard Bass, Steven Bass, Ricky Wayne Beckett, Aaron Binion, Aaron Birchfield, Elvin A. Bonner, Jesse Boutte, Gary Bowen, Jessie Bramber, Craig A. Brown, Antwain Burks, Michael Burks Jr., Damacia Busby, Charles Carter, Gerald Childress, Leondrea Crawford, Andrew Joseph Cross, Eddie DeLeon, Terry D elord, Alberto Diaz, Bennie Dickson, Paul Dixon, James Dobbs, Shannon Donner, Emmanuel Doyle, Nakimo Drones, Steven Eads, Vermon Edwards, Marvin Elledge, Clifton Elliott, Kenneth Ellzey, Troy Escamilla, Anastacio S. Esparza, Alan J. Fanning, Edward Fansler, Joseph Farr, John A. Fisher, Monty David Fleming, Aronaldo Fogel, Patrick Ford, Rick E. Fras, Jimmy Freeman, Rudolfo Fuentes, John Paul Garcia, Johnny Garcia, Ray Garcia, Henry T. Garland, Wayne Garner, David Garrison, Terence Gayden, Gary Gee, Gerald Gibson, Jeremy Godinez, Arturo Gonzales, Leo Gonzales, Ruben Gonzales, Brandon Gordon, Norris Earl Goynes, Douglas Graf, Michael Graham, Tyrone Grant, Zachary Harvey, Kevin Hawkins, Steven Hayes, Samuel Henderson, Horacio Hernandez, Lupe R. Hernanez, Frederick Herrera, Lee Marcus Herrera, Chris Holland, David Holland, Clem Hollingsworth, Kenneth Holt, Justin L. Hudson, Richard Hyland, Travis James, Todd Janes, Damion G. Johnson, Darrell Johnson, Charles Jones, Jerry Jones, McCarty Jones, Willis Jones, Joshua Kearney, Grady Kennedy, Mark Kirby, Freeman Lamar, Charles Leck, Michael Lee, Arthur Lopez, Roderic Luster, Omar Mata, Haley Mayberry, Karey McFarland, Marty Layne McFee, Anthony McGuire, Nicholas McKnight, Jimmy McCillan, Jackie McQueen, James A. Meeks, Harvey Mellard, Vic Miller, James Monroe, Jaime Moreno, James Moore, Jose L. Munoz, Ceasar Navarro, Elwin D. Norris, Benajmin Onyeforo, Derek Orsborn, Robert Ortiz, Delton Oveal, William Alvin Owen, David S. Padilla, Eric Paredes, Donald A. Pearson, Alex Pena, Gregg Pendleton, Faustino Perez, Justin H. Petty, Robert Earl Pitts, Jr., Romont Robbins Sr., Carl Robinson, Jose Rodriguez, Tommie Rodriguez, Uriel Rodriguez, Craig Samples, Jesse Sanchez, III, Simon M. Sanchez, Dusty Seaton, Wisdom L. Simms, Jr., David Simon, Timothy Singleton, Jason P. Smith, Kevin Smith, Edward Smyth, Ronnie Spratt, Charles Stanley, Charlie Stanley, Jeffrey Steadman, Marshall W. Strifler, William Sullivan, Justin Summers, Palanco Tatman, Quintin Taylor, Kenneth Thomas, Larry Thomas, Jerry L. Thomas, Jonathan To, Carlos Wayne Toombs, Jose Torres, Jr., Joseph Torres, Raymond Torres, Mark Travis, Jesse Valenzuela, Jerry Vance, Richard Vetter, Jay Jay Vialobos, Ronald J. Walker, Steven Walker, Michael Walton, Ronald Warren, Jarmarcus White, Quavonn White, Frederick Whitley, Christopher Williams, Floyd Williams, Clayton Wilson, Joe Wolf, Blair Wright, Ricky Ybarra, Lester Yount, Francisco Zapata, James Zertuche

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886672 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________________

No. 18-20216 ___________________

BRYAN COLLIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; ROBERTO M. HERRERA; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendants - Appellees

v.

DUSTY SEATON; JAMES A. MEEKS, Movants - Appellants

A True Copy Certified order issued Mar 25, 2019
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

MICHAEL WALTON; ANTWAIN BURKS; JERRY L. THOMAS; ALAN J. FANNING; SIMON M. SANCHEZ; STEVEN WALKER; EMMANUEL DOYLE; ZACHARY HARVEY; NICHOLAS MCKNIGHT; SAMUEL HENDERSON; QUAVONN WHITE; RICK EDMUND FRAS; ROBERT EARL PITTS, JR.; ANTHONY AGUILAR; GARY BARNETT; EDWARD FANSLER; WILLIAM SULLIVAN; CRAIG A. BROWN; JIMMY FREEMAN; ARTURO GONZALES; JAMES MOORE; BLAIR WRIGHT,

Appellants

v.

MARVIN RAY YATES; JACKIE BRANNUM; RICHARD ELVIN KING; FRED WALLACE; MICHAEL DENTON,

Plaintiffs - Appellees _______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas _______________________

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886672 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2019
Before DENNIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This appeal arises from a class action brought in 2014 by inmates in a particular unit of Texas’s state prisons—the “Pack Unit”—challenging the policies and practices of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), which exposed them to extreme heat conditions in their housing areas. The district court originally certified a class consisting of “all inmates who currently are, or in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ’s policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas.” Relevant here, the district court issued a preliminary injunction that required TDCJ to transfer heat-sensitive residents—those with conditions that made them particularly sensitive to the dangers of extreme heat—out of the Pack Unit and into climate-controlled units. In late August 2017, some prisoners—including some heat-sensitive individuals—were transferred to the Pack Unit from the Stringfellow Unit as part of a Hurricane Harvey evacuation plan. TDCJ asked the district court to modify the injunction to remove the climate-control requirement for heat-sensitive inmates who had been transferred to the Pack Unit in the Hurricane Harvey evacuations. The district court denied the request, holding that the heat restriction for heat-sensitive residents of the Pack Unit continued to apply, regardless of the reason for the individuals’ residence at the Pack Unit. To comply with the preliminary injunction, then, TDCJ then moved the new heat-sensitive residents of the
2

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886672 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/25/2019
Pack Unit to air-conditioned housing elsewhere in the system, including the Leblanc Unit.
On February 2, 2018, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle and filed a Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement on March 6, 2018. As part of their Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement, the plaintiffs sought amended certification of the class to include “all incarcerated people who are still in TDCJ custody who were assigned to live at the Pack Unit between July 19, 2017 and August 8, 2017, or are still living at the Pack Unit on March 6, 2018.”
This amended class definition excluded the inmates originally housed in the Stringfellow Unit who, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, were transferred to the Pack Unit temporarily before being transferred again to a climatecontrolled unit. In response to this exclusion, one of these individuals, prisoner Lakeith Amir-Sharif, on behalf of himself and several other inmates who were temporarily housed at the Pack Unit during Hurricane Harvey, filed an “Emergency Motion” in the district court challenging the settlement and arguing that Amir-Sharif and others who resided in the Pack Unit temporarily after Hurricane Harvey should be recognized as class members. The district court denied the emergency motion on March 27, 2018, explaining that the inmates were not class members and therefore could not challenge the class action settlement but were free to file separate lawsuits relating to conditions in the units where they were currently housed. The district court explained:
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Movants do not have standing to object to the settlement, since they are not members of the Settlement Class. In a separate order, the Court is preliminarily approving the settlement and amending the class definition to consist of people at Pack when the 2017 injunction went into effect and/or in March of 2018. Mr. Amir-Sharif and others transferred into Pack during TDCJ’s transfer program under the injunction were only part of the class on a temporary
3

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886672 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/25/2019
basis. In light of the significant rights at issue in this case, and the fact that Mr. Amir-Sharif and other Leblanc residents were temporarily impacted by the case, the Court will nevertheless address Mr. Amir-Sharif's concerns and requests in writing.
The Court is acting within its authority in amending the class definition. The Court may amend the class definition during the course of the litigation. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(1)(C) (“An order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.”); Richardson v. Byrd, 709 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1983).
The modified class definition provides clarity and returns the class to its originally intended size and composition. The class as defined at certification was meant to include people living in the Pack Unit at present or in the future. The relief sought—safe temperatures for those at Pack—reflected this class definition. This case was brought to address conditions at Pack, by people incarcerated at Pack. The evidentiary and legal findings supporting class certification and the preliminary injunctions relate to Pack Unit conditions. However, the scope of the class fluctuated and expanded during the implementation of the 2017 injunction, as TDCJ transferred class members out of Pack and transferred new individuals into Pack. When the Court certified the class under the original definition, the Court did not anticipate that a transfer process would be put into place. The remedy that the parties have decided for settlement is air-conditioning the Pack Unit itself—the relief that Plaintiffs sought from the outset. It is reasonable and fair for the Settlement Class to consist of individuals at Pack prior to the injunction transfers and at the time of settlement.
The Court is sympathetic to the concerns of people incarcerated at the Leblanc Unit. The dangerous heat-related conditions that the Court identified in this case may exist at their unit or other units in the TDCJ system. Nothing in this settlement prevents people at Leblanc or other non-Pack units from undertaking efforts to vindicate their constitutional rights.
II. APPEAL AND MOTIONS
On April 5, 2018, 192 prisoners signed and filed a notice of appeal. Of
the 192 signatories, 189 were not members of the settlement class (“the
4

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886672 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/25/2019
Objectors”). The Objectors, including Amir-Sharif,1 describe themselves as “former class and/or subclass members who were excluded from the class and settlement.”
Plaintiffs-Appellees—who are members of the settlement class—contend that the Objectors’ appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We agree. Generally, “only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment.” Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988). This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain objections to a settlement agreement brought by non-class members whose rights are unaffected by the agreement. See United States v. Fletcher, 805 F.3d 596, 602 (5th Cir. 2015) (describing the “central tenet of appellate jurisdiction” that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of “a party who is not aggrieved by a judgment of the district court”); see also 4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 14:12 (5th ed.) (“[I]n general, nonclass members and nonsettling defendants will not have standing to appeal subsequent settlements. Nonsettling parties will have standing to appeal only insofar as the settlement purports to release their own legal claims or cause other plain legal prejudice.”). Cf. Transamerican Ref. Corp. v. Dravo Corp., 952 F.2d 898, 900 (5th Cir. 1992) (“[N]on-settling defendants generally have no standing to complain about a settlement, since they are not members of the settling class.”).
As the district court noted here, “[n]othing in this settlement prevents people at Leblanc or other non-Pack units from undertaking efforts to vindicate their constitutional rights.” Because the Objectors are nonclass members who did not seek to intervene in the district court 2 and whose legal rights are
1 The appeal was dismissed as to Amir-Sharif by an order of this court on September 10, 2018 for want of prosecution.
2 One Objector, James A. Meeks, filed a motion to intervene, which the district court denied. The challenge to that denial was reviewed by a panel of this court in a companion appeal. See Brannum v. Collier, 745 F. App’x 544 (5th Cir. 2018).
5

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886672 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/25/2019
completely unaltered by the settlement agreement, they are not aggrieved parties here and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review their appeal. Marino, 484 U.S. at 304. Of course, our lack of jurisdiction has no effect on the Objectors’ ability to bring a separate legal challenge to TDCJ practices. We GRANT appellees’ motion to dismiss the Objectors’ appeals for want of jurisdiction and DENY the Objectors’ currently pending motions as moot.
The two remaining appellants—Aaron Birchfield and Terry P. Delord— were members of the settlement class. On October 29, 2018, Birchfield and Delord were dismissed from the appeal for failure to file briefs. After consideration, appellants’ motion for reconsideration of this dismissal is DENIED.
III. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the appeals of Donald Adams, Ricky Adams, Anthony Aguilar, David Aguilar, Frank Alvarado, Lakeith Amir-Sharif, Rodney R. Anzaldua, Lawrence R. Avelar Jr., Derek M. Bailey, Anthony Ray Banks, Usiaf Banna, Gary Barnett, Ronnald L. Barrow, Howard Bass, Steven Bass, Ricky Wayne Beckett, Aaron Binion, Elvin A. Bonner, Jesse Boutte, Gary Bowen, Jessie Bramber, Craig A. Brown, Antwain Burks, Michael Burks Jr., Damacia Busby, Charles Carter, Gerald Childress, Leondrea Crawford, Andrew Joseph Cross, Eddie DeLeon, Alberto Diaz, Bennie Dickson, Paul Dixon, James Dobbs, Shannon Donner, Emmanuel Doyle, Nakimo Drones, Steven Eads, Vermon Edwards, Marvin Elledge, Clifton Elliott, Kenneth Ellzey, Troy Escamilla, Anastacio S. Esparza, Alan J. Fanning, Edward Fansler, Joseph Farr, John A. Fisher, Monty David Fleming, Aronaldo Fogel, Patrick Ford, Rick E. Fras, Jimmy Freeman, Rudolfo Fuentes, John Paul Garcia, Johnny Garcia, Ray Garcia, Henry T. Garland, Wayne Garner, David Garrison, Terence Gayden, Gary Gee, Gerald Gibson, Jeremy Godinez, Arturo
6

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886672 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/25/2019
Gonzales, Leo Gonzales, Ruben Gonzales, Brandon Gordon, Norris Earl Goynes, Douglas Graf, Michael Graham, Tyrone Grant, Zachary Harvey, Kevin Hawkins, Steven Hayes, Samuel Henderson, Horacio Hernandez, Lupe R. Hernanez, Frederick Herrera, Lee Marcus Herrera, Chris Holland, David Holland, Clem Hollingsworth, Kenneth Holt, Justin L. Hudson, Richard Hyland, Travis James, Todd Janes, Damion G. Johnson, Darrell Johnson, Charles Jones, Jerry Jones, McCarty Jones, Willis Jones, Joshua Kearney, Grady Kennedy, Mark Kirby, Freeman Lamar, Charles Leck, Michael Lee, Arthur Lopez, Roderic Luster, Omar Mata, Haley Mayberry, Karey McFarland, Marty Layne McFee, Anthony McGuire, Nicholas McKnight, Jimmy McMillan, Jackie McQueen, James A. Meeks,3 Harvey Mellard, Vic Miller, James Monroe, Jaime Moreno, James Moore, Jose L. Munoz, Ceasar Navarro, Elwin D. Norris, Benjamin Onyeforo, Derek Orsborn, Robert Ortiz, Delton Oveal, William Alvin Owen, David S. Padilla, Eric Paredes, Donald A. Pearson, Alex Pena, Gregg Pendleton, Faustino Perez, Justin H. Petty, Robert Earl Pitts Jr, Stephen Poole, Mickel Poyneer, Gil Ramirez, Jose M. Ramos, Leon Reed Jr., Romont Robbins Sr., Carl Robinson, Jose Rodriguez, Tommie Rodriguez, Uriel Rodriguez, Craig Samples, Jesse Sanchez III, Simon M. Sanchez, Dusty Seaton, Wisdom L. Simms Jr., David Simon, Timothy Singleton, Jason P. Smith, Kevin Smith, Edward Smyth, Ronnie Spratt, Charles Stanley, Charlie Stanley, Jeffrey Steadman, Marshall W. Strifler, William Sullivan, Justin Summers, Palanco Tatman, Quintin Taylor, Kenneth Thomas, Larry Thomas, Jerry L. Thomas, Jonathan To, Carlos Wayne Toombs, Jose Torres Jr., Joseph Torres, Raymond Torres, Mark Travis, Jesse
3 Meeks filed a companion appeal, No 18-20402, appealing the district court’s denial of his motion to intervene and challenging the district court’s approval of the class settlement agreement. A panel of this court affirmed the district court’s denial of Meeks’s motion to intervene and dismissed his challenge to the district court’s approval of the class settlement for lack of jurisdiction. Brannum v. Collier, 745 F. App’x 544 (5th Cir. 2018).
7

Case: 18-20216 Document: 00514886672 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/25/2019
Valenzuela, Jerry Vance, Richard Vetter, Jay Jay Vialobos, Ronald J. Walker, Steven Walker, Michael Walton, Ronald Warren, Jarmarcus White, Quavonn White, Frederick Whitley, Christopher Williams, Floyd Williams, Clayton Wilson, Joe Wolf, Blair Wright, Ricky Ybarra, Lester Yount, Francisco Zapata, and James Zertuche are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and their pending motions are DENIED as moot.4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the appeal as to appellants Aaron Birchfield and Terry P. Delord is DENIED.
4 We note that the majority of the Objectors have been previously dismissed for failure to timely file briefs. Their subsequent filings in this court, however, including motions for reconsideration of such dismissals and motions for appointment of counsel, along with appellees’ motion to dismiss, cause us to separately examine our jurisdiction.
8

 
 Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 1398 Filed on 03/25/19 in TXSD Page 10 of 10

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 1 of 130
U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:14−cv−01698

PLRA,PRIS

Cole et al v. Collier et al Filings submitted by pro se interested parties should first be reviewed by the Court before filing. Assigned to: Judge Keith P Ellison Related Cases: 4:18−cv−04412
4:16−cv−01735 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

David Bailey TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Abigail Hill Frank Texas Legal Services Center P.O. Box 41256 Austin, TX 78704 512−477−6000 Fax: 512−477−6576 Email: afrank@tlsc.org TERMINATED: 02/03/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wallis Anne Nader Texas Civil Rights Project − Houston 405 Main St. 7th Floor Houston, TX 77002 832−767−3650 Fax: 832−554−9981 Email: wallis@texascivilrightsproject.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Rolland McGiverin Dietz, Lawrence & McGiverin 2221 Hancock Dr Austin, TX 78756 572−366−2114 Email: bmcgiver@gmail.com TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C Harrington Texas Civil Rights Project 1405 Montopolis Dr Austin, TX 78741−3438 512−474−5073 Fax: 512−474−0726 Email: jch@utexas.edu TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock Edwards Law The Haehnel Building 1101 East 11th St Austin, TX 78702 512−623−7727 Fax: 512−623−7729 Email: scott@edwards−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 2 of 130

Plaintiff Marvin Ray Yates

Sean Flammer Texas Attorney General PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711−2548 512−475−4071 Fax: 512−320−0667 Email: sean.flammer@oag.texas.gov TERMINATED: 03/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trisha Trigilio ACLU of Texas 1500 McGowen Street Houston, TX 77004 (713) 942−8146 Email: ttrigilio@aclutx.org TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wayne Krause Yang Texas Legal Services Center 2101 S IH 35 Frontage Rd. Austin, TX 78702 5126375566 Fax: 5124776576 Email: WYang@tlsc.org TERMINATED: 08/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Edwards The Edwards Law Firm 1101 East 11th St Austin, TX 78702 512−623−7727 Fax: 512−623−7729 Email: jeff@edwards−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Wallis Anne Nader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew D. Pennebaker Reynolds Frizzell LLP 1100 Louisiana Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002 713−485−7200 Email: dpennebakaer@reynoldsfrizzell.com TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Rolland McGiverin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anthony James Edwards Law The Haehnel Building 1101 E 11th St

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 3 of 130
Austin, TX 78702 512−632−7727 Fax: 512−632−7729 Email: david@edwards−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy L Doyle Reynolds Frizzell LLP 1100 Louisiana St Ste 3500 Houston, TX 77002 713−485−7200 Fax: 713−485−7250 Email: jdoyle@reynoldsfrizzell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael C Singley Edwards Law The Haehnel Building 1101 E. 11th St. Austin, TX 78702 512−623−7727 Fax: 512−623−7729 Email: mike@edwards−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Natalia Marissa Cornelio Houston, TX 77002 832−767−3650 Email: nataliacornelio@gmail.com TERMINATED: 05/10/2019
Nathan M Smith Reynolds Frizzell LLP 1100 Louisiana Ste 3500 Houston, TX 77002 713−485−7200 Fax: 713−485−7250 Email: nsmith@reynoldsfrizzell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Blackmer Steffensen Texas Civil Rights Project 1405 Montopolis Dr Austin, TX 78741 512−474−5073 Email: peter@texascivilrightsproject.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Flammer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trisha Trigilio

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 4 of 130

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wayne Krause Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Keith Cole 728748 Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868

represented by Wallis Anne Nader (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew D. Pennebaker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Rolland McGiverin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anthony James (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy L Doyle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael C Singley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Natalia Marissa Cornelio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2019

Nathan M Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Blackmer Steffensen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 5 of 130

TERMINATED: 05/08/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Flammer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trisha Trigilio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wayne Krause Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nicholas Diaz TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Wallis Anne Nader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Rolland McGiverin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Flammer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trisha Trigilio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wayne Krause Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 6 of 130

Mark A Smith TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Blaine D Elder TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Merrill Haskell TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Blake King TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Christopher King TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James Allen Harris TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jackie Brannum

represented by Andrew D. Pennebaker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Rolland McGiverin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anthony James (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy L Doyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael C Singley (See above for address)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 7 of 130

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Natalia Marissa Cornelio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2019

Nathan M Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Blackmer Steffensen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trisha Trigilio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wallis Anne Nader (See above for address)

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Richard Elvin King

represented by Andrew D. Pennebaker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Rolland McGiverin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anthony James (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy L Doyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael C Singley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Natalia Marissa Cornelio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2019

Nathan M Smith (See above for address)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 8 of 130

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Blackmer Steffensen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trisha Trigilio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wallis Anne Nader (See above for address)

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dean Anthony Mojica TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Andrew D. Pennebaker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Rolland McGiverin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy L Doyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael C Singley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan M Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trisha Trigilio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 9 of 130

Ray Wilson TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Andrew D. Pennebaker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Rolland McGiverin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy L Doyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael C Singley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan M Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trisha Trigilio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Fred Wallace

represented by Andrew D. Pennebaker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Rolland McGiverin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anthony James (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy L Doyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 10 of 130

Michael C Singley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Natalia Marissa Cornelio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2019

Nathan M Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Blackmer Steffensen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trisha Trigilio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wallis Anne Nader (See above for address)

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lavar John Santee

represented by David Anthony James (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy L Doyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wallis Anne Nader (See above for address)

Plaintiff Michael Denton

represented by Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Natalia Marissa Cornelio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2019

Peter Blackmer Steffensen (See above for address)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 11 of 130

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Charles Medlock Edwards Law 1101 East 11th St Austin, TX 78702 512−623−7727 Fax: 512−623−7729 Email: scott@edwards−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wallis Anne Nader (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Israel Garcia

represented by Jeffrey S Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Ray Banks

represented by Anthony Ray Banks 725673 Polunsky Unit 3872 FM 350 South Livingston, TX 77351 PRO SE

Plaintiff Charles L Williams

represented by Charles L Williams 757877 Pack I Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Plaintiff William Harrison Blackwell

represented by William Harrison Blackwell 1532742 Pack 1 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Plaintiff David C Garrett

represented by David C Garrett Wallace Pack 2400 Wallace Pack Unit Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Plaintiff Albert Hunter

represented by Albert Hunter 2070346 Wallace Pack 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Plaintiff Andrew Jackson

represented by

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 12 of 130
Andrew Jackson 621203 W.J. Estelle Unit Estelle Unit 264 FM 3478 Huntsville, TX PRO SE

V. Petitioner William Marshall Carman, Jr

represented by William Marshall Carman, Jr #571323 Wallack Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, Tx 77868 PRO SE

V. Defendant Bryan Collier

represented by Cynthia Burton Texas Dept of Criminal Justice 209 W 14th St Ste 500 Austin, TX 78711 512−305−8795 Email: cynthia.burton@tdcj.texas.gov TERMINATED: 03/02/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ted A Ross Office of the Texas Attorney General 300 West 15th Street Austin, TX 78701 512−475−4191 Fax: 512−457−4674 Email: ted.ross@oag.texas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Marie Kates Office of the Attonrey General Law Enforcement Defense Division 300 W. 15th Street Austin, TX 78701 512−463−2080 Email: amanda.kates@texasbar.com TERMINATED: 10/17/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Briana Marie Webb Office of the Attorney General 300 West 15th St 7th Floor Austin, TX 78701−1220 512−463−2080 Fax: 512−370−9891 Email: briana.webb@oag.texas.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 13 of 130
Bruce R Garcia Office of the Attorney General PO Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711−2548 512−463−2080 Fax: 512−370−9397 Email: Bruce.Garcia@oag.texas.gov TERMINATED: 08/21/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C Daniel DiLizia Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division 300 W 15th St Austin, TX 78701 512−463−2080 Fax: 512−370−9394 Email: c.dilizia@oag.texas.gov TERMINATED: 11/20/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig Michael Warner Bell Nunnally & Martin 2323 Ross Ave., Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 214−740−1443 Fax: 214−740−5743 Email: cwarner@bellnunnally.com TERMINATED: 04/16/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Christopher Neuhoff Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division 300 W 15th Street Austin, TX 78701 512−463−2080 Fax: 512−370−9914 Email: daniel.neuhoff@cpa.texas.gov TERMINATED: 11/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darren Lee McCarty Office of the Attorney General of Texas 209 West 14th Street Austin, TX 78701 512−936−0591 Email: darren.mccarty@oag.texas.gov TERMINATED: 11/27/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Derek Josef Kammerlocher Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Div 300 W. 15th St., Ste. 7 Austin, TX 78701 512−463−2080 Email: derek.kammerlocher2@oag.texas.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold J Liller Attorney General of Texas P O Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711−2548

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 14 of 130
512−463−2080 Email: harold.liller@oag.texas.gov TERMINATED: 07/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John S Langley Attorney General of Texas P O Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 512−936−7935 Email: john.langley@oag.texas.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Andrew Moczygemba Thornton Biechlin et al 100 NE Loop 410 Ste 500 San Antonio, TX 78216 210−377−4580 Email: kmoczygemba@thorntonfirm.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah Jean O'Leary Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 512−463−2080 Fax: 512−370−9918 Email: leah.oleary@oag.texas.gov TERMINATED: 02/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. Erwin Assistant Attorney General P O Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711−2548 512−463−2080 Email: lori.erwin@texasattorneygeneral.gov TERMINATED: 05/02/2016
Matthew J Greer Texas Attorney General PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 512−475−3079 Fax: 512/936−2109 Email: matthew.greer@oag.texas.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadine Phillpotts Office of the Attorney General PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 512−463−2080 Email: nadine.phillpotts@texasattorneygeneral.gov TERMINATED: 02/12/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia M Tulinski Office of the Texas Attorney General 300 W 15th St Austin, TX 78701

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 15 of 130

512−463−2080 Fax: 512−936−2109 Email: pat.tulinski@oag.texas.gov TERMINATED: 09/01/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip P. Boyd Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division 300 W. 15th St. 7th Floor Austin, TX 78701 512−828−9523 Email: phillip.boyd@texasattorneygeneral.gov (Inactive) TERMINATED: 07/28/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Roberto M Herrera

represented by Amanda Marie Kates (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Burton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ted A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Briana Marie Webb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce R Garcia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Daniel DiLizia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig Michael Warner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Christopher Neuhoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darren Lee McCarty (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 16 of 130

Defendant Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Derek Josef Kammerlocher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold J Liller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John S Langley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Andrew Moczygemba (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah Jean O'Leary (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. Erwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2016
Matthew J Greer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadine Phillpotts (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia M Tulinski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip P. Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia Burton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ted A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Marie Kates (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 17 of 130
Briana Marie Webb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce R Garcia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C Daniel DiLizia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig Michael Warner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Christopher Neuhoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darren Lee McCarty (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Derek Josef Kammerlocher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold J Liller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John S Langley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Andrew Moczygemba (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah Jean O'Leary (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. Erwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2016
Matthew J Greer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadine Phillpotts (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 18 of 130

Phillip P. Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joseph Peter Le'Dee' TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by Joseph Peter Le'Dee' #1262929 Eastham Unit/TDCJ−ID 2665 Prison Road #1 Transient Status Overflow M−Line 2−12−B Lovelady, TX 75851 PRO SE

Defendant Jeffrey R Adams

represented by Jeffrey R Adams 632670 Stiles Unit 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Defendant Kevin Reid Althouse

Intervenor Plaintiff
Jason Bridges TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Jason Bridges 1816679 Hutchins Unit 1500 E. Langdon Rd. Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Intervenor Plaintiff
Jackie Staley TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Jackie Staley 1886483 Hutchins State Jail 1500 E Langdon Rd Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Intervenor Plaintiff
Christopher Guffey TERMINATED: 08/05/2016

represented by Christopher Guffey #1903625 Hutchins Unit 1500 E Langdon Rd Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Movant
Emery F. Smith TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by Emery F. Smith #687002 Hutchins Unit 1500 East Langdon Road Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Movant Richard Jaxson

represented by

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 19 of 130

Richard Jaxson 468760 Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Movant
Rudy Garza Molina TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by Rudy Garza Molina 1877909 Hutchins Unit 1500 East Langdon Road Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Movant
David Robert Veazey, Jr TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by David Robert Veazey, Jr 1921838 Hutchins Unit 1500 E. Landgon Road Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Movant
Thomas Byron TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by Thomas Byron #1897531 Hutchins State Jail 1500 E. Langdon Rd Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Movant
Ariel Dulitzky Non−Party Professor Ariel Dulitzky

represented by Esteban Soto Office of the Attorney General of Texas PO Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 512−475−4099 Email: Esteban.Soto@oag.texas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Dusty Seaton

represented by Dusty Seaton 1925508 Leblanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Movant Patrick Ford

represented by Patrick Ford 1564102 LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Movant John Ford

represented by John Ford 661737

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 20 of 130

Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Movant Joe Albert Ramon

Movant
Eric Demond Lozano TERMINATED: 07/01/2019

represented by Eric Demond Lozano A.M. Stringfellow Unit 1200 FM 655 Rosharon, TX 77583 PRO SE

V. Interested Party Charles C Taylor, Jr TERMINATED: 10/12/2017
Interested Party Jorge Jones TERMINATED: 10/12/2017
Interested Party John Cloud
Interested Party Marcus Natt
Interested Party Jay Yoon Chung
Interested Party Ronnie Armstrong TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by Charles C Taylor, Jr 1347697 Hutchins Unit 1500 East Langdon Rd Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE
represented by Jorge Jones 1934436 1500 E. Langdon Rd. Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE
represented by John Cloud 11702 Bowlan Lane Houston, TX 77035−2214 PRO SE
represented by Marcus Natt 1827898 1500 E. Langdon Rd Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE
represented by Jay Yoon Chung 1876067 1500 E. Langdon Rd. Dallas, TX 72541 PRO SE
represented by Ronnie Armstrong 1897849 Hutchins Unit 1500 E. Langdon Road Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 21 of 130

Interested Party Tashumbre L. Jones TERMINATED: 10/12/2017
Interested Party Casey Kaleb Kofnovel
Interested Party Robert W Jurek
Interested Party Sidney Beasley
Interested Party Quincy Deshan Butler
Interested Party R Wayne Johnson
Interested Party Robert Leon Roberts
Interested Party Charles A Malouff, Jr

represented by Tashumbre L. Jones 1876080 Hutchins Unit 1500 E. Langdon Rd. Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE
represented by Casey Kaleb Kofnovel #1829587 Hutchins State Jail PRO SE
represented by Robert W Jurek 1826038 Hutchins Unit 1500 East Langdon Road Dallas, TX 77251 PRO SE
represented by Sidney Beasley 1625687 CT Terrell Unit 1300 FM 655 Rosharon, TX 77583−8604 PRO SE
represented by Quincy Deshan Butler 01899541 Eastham Unit 2665 Prison Rd 1 Lovelady, TX 75851 PRO SE
represented by R Wayne Johnson #282756 9601 Spur 591 Clements Amarillo, TX 79107−9606 PRO SE
represented by Robert Leon Roberts 328150 Connally Unit 899 FM 632 Kenedy, TX 78119 PRO SE
represented by Charles A Malouff, Jr 1978590 Wallace Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd.

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 22 of 130

Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Stanley Bernard Sherman

represented by Stanley Bernard Sherman 515448 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Lupe R. Hernanez

Interested Party Reginald Nelson

Interested Party Raymond Torres

represented by Raymond Torres #860248 Stringfellow Unit 1200 FM 655 Rosharon, TX 77583 PRO SE

Interested Party James A. Meeks

represented by James A. Meeks 543366 Estelle Unit 264 FM 3478 Huntsville, TX 77320 PRO SE

Interested Party Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif

represented by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif 1505969 LeBlanc Prison Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Gerry Delano Hudson

Interested Party Ryan Howard

represented by Ryan Howard 02038904 Richard P LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Richard Lares

represented by Richard Lares 1592255 Stiles Unit High Security (Ad Seg) DA−5 Cell 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 23 of 130

Interested Party Jeffery Dobbins
Interested Party Kelvin Jones
Interested Party Robert Gutierrez
Interested Party George S. Clegg
Interested Party Herman Arthur Peterman Interested Party Steven Perez
Interested Party Dung Tran Interested Party Charles Ray Walten Interested Party David Weir Interested Party Todd Alan Feemster Interested Party

represented by Jeffery Dobbins 2092746 Leblanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE
represented by Kelvin Jones #1777657 Stiles Unit 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE
represented by Robert Gutierrez 563113 Stiles Unit 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE
represented by George S. Clegg 681197 LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE
represented by Herman Arthur Peterman PRO SE
represented by Steven Perez #1514617 Connally Unit 899 FM 632 Kenedy, TX 78119 PRO SE
represented by Dung Tran PRO SE

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 24 of 130

Herbert Darrell Hay

Interested Party James H Gentry

Interested Party Michael Walton

represented by Michael Walton 1546568 LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Wisdom L Simms, Jr

represented by Wisdom L Simms, Jr 1995211 LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Dawn Redenbaugh

Interested Party Ronnald L Barrow, I

represented by Ronnald L Barrow, I 1649969 Le Blanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Derek M. Bailey

represented by Derek M. Bailey 689542 Hughes Unit Rt 2 Box 4400 Gatesville, TX 76597 PRO SE

Interested Party Terry Reece Franklin

represented by Terry Reece Franklin 458004 Wallace Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Trevais Freeman

represented by Trevais Freeman 2020261 Wallace Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Daniel Puga

represented by Daniel Puga 2066114

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 25 of 130

Wallace Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Claiborne Baily

Interested Party Ryan D Gresham

represented by Ryan D Gresham 01708644 Wallace Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Barry Newman

represented by Barry Newman 1733001−TC−3−34 Pack One Unit 2400 Walace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Wayne Windell Williams

represented by Wayne Windell Williams 1968085 Wallace Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Antwain Burks

represented by Antwain Burks 1913867 Richard P Leblanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Victor Salinas

Interested Party
Herbert L Ellis 02001950 Wallace Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868

Interested Party Steve Galloway

represented by Steve Galloway 01979928 Wallace Pack Unit #1 2400 Wallace Pack Road Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 26 of 130

Jerry L. Thomas

represented by Jerry L. Thomas 568754 Leblanc Unit 3695 F.M. 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Dusty Seaton

represented by Dusty Seaton (See above for address) PRO SE

Interested Party Charlie Malouff

represented by Charlie Malouff 1978590 Wallace Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd. Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Billy Joe Britton

represented by Billy Joe Britton 1757852 Pack Unit A−3−25 2400 Wallace Pack Rd. Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Robert Lewis Hall

represented by Robert Lewis Hall 1861148 Pack One 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Jim Smith

Interested Party Darl Allen Stewart

represented by Darl Allen Stewart 679827 Pack 1 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Steve Parker

represented by Steve Parker 678438 Wallace Pack 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party James E Archer, Jr

represented by James E Archer, Jr 564695 4754 FM 1571 Lone Oak, TX 75453

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 27 of 130

PRO SE

Interested Party Robert Arthur Voris

represented by Robert Arthur Voris 1225841 Leblanc Unit 3659 Fm 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Mario Martinez

represented by Mario Martinez Hightower Unit 902 FM686 Dayton, TX 77535 PRO SE

Interested Party Joshua A Howard

Interested Party Clem Hollingsworth

represented by Clem Hollingsworth 2104025 LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Jack Reeves

represented by Jack Reeves 739133 Pack 1 Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

Interested Party Jason P. Smith

represented by Jason P. Smith 1118542 LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party Clayton Wilson

represented by Clayton Wilson 1175813 LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514 Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Interested Party
Paul Minix TERMINATED: 09/10/2018

represented by Paul Minix #638154 Eastham Unit 2665 Prison Rd Lovelady, TX 75851 PRO SE

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 28 of 130

Interested Party Shannon Mark Douthit Interested Party Michael Ewing Interested Party Joe R Weathers Interested Party Rell Angton, Jr
Interested Party Iron Thunderhorse
Interested Party Brandon Blake Coleman
Interested Party Anthony Ortiz Plaintiff Class Member
Interested Party E. J. Beanie

represented by Shannon Mark Douthit PRO SE
represented by Rell Angton, Jr 8536 O'Hara Lane Fort Worth, TX 76123 PRO SE
represented by Iron Thunderhorse 624391 Stiles Unit 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, Tx 77705 PRO SE
represented by Brandon Blake Coleman 1874048 Pack Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE
represented by Anthony Ortiz 753367 Pack 1 Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd Navasota, TX 77868 PRO SE

V. Intervenor James Michael Camarata TERMINATED: 10/12/2017
Intervenor Clifford Fairfax TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by James Michael Camarata 1830434 TDCJ 1500 E. Langdon Rd. Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE
represented by Clifford Fairfax 418151 TDCJ LeBlanc Unit 3695 FM 3514

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 29 of 130

Beaumont, TX 77705 PRO SE

Intervenor
James Stephen TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by James Stephen 1890872 Hutchins Unit 1500 E. Langdon Rd Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Intervenor
Dennis Pickard TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by Dennis Pickard #1838141 Hutchins Unit 1500 E. Langdon Rd. Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Intervenor
Leo Motte TERMINATED: 10/12/2017

represented by Leo Motte 1910822 Hutchins Unit 1500 E. Langdon Rd Dallas, TX 75241 PRO SE

Date Filed 06/18/2014 06/18/2014 06/18/2014 06/19/2014 06/19/2014
06/19/2014
06/27/2014 07/02/2014 07/10/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0541−13306294) filed by Nicholas Diaz, David Bailey, Keith Cole, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
2 Request for Issuance of Summons as to All Defendants, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
Summons Issued as to Roberto Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Issued summons returned to counsel for plaintiff by: First−class mail, filed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
4 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 11/7/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3A before Judge Keith P Ellison(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(wbostic, 4) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
5 MOTION to Certify Class, MOTION to Expedite Discovery( Motion Docket Date 7/10/2014.) by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
Summons Issued as to Roberto Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Issued summons and left them for pickup in the Clerk's Office, filed.(glyons, 4) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian McGiverin, Wayne Krause Yang, James Harrington on behalf of David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (McGiverin, Brian) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
7 MOTION To Join This Litigation by Interested Party, Charles C Taylor, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/31/2014. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 07/10/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 30 of 130

07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/15/2014
07/18/2014
07/21/2014
07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/28/2014 07/29/2014 07/29/2014 07/31/2014 07/31/2014 07/31/2014 07/31/2014 08/01/2014 08/01/2014

8 NOTICE of Appearance by Wayne Krause Yang on behalf of David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Krause, Wayne) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by James C. Harrington on behalf of David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Harrington, James) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
10 NOTICE by Roberto Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation Brief in Support, # 2 Continuation Declaration, # 3 Continuation Certificate of Service, # 4 Exhibit 1(Schedule of Actions), # 5 Exhibit 2(HIN Complaint), # 6 Exhibit 3(HIN Docket), # 7 Exhibit 4(MAR Complaint), # 8 Exhibit 5(MAR Docket), # 9 Exhibit 6(McC Complaint), # 10 Exhibit 7(McC Docket), # 11 Exhibit 8(WEB Complaint), # 12 Exhibit 9(WEB Docket), # 13 Exhibit 10(ADA Complaint), # 14 Exhibit 11(ADA Docket), # 15 Exhibit 12(TOG Complaint), # 16 Exhibit 13(TOG Docket), # 17 Exhibit 14(BAI Complaint), # 18 Exhibit 15(BAI Docket), # 19 Exhibit 16(Federal Court Management Statistics), # 20 Exhibit 17(MDL Dockets by District))(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
11 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time Answer to July 25, 2014 and respond to motion for class certification to Aug.1, 2014 by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/8/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
12 ORDER granting 11 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Answer due by 7/25/2014. Response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due by 8/1/2014.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
13 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
14 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED IN MDL 2569 by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Ranjana Natarajan on behalf of David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Natarajan, Ranjana) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
17 NOTICE OF FILING IN MDL 2569 by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
18 AMENDED ANSWER to by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
19 Letter to Court from Charles C. Taylor re: request of docket sheet and fees for copy, filed. (dahumada, 1) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
20 Petition to Intervene as Class Action Plaintiff by Charles C Taylor, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/21/2014. (dahumada, 1) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
21 Joint JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
22 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
23 MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/01/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 31 of 130

08/05/2014 08/06/2014
08/07/2014 08/08/2014 08/11/2014 08/12/2014 08/14/2014 08/14/2014
08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014
08/18/2014 08/18/2014 08/18/2014 08/20/2014

24 SUPPLEMENT to 21 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
25 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
26 MOTION to be added as Plaintiff, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/28/2014. (dterrell, 2) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
27 ORDER granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time. Response due by 8/21/2014.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rsmith, 4) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
28 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Scheduling Conference set for 8/15/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (rsmith, 4) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew J. Greer on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
30 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/4/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
31 STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR HEARING SET ON AUGUST 15, 2014 AT 2:00P.M. re: 28 Notice of Setting (FORM, noticing) − Judge Ellison by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
32 RESPONSE to 31 Statement, , filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
33 Letter from Charles C. Taylor, Jr. Re: Requesting name correction, filed. (marflores, 4). (Entered: 08/15/2014)
34 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Initial Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
35 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
36 NOTICE of Initial Disclosures to Defendants by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 8/15/2014. Scheduling is taken under advisement. Appearances:(Law Clerk: Renata Strause). Brian Rolland McGiverin, Cynthia Burton, Ranjara Natarjan. (Court Reporter: Kathy Miller), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
37 Petition for Discovery by Charles C Taylor, Jr, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/8/2014. (avleal, 1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/18/2014: # 1 Cover Letter) (avleal, 1). (Entered: 08/18/2014)
38 Petition for Leave to Join as Additional Plaintif, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/8/2014. (dgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
39 MOTION to Join as Additional Plaintiff by John Cloud, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/8/2014. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
40 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/20/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 32 of 130

08/21/2014 08/21/2014
08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/28/2014
08/28/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014
09/02/2014
09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/03/2014 09/03/2014 09/03/2014

41 REPLY to 5 MOTION to Certify Class MOTION to Expedite Discovery , filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
42 RESPONSE to 20 MOTION to Intervene, 39 MOTION to Join as Additional Plaintiff, 38 MOTION for Leave to File to Join as Additional Plaintif, 26 MOTION to be added as Plaintiff , filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
43 MOTION to Intervene by David R Veazey, Jr, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/15/2014. (lcayce, 2) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
44 Opposed MOTION to Stay ALL DISCOVERY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/15/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
45 OBJECTIONS to 20 MOTION to Intervene, 43 MOTION to Intervene, 39 MOTION to Join as Additional Plaintiff, 38 MOTION for Leave to File to Join as Additional Plaintif, 26 MOTION to be added as Plaintiff , filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
46 NOTICE JOINT ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
47 Petition to Intervene as Class−Action by Mark A Smith, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2014. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
48 Petition to Intervene as Class−Action by Blaine D Elder, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2014. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
49 Petition to Intervene Class−Action by Merrill Haskell, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2014. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
50 Petition to Intervene Class−Action by Robert Blake King, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2014. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
51 Petition to Intervene Class−Action by Christopher King, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2014. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
52 MOTION to Intervene by Emery F. Smith, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2014. (marflores, 4). (Entered: 09/02/2014)
53 RESPONSE to 32 Response TO PLAINTIFFS' DOC. NO. 32 CONTAINING A REQUEST FOR TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY DETECTION AND RECORDING DEVICES, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
54 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Plaintiffs' Doc. No. 41. by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
55 MOTION to Dismiss by Richard Jaxson, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2014. (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
56 OBJECTION to 1 Complaint, filed by Richard Jaxson. (marflores, 4). (Entered: 09/03/2014)
57 MOTION to Intervene by Jorge Jones, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/24/2014. (gsalinas, 5) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
58 Proposed Intervener's OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motions to Intervene filed by John Cloud. (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
59 Opposed MOTION to Supplement To Doc. No. 54 as to 54 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Plaintiffs' Doc. No. 41. by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/24/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/03/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 33 of 130

09/03/2014 09/03/2014 09/03/2014
09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/08/2014 09/09/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/11/2014 09/12/2014
09/12/2014
09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014
09/15/2014

60 ORDER FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
61 Amicus Curiae BRIEF by John Cloud, filed.(amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
63 DUPLICATIVE ORDER TO DOCKET NO. 60 ORDER to Respond 54 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Plaintiffs' Doc. No. 41. ( Responses due by 9/9/2014.) (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) Modified on 9/5/2014 (sloewe, 4). (Entered: 09/05/2014)
62 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Jeff Edwards. This is to order a transcript of Hearing held on 8/15/2014 before Judge Keith P Ellison (Original). Court Reporter: K. Miller, filed. (pcrawford, 4) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
64 RESPONSE to 54 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Plaintiffs' Doc. No. 41. filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
65 MOTION to Intervene by Rudy Garza Molina, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/29/2014. (mperez, 1) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
66 REPLY to 64 Response to Motion FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
67 ORDER granting extension of time 54 . Defendant must file any Response to Docket Entry 41 by 10/15/2014. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
68 Letter from Inmate, Clifford J. Fairfax re: request for copy of complaint, motion to dismiss and motion for class certification, filed. (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
69 NOTICE of Change of Address by Blaine D Elder, filed. (dahumada, 1) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
70 EMERGENCY MOTION( Motion Docket Date 10/3/2014.), MOTION for Order Directing Defendants to Disclose Location of Temperature Devices by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
71 ORDER re: 70 Emergency Motion for Order Directing Defendants to Disclose Location of Temperature Devices. A response should be filed by no later than NOON on Tuesday, September 16, 2014. Any reply to the Defendants' response should be filed by no later than NOON on Thursday, September 18,2014.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rsmith, 4) Modified on 9/12/2014 (rsmith, 4). (Entered: 09/12/2014)
72 MOTION to Intervene by Marcus Natt, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/6/2014. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
73 MOTION to Intervene by David Robert Veazey, Jr, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/6/2014. (mperez, 1) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
74 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
75 RESPONSE to 70 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION for Order Directing Defendants to Disclose Location of Temperature Devices filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
76 RESPONSE to 72 MOTION to Intervene, 57 MOTION to Intervene, 52 MOTION to Intervene, 43 MOTION to Intervene, 50 MOTION to Intervene, 51 MOTION to Intervene, 47 MOTION to Intervene, 49 MOTION to Intervene, 65 MOTION to Intervene, 48 MOTION to Intervene, 73 MOTION to Intervene filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/15/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 34 of 130

09/15/2014 09/16/2014 09/16/2014 09/18/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/22/2014 09/22/2014 09/23/2014 09/23/2014 09/23/2014 09/23/2014
09/25/2014 09/25/2014 09/25/2014 09/26/2014 09/26/2014

77 RESPONSE to 44 Opposed MOTION to Stay ALL DISCOVERY filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
78 REPLY in Support of 70 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION for Order Directing Defendants to Disclose Location of Temperature Devices, filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
79 Petition to Intervene filed by Jason Bridges.(gsalinas, 5) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
80 MOTION to Intervene by Jay Yoon Chung, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/9/2014. (jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
81 Letter from Virgil E. Wright re: Petition to Intervene as Class−Action Plaintiff, filed. (mxperez, 5) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
82 ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
83 MOTION to Intervene by James Michael Camarata, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/10/2014. (vrios, 2) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
84 PETITION TO INTERVENE AS CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFF, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/10/2014. (mxperez, 5) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
85 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of First Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
86 AMENDED 51 MOTION( Motion Docket Date 10/14/2014.), MOTION to Intervene by Christopher King, filed. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
87 MOTION to Intervene by Ronnie Armstrong, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/14/2014. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
88 MOTION to Intervene by Rudy Garza Molina, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/14/2014. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
89 MOTION to Intervene by Tashumbre L. Jones, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/14/2014. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
90 RESPONSE to 56 Objections, 55 MOTION to Dismiss , filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
91 RESPONSE in Opposition to 72 MOTION to Intervene, 83 MOTION to Intervene, 57 MOTION to Intervene, 52 MOTION to Intervene, 86 AMENDED 51 MOTION MOTION to Intervene, 50 MOTION to Intervene, 49 MOTION to Intervene, 73 MOTION to Intervene, 84 MOTION to Intervene, 88 MOTION to Intervene, 87 MOTION to Intervene, 89 MOTION to Intervene, 80 MOTION to Intervene, 51 MOTION to Intervene, 47 MOTION to Intervene, 65 MOTION to Intervene, 48 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
92 Letter from DeMarcus Franklin re: Party "Moves this Court to Intervene facing "Death" by deadly heat exposure with critical medical conditions", filed. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
93 MOTION to intervene by Thomas Byron, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/16/2014. (ltrevino, 3) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
94 MOTION to Intervene by Casey Kaleb Kofnovel, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/16/2014. (ltrevino, 3) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
95 MOTION to Intervene by Clifford Fairfax, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/17/2014. (vrios, 2) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
96 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing held on August 15, 2014 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen K. Miller. Ordering Party Jeff Edwards Release

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 35 of 130

09/26/2014 09/26/2014 09/29/2014 09/30/2014 10/02/2014 10/03/2014 10/06/2014 10/07/2014
10/07/2014 10/10/2014 10/10/2014 10/15/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014
10/16/2014 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 10/20/2014 10/20/2014

of Transcript Restriction set for 12/26/2014., filed. (kmiller, ) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
97 MOTION to Intervene by James Stephen, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/17/2014. (vrios, 2) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
98 MOTION to Intervene by Dennis Pickard, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/17/2014. (vrios, 2) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
99 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 96 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
100 Purported Intervenor John Cloud's Response to Opposition to Petition to Intervene filed by John Cloud. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
101 MOTION to Intervene by Leo Motte, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/23/2014. (vrios, 2) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
102 MOTION to Intervene by Michael Broadnax, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/24/2014. (sbejarano, 1) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
104 MOTION Leave to Join as Additional Plaintiff by James Allen Harris, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/27/2014. (avleal, 1) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
103 RESPONSE to 95 MOTION to Intervene, 88 MOTION to Intervene, 83 MOTION to Intervene, 87 MOTION to Intervene, 102 MOTION to Intervene, 89 MOTION to Intervene, 80 MOTION to Intervene, 98 MOTION to Intervene, 94 MOTION to Intervene, 86 AMENDED 51 MOTION MOTION to Intervene, 97 MOTION to Intervene, 84 MOTION to Intervene, 101 MOTION to Intervene, 93 MOTION to Intervene filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
105 MOTION for Leave to Join as Additional Plaintiff re: 1 Complaint by James Allen Harris, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/28/2014. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
106 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 10/23/2014 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (rsmith, 4) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
107 ORDER: Statements should be submitted by 10/17/2014(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rsmith, 4) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
108 BRIEF SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
109 Letter from Charles C. Taylor, Jr. re: status of check for copies, filed. (mperez, 1) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
110 RESPONSE to 95 MOTION to Intervene, 104 MOTION Leave to Join as Additional Plaintiff, 102 MOTION to Intervene, 98 MOTION to Intervene, 94 MOTION to Intervene, 105 MOTION for Joinder as to 1 Complaint, 97 MOTION to Intervene, 101 MOTION to Intervene, 93 MOTION to Intervene , filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
111 Amicus Curiae BRIEF by James Allen Harris, filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
112 STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR HEARING SET ON OCTOBER 23, 2014 re: 107 Order by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
113 STATUS REPORT by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
114 Letter from Jonathan Sikes re: requesting copy of brief, filed. (ccarnew, 3) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
115 MOTION to Intervene by Robert W Jurek, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/10/2014. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 10/21/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 36 of 130

10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/22/2014 10/22/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014
10/27/2014
10/27/2014 10/27/2014 10/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/05/2014
11/05/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014

116 Proposed Intervenor's Statement by John Cloud, filed.(lusmith, 3) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
117 Notice by Richard Jaxson, filed.(lusmith, 3) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
118 Request for Order of Instruction by Richard Jaxson, filed.(lusmith, 3) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
119 Statement of Matters to Be Discussed At Status Conference on 10−23−14 by Richard Jaxson, filed.(lusmith, 3) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
121 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED INTERVENER by James Allen Harris, filed.(dgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
120 MOTION for Protective Order by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
122 Statement of Matters by Christopher King, filed.(lusmith, 3) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
123 MOTION to Intervene by Jackie Staley, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/13/2014. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
124 NOTICE of Change of Address by Clifford Fairfax, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 10/23/2014. Appearances:(Law Clerk: Renata Strause). Jeffrey S Edwards, Brian Rolland McGiverin, Wayne Nicholas Krause, James C Harrington, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Warner), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
125 RESPONSE in Opposition to 104 MOTION Leave to Join as Additional Plaintiff, 105 MOTION for Joinder as to 1 Complaint, 123 MOTION to Intervene, 115 MOTION to Intervene, filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
126 RESPONSE to 125 Defendants in Opposition to Intervene,, filed by James Allen Harris. (mxperez, 5) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
127 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by James Rheams. This is to order a transcript of Status Conference held on 10/23/2014 before Judge Keith P. Ellison (Original). Court Reporter: F. Warner, filed. (pcrawford, 4) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
128 Letter from John Cloud re: October 10, 2014 status conference, filed. (ltrevino, 3) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
129 Notice of OBJECTION to the Court, filed by James Allen Harris. (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
130 STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR THE TDCJ TO PLACE COPIES OF BAILEY CASE PLEADINGS IN TDCJ PRISON LAW LIBRARIES by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
131 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support re: 120 MOTION for Protective Order by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
132 OBJECTIONS to 59 Opposed MOTION to Supplement To Doc. No. 54 as to 54 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Plaintiffs' Doc. No. 41., filed by Clifford Fairfax. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
133 RESPONSE in Opposition to Petitions to Intervene and Reply to Proposed Intervenor Statements, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 37 of 130

11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/07/2014 11/07/2014 11/10/2014 11/11/2014 11/11/2014 11/13/2014 11/13/2014
11/14/2014
11/14/2014 11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/19/2014 11/20/2014

134 RESPONSE to 120 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
135 RESPONSE to 130 Statement, In Opposition to Placing Copies of the Bailey Pleadings in Prison Law Libraries, filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
136 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Filing Second Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
137 MOTION to Intervene by Christopher Guffey, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/28/2014. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
138 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 11/14/2014 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
139 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Medlock on behalf of David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Medlock, Scott) (Entered: 11/11/2014)
140 MOTION for Trisha Trigilio to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/2/2014. (Natarajan, Ranjana) (Entered: 11/11/2014)
141 ORDER granting 140 Motion for Trisha Trigilio to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
142 MOTION for an Order Deeming Insufficiently Answered Requests to be Admitted by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/4/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 11/14/2014. Issues discussed on the record. Appearances:Sean Flammer, Jeffrey S Edwards, Brian Rolland McGiverin, Trisha Trigilio, Ranjana Natarajan, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: J. Sanchez) Law Clerk: Renata Strouse., filed.(rsmith, 4) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
143 NOTICE of Appearance by Sean Flammer on behalf of David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Flammer, Sean) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
144 Letter from Charlers C Taylor, Jr re: status of documents requested, filed. (avleal, 1) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
145 MOTION for Order of Instruction by Richard Jaxson, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/9/2014. (rwestmoreland, 4) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
146 BRIEF in Support re: 135 Response by James Allen Harris, filed.(emathis, 4) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
147 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 101 MOTION to Intervene, 26 MOTION to be added as Plaintiff, 88 MOTION to Intervene, 93 MOTION to Intervene, 80 MOTION to Intervene, 38 MOTION for Leave to File to Join as Additional Plaintif, 115 MOTION to Intervene, 83 MOTION to Intervene, 65 MOTION to Intervene, 86 AMENDED 51 MOTION MOTION to Intervene, 49 MOTION to Intervene, 102 MOTION to Intervene, 43 MOTION to Intervene, 89 MOTION to Intervene, 55 MOTION to Dismiss, 72 MOTION to Intervene, 7 MOTION To Join This Litigation, 87 MOTION to Intervene, 123 MOTION to Intervene, 94 MOTION to Intervene, 20 MOTION to Intervene, 137 MOTION to Intervene, 48 MOTION to Intervene, 37 MOTION for Discovery, 51 MOTION to Intervene, 57 MOTION to Intervene, 52 MOTION to Intervene, 98 MOTION to Intervene, 47 MOTION to Intervene, 39 MOTION to Join as Additional Plaintiff, 95 MOTION to Intervene, 104 MOTION Leave to Join as Additional Plaintiff, 145 MOTION order of instruction, 73 MOTION to Intervene, 105 MOTION for Joinder as to 1 Complaint, 97 MOTION to Intervene, 50 MOTION to Intervene, 84 MOTION to Intervene (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 38 of 130

11/21/2014 11/25/2014
11/25/2014 11/25/2014 11/25/2014
11/26/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/04/2014 12/05/2014 12/05/2014 12/08/2014
12/08/2014
12/09/2014
12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014

148 Letter to Charles C. Taylor, Jr. re: Letter 144 , filed. (avleal, 1) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
149 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time To File Response to Doc. No. 142 by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/16/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
150 ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
151 PROTECTIVE ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
152 ORDER granting 149 Motion for Extension of Time; Motion−related deadline set re: 142 MOTION for an Order Deeming Insufficiently Answered Requests to be Admitted. Responses due by 12/4/2014.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
153 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 107 Order, filed. (smurdock, 4) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
154 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
155 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 138 Notice of Setting − Judge Ellison, filed. (vrios, 2) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
156 Letter from Charles C. Taylor, Jr. re: Status of documents requested, filed. (gsalinas, 5) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
157 RESPONSE in Opposition to 142 MOTION for an Order Deeming Insufficiently Answered Requests to be Admitted, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
158 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(c) by Roberto M Herrera, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/26/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Robert Herrera, # 2 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
159 Letter from Robert Blake King re: status conference hearing/notice of change of address, filed. (amireles, 2) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
160 MOTION for Protective Order by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
161 EMERGENCY MOTION( Motion Docket Date 12/29/2014.), MOTION to Compel Deposition of Warden Herrera by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
162 NOTICE of Setting as to 160 MOTION for Protective Order, 161 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Compel Deposition of Warden Herrera. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2014 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
163 RESPONSE to 160 MOTION for Protective Order filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
164 MOTION to Bifurcate Discovery by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/31/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
165 RESPONSE in Opposition to 161 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Compel Deposition of Warden Herrera, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 39 of 130

12/10/2014
12/11/2014 12/11/2014
12/12/2014 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 12/17/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/23/2014 01/06/2015 01/08/2015 01/09/2015 01/13/2015 01/14/2015 01/20/2015

166 REPLY to 163 Response to Motion Defendants Motion for Protective Order, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
167 MEMORANDUM Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Bifurcation re: 164 MOTION to Bifurcate Discovery by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Natarajan, Ranjana) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 12/11/2014. Appearances:(Law Clerk: Renata Strause). Jeffrey S Edwards, Wayne Nicholas Krause, Scott Charles Medlock, Trisha Trigilio, James C Harrington, Ranjana Natarajan, Cynthia Burton.(Court Reporter: Warner), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
168 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Third Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
169 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Jeff Edwards. This is to order a transcript of Status Conference held 11/14/2014 before Judge Keith P. Ellison (Original). Court Reporter: J. Sanchez, filed. (pcrawford, 4) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
170 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Jeff Edwards. This is to order a transcript of Status Conference held 12/11/2014 before Judge Keith P. Ellison (Original). Court Reporter: F. Warner, filed. (pcrawford, 4) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
171 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
172 REPLY in Support of 142 MOTION for an Order Deeming Insufficiently Answered Requests to be Admitted, filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
173 Transcript Order by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
174 SURREPLY to 142 MOTION for an Order Deeming Insufficiently Answered Requests to be Admitted, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
175 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
176 RESPONSE to 158 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(c) , filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
177 Copy Request from Charles C. Taylor Jr. re: 4−14−cv−1698 Documents 1−11. Customer was contacted. (explanation of how customer was contacted). Sent copies by mail, filed. (jguajardo, 1) Copy Sent (jguajardo, 1). (Entered: 01/06/2015)
178 Letter from Christopher King re: copies of court pleadings, filed. (avleal, 1) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
179 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Fourth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
180 TRANSCRIPT re: Status Conference held on November 14, 2014 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter J. Sanchez. Ordering Party Edwards Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/13/2015., filed. (jsanchez, ) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
181 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 180 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
182 Letter from Clifford Fairfax re: Copy of docket sheet copy mailed, filed. (smurdock, 4) (Entered: 01/20/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 40 of 130

01/21/2015 01/21/2015 01/21/2015
01/22/2015 01/23/2015 01/27/2015
01/28/2015
01/29/2015
01/29/2015 01/29/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/12/2015 02/12/2015 02/13/2015

183 ADVISORY by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
184 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 1/27/2015 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
185 ORDER granting 183 Advisory and Request for Brief Status Conference. Status Conference set for 1/27/2015 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
186 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
187 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Fifth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 1/27/2015. Status Conference set for 2/20/2015 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison Appearances:(Law Clerk: Renata Strause). Jeffrey S Edwards, Wayne Nicholas Krause, Scott Charles Medlock, James C Harrington, Ranjana Natarajan, Sean Flammer, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Malone), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
188 Agreed MOTION AGREED MOTION TO AMEND THE COURT'S CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER TO INLCUDE (UTMB) UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/18/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order AGREED)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
189 MOTION Intervenor Fairfax's Motion Notifying Court of Date Received Notice of Clerk's Civil Docket and Requesting Copy of Court's Memorandum and Order Denying Motion to Intervene by Clifford Fairfax, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/19/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter & Envelope)(hledwig, 6) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
190 NOTICE OF AMENDED FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES TO PLAINTIFF by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
191 ORDER granting 188 Agreed Motion to Amend the Court's Confidentiality and Protective Order to Include UTMB. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
192 Petition to Intervene as Class Action Plaintiff by Robert Blake King, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/24/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 envelope)(vcantu, 5) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
193 MOTION for Order of Instruction by Richard Jaxson, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/24/2015. (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(vcantu, 5) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
194 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
195 EXHIBITS re: 194 Advisory by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
196 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 185 Order, filed. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
197 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 185 Order, filed. (blacy, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
198 NOTICE of Appearance by NADINE PHILLPOTS on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 02/13/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 41 of 130

02/13/2015
02/13/2015 02/13/2015 02/19/2015 02/19/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015
02/20/2015
02/20/2015 02/24/2015 02/27/2015 03/06/2015 03/12/2015 03/12/2015 03/13/2015 03/13/2015 03/13/2015

199 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time DOCUMENT DISCOVERY DEADLINE by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/6/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
200 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Sixth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
201 ORDER granting in part 199 Motion for Extension of Time.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
202 MOTION To Limit the Number of Medical Records of Offenders by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/12/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
203 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
204 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 185 Order, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
205 Intervenor Fairfax's MOTION to Strike Motion Notifying Court of Date Received Notice of Clerk's Civil Docket adn Requesting Copy of Court's Memorandum and Order Denying Motion to Intervene [mailed copy of memorandum and order] by Clifford Fairfax, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter)(sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/20/2015. Appearances:(Law Clerk: Renata Strause). Jeffrey S Edwards, Trisha Trigilio, Ranjana Natarajan, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Malone), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
206 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Seventh Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
207 RESPONSE in Opposition to 192 MOTION to Intervene, filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
208 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Eighth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
209 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
210 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/2/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
211 ORDER granting 210 MOTION for an Extension of Time. Plaintiff Response due by 3/26/2015. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4) Modified on 3/16/2015 (sloewe, 4). (Entered: 03/13/2015)
212 RESPONSE in Opposition to 192 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
213 ORDER denying 192 Motion to Intervene (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
214 ORDER. MOTION for an Order Deeming Insufficiently Answered Requests to be Admitted (dkt. no. 142 ) is DENIED. Objections to Plaintiffs' Requests Nos. 9 and 11−33 are SUBSTAINED. Defendants' request for attorneys' fees is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 42 of 130

03/13/2015
03/16/2015 03/17/2015 03/19/2015 03/26/2015
03/27/2015 03/27/2015 03/27/2015 03/30/2015 03/30/2015 04/02/2015
04/02/2015
04/02/2015 04/03/2015 04/03/2015 04/03/2015 04/06/2015

215 ORDER denying 193 Motion for Order of Instruction. Mr. Clifford Fairfax has filed a Motion Notifying the Court 189 and a Motion to Strike 205 . Mr. Fairfax is not a party in this case and therefore cannot move the Court for such relief. The Motion Notifying the Court and Motion toStrike therefore are DENIED. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
216 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Ninth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
217 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel C. Neuhoff on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Neuhoff, Daniel) Modified on 3/17/2015 (smurdock, 4). (Entered: 03/17/2015)
218 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
219 RESPONSE to 202 MOTION To Limit the Number of Medical Records of Offenders filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
220 Agreed JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
221 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Tenth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
222 NOTICE of Setting as to 220 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 4/2/2015 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
223 MOTION for Sean Flammer to Withdraw as Attorney by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/20/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flammer, Sean) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
224 ORDER granting 223 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sean Flammer terminated.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
225 Unopposed MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Response as to 158 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(c) by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/23/2015. (Trigilio, Trisha) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/24/2015: # 1 Exhibit A) (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 04/02/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 4/2/2015. Bench Trial set for 2/22/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison Appearances:(Law Clerk: Renata Strause). Jeffrey S Edwards, Ranjana Natarajan, Cynthia Burton.(Court Reporter: Kathy Miller), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
226 ORDER granting 225 Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Response. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
227 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 214 Order. (yhausmann, 6) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
228 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 214 Order,, filed. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
229 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 214 Order,, filed. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
230 REPLY to 219 Response to Motion to Limit the Number of Medical Records of Offenders, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 04/06/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 43 of 130

04/10/2015 04/10/2015 05/11/2015 05/28/2015 06/08/2015 06/10/2015 06/15/2015
06/16/2015 06/17/2015
06/18/2015 07/02/2015 07/02/2015
07/06/2015 07/06/2015 07/06/2015 07/06/2015 07/06/2015

231 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Eleventh Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
232 REPLY to 225 Unopposed MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Response as to 158 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(c), 176 Response , filed by Roberto M Herrera. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
233 NOTICE of Change of Address by Blaine D Elder, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
234 EMERGENCY Petition for Protective Order ( Motion Docket Date 6/18/2015.) by John Cloud, filed. (glyons, 4) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
235 MOTION to Intervene by Sidney Beasley, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/29/2015. (lusmith, 3) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
236 Joint PROPOSED ORDER PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
237 MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS' PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/6/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
238 RESPONSE in Opposition to 235 MOTION to Intervene, filed by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
239 RESPONSE in Opposition to 234 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
240 RESPONSE in Opposition to 235 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Neuhoff, Daniel) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
241 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order or Protective Order by John Cloud, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/23/2015. (szellers, 7) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
247 SCHEDULING ORDER. Amended Pleadings due by 7/3/2015. Pltfs amended or supplemental Motion for Class Certification due by 8/12/2015. Response to Motion for Class Cert due by 9/23/15. Pltfs reply on Mtn for Class Cert due by 10/9/15. Defts deadline to amend answer by 8/3/2015. Pltf Expert Report due by 8/3/2015. Deft Expert Report due by 9/4/2015. Discovery due by 1/22/2016. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 11/6/2015. Responses due by 9/23/2015. Pretrial pleadings due by 2/1/2016. Jury Trial set for 2/22/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
242 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Singley on behalf of David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
243 Unopposed MOTION to Amend by David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/27/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
244 ORDER granting 243 Motion to File First Amended Class Action Complaint. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
245 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by David Bailey, et al.(cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
246 MOTION for Copy of Order by John Cloud, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/27/2015. (lcayce, 2) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 44 of 130

07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/13/2015
07/15/2015 07/15/2015
07/21/2015 07/21/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/28/2015 07/28/2015
07/31/2015 08/03/2015
08/03/2015

248 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Singley on behalf of Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Singley, Michael) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
249 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twelfth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
250 NOTICE of Setting as to 202 MOTION To Limit the Number of Medical Records of Offenders. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2015 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
251 PETITION/MOTION for Emergency Injunction by Richard Jaxson, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/5/2015. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
252 NOTICE of Resetting as to 202 MOTION To Limit the Number of Medical Records of Offenders, 250 Notice of Setting (FORM, noticing) − Judge Ellison. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 7/28/2015 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
253 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 247 Scheduling Order,,, filed. (amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
254 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 247 Scheduling Order,,, filed. (amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
255 NOTICE WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL by David Bailey, filed. (Natarajan, Ranjana) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
256 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirteenth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
257 ORDER denying 235 Motion to Intervene.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
258 ORDER denying 241 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
259 ORDER denying 246 Motion for copy of order.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
260 ORDER denying 251 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
261 ORDER denying 234 Motion for Emergency for Protective Order.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
262 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 247 Scheduling Order,,, filed. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 7/28/2015. Order to issue. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Michael C Singley, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: K. Miller), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
263 MOTION for Immediate Urgent Protective Order or Like Order to Prevent Another Death Episode Due to Heat by John Cloud, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/21/2015. (mlothmann, 4) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
264 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Time for Expert Designaciones by Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/24/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
265 ANSWER to 245 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. with Jury Demand by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 45 of 130

08/05/2015 08/05/2015
08/07/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 08/12/2015
08/12/2015 08/13/2015 08/19/2015 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 08/21/2015 08/25/2015

D)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
266 ORDER denying 263 Motion for Protective Order. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
267 ORDER granting 264 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Time for Expert Designaciones. Deft Expert Report due by 9/10/2015. Deft Expert Witness List due by 9/10/2015. Pltf Expert Report due by 8/7/2015. Pltf Expert Witness List due by 8/7/2015.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
268 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS LIST by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
269 MOTION for Reconsideration of 260 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Richard Jaxson, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/31/2015. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
270 Petition for Order of Clarity, Injunction, filed by John Cloud. Motion Docket Date 8/31/2015. (yhausmann, 6) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
271 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Fourteenth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
272 Amended MOTION to Certify Class by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/2/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 22)(Medlock, Scott) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
273 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/2/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order to Extend Page Limits)(Medlock, Scott) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
274 ORDER granting 273 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
275 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Fifthteenth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
276 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 158 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(c) (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
277 MOTION for Bruce R. Garcia to Withdraw as Attorney by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/10/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Garcia, Bruce) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
278 ORDER granting 277 MOTION for Bruce R. Garcia to Withdraw as Attorney (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
279 NOTICE of Appearance by Lori K. Erwin on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Erwin, Lori) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
280 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 247 Scheduling Order. Search for Charles Taylor on TDCJ website returned no results, filed. (mlothmann, 4) (Entered: 08/25/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 46 of 130

08/27/2015 08/27/2015 08/27/2015 08/28/2015 08/28/2015 08/28/2015 08/31/2015
08/31/2015 09/01/2015 09/02/2015 09/03/2015
09/04/2015 09/04/2015 09/10/2015

281 ORDER denying as moot 202 Motion to limite the number of medical records produced and permitting counsel for UTMB to attend the deposition of wintesses designated by TDCJ in this matter.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
282 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 8/31/2015 at 01:30 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. ALL PARTIES MAY APPEAR BY TELEPHONE BY CALLING INON THE COURT'S DIALIN NUMBER AT 7132505238. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
283 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Exhibit 22 to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion For Class Certification by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/17/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
284 MOTION for Protective Order by Richard Jaxson, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/18/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Grievance Forms, # 2 Envelope)(mlothmann, 4) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
285 ORDER granting 283 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Exhibit 22 to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion For Class Certification .(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) Modified on 8/28/2015 (sloewe, 4). (Entered: 08/28/2015)
286 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Designate Medical Experts and an Expert on Arsenic in Water by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/18/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 8/31/2015. Parties have agreed on two dates for Mr. Livingston October 1, and October 2, beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday October 1. The parties will confer with clients and check November and December calendars. Appearances:(Law Clerk: Rebecca Vogel). Jeffrey S Edwards, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: J. Sanchez), filed.(sloewe, 4) Modified on 8/31/2015 (sloewe, 4). (Entered: 08/31/2015)
287 ORDER granting 286 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's medical experts and expert on arsenic in water due by 9/25/2015. Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert due by 10/16/2015.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
288 ORDER Deft Expert Report due by 10/12/2015. Deft Expert Witness List due by 10/12/2015.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
289 MOTION Defendants' Unopposed Supplement Re: Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Medical Experts and an Expert on Arsenic in Water Filed At Doc. No. 286 by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
290 Amended MOTION Defendants' Amended Unopposed Motion (and Supplement) RE: Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Medical Experts and an Expert on Arsenic in Water filed in Doc. No. 268 And Modify Other Related Deadlines by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/24/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
291 Follow−Up Letter from Richard Jaxson re: 284 motion for protective order, filed. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
292 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Sixteenth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
293 SUPPLEMENT to 284 MOTION for Protective Order by Richard Jaxson, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 47 of 130

09/10/2015 09/10/2015
09/16/2015 09/18/2015 09/25/2015 09/28/2015 09/29/2015 09/30/2015 10/06/2015 10/13/2015 10/13/2015 10/16/2015
10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/20/2015

294 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS LIST by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
295 ORDER granting 290 Motion To Extend Deadlines. Defendants to designate medical and arsenic experts due by 10/12/2015. Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification due by 10/19/2015. Plaintiffs to designate rebuttal experts due by 10/26/2015. Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification due by 11/4/2015. Dispositive Motions due by 11/13/2015. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 12/21/2015. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 12/28/2015. Discovery due by 2/1/2016.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
296 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
297 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Seventeenth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
298 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 295 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, filed. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
299 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Eighteenth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
302 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 295 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, filed. (hler, 4)Discharged (Entered: 10/08/2015)
300 NOTICE of Appearance by Wallis Nader and Abigail Frank on behalf of David Bailey, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
301 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff by Christopher King, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/27/2015. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
303 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Nineteenth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
304 Amended DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS LIST by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
305 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy L. Doyle, Nathan Smith and Andrew Pennebaker on behalf of Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Doyle, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
306 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/9/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
307 RESPONSE to 272 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
308 MOTION to Seal Appendix to Defendants' Response by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/9/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
309 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
311 ORDER granting 306 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
310 ORDER granting 308 MOTION to Seal Appendix to Defendants' Response. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 10/20/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 48 of 130

10/23/2015 10/28/2015
10/28/2015 11/05/2015 11/09/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015
11/16/2015 11/16/2015 11/16/2015 11/16/2015

312 ORDER denying 269 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 270 Motion for Clarification; denying 284 Motion for Protective Order; denying 301 Motion to Intervene.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
313 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's oppostion to class certification by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/18/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
314 ORDER granting 313 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs must file their reply brief by November 13, 2015. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
315 SUPPLEMENT to 304 Designation of Expert Witness List by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
316 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time of Dispositive Motion Deadline to Nov. 19, 2015 by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
317 RESPONSE in Opposition to 316 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time of Dispositive Motion Deadline to Nov. 19, 2015, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
318 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE TO NOV. 19, 2015, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
319 ORDER granting in part 316 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time of Dispositive Motion Deadline to Nov. 19, 2015. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 11/16/2015. All other deadlines in this case remain the same.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
320 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/4/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
321 REPLY to Response to 272 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
322 ORDER granting 320 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
323 Opposed MOTION to Quash Deposition of Dr.Lanette Linthicum by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/7/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
324 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/7/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
325 MOTION to Seal Appendix and Attachment 1 of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/7/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 49 of 130

11/16/2015 11/16/2015 11/16/2015 11/18/2015
11/18/2015 11/18/2015 11/18/2015 12/02/2015 12/08/2015 12/09/2015 12/09/2015 12/21/2015
12/21/2015
12/21/2015
12/21/2015
12/21/2015 12/21/2015

326 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/7/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
327 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
328 Letter from John Cloud re: Copies of all documents, filed. (mmiller, 4) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
329 ORDER FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE AND ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 323 Opposed MOTION to Quash Deposition of Dr.Lanette Linthicum : Motion Hearing set for 11/25/2015 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
330 ORDER granting 325 Motion to Seal.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
331 ORDER granting 324 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
332 ADVISORY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
333 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Amendment and Supplement to Report of Kathryn Means, MD, CMD, CHCQM by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
334 STATUS REPORT by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
335 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 12/22/2015 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
336 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twentieth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
337 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Confidential Portion of Appendix by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/11/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
338 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/11/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
339 RESPONSE to 326 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
340 First APPENDIX re: 339 Response to Motion by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
341 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
342 ORDER granting 338 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(cfelchak, 4) (Entered: 12/22/2015)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 50 of 130

12/22/2015
12/22/2015 01/19/2016 01/19/2016 01/20/2016 01/20/2016 01/22/2016 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 02/03/2016 02/09/2016 02/10/2016
02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/11/2016

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 12/22/2015. Replies due by 1/19/2016 Jury Trial set for 3/28/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison Appearances:(Law Clerk: R. Vogel). Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, James C Harrington, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Sanchez), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
343 ORDER granting 337 Motion to Seal.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
344 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/9/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
345 REPLY in Support of 326 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
346 NOTICE of Appearance by Derek Kammerlocher on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Kammerlocher, Derek) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
347 ORDER granting 344 Defendant's Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
348 ORDER WITHDRAWN pursuant 2/12/2016 ORDER. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 272 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, Class action certified(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) Modified on 2/12/2016 (sloewe, 4). (Entered: 01/22/2016)
349 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by James Rheams for Transcript of Motion Hearing. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller, filed. (mmiller, 4) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
350 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by James Rheames for Transcript of Motion Hearing held 7/28/15 before Judge Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller, filed. (smurdock, 4) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
352 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by James Rheams for Transcript of 8/31/2015. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Johnny Sanchez, filed. (ckrus, 4) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
351 MOTION Primary Plaintiff Status, filed by Richard Jaxson. Motion Docket Date 2/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 envelope) (yhausmann, 6) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/3/2016: # 2 Exhibit 17) (yhausmann, 6). (Entered: 02/03/2016)
353 Request Review of Evidence by Richard Jaxson, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/1/2016. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
354 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Keith Cole, Jackie Brannum, Richard King, Dean Mojica, Ray Wilson, Marvin Yates, Fred Wallace for Transcript of Status Conference on 12/22/15 before Judge Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Johnny Sanchez, filed. (Medlock, Scott) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
355 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Cynthia Burton for Transcript of Status Conference on 12/22/2015 before Judge Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Johnny Sanchez, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
356 MOTION for Nadine Phillpotts to Withdraw as Attorney by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/2/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Phillpotts, Nadine) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
357 MOTION for Status Conference by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 51 of 130

02/12/2016 02/12/2016
02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/12/2016
02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/18/2016
02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/24/2016

Docket Date 3/3/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
358 ORDER granting 357 Motion for Conference Status Conference set for 2/12/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
359 MOTION to Stay DEFENDANTS' (PARTIALLY) OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY TRIAL DATE AND OPPOSED PARTIAL STAY OF DISCOVERY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/4/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
360 ORDER WITHDRAWING Court's Memorandum and Order of January 22, 2016. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
361 ORDER granting 356 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Nadine Phillpotts terminated.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/12/2016. Class Certification Hearing set for 4/7/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison. The Court ORDERS discovery continue through class certification hearing. Each side will have 10 hours to put on class certification evidence. Appearances:(Law Clerk: R. Vogel). Jeffrey S Edwards, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Kathy Miller), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
362 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 347 Order, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
363 ORDER withdrawing 348 Memorandum and Order(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
364 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Cynthia Burton for Transcript of Status Conference on 02/12/16 before Judge Ellison. Expedited (7 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
365 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jason Bridges re: 347 Order, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
366 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Tashumbre L. Jones re: 347 Order, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
367 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Rudy Garza Molina re: 347 Order, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
368 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ronnie Armstrong re: 347 Order, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
369 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Dennis Pickard re: 347 Order, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
370 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 347 Order, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
371 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 347 Order, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
372 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Michael Camarata re: 347 Order, filed. (vrios, 2) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
373 NOTICE DEFENDANTS' SECOND NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT OF KATHRYN MEANS, MD,CMD,CHCQM re: 333 Notice (Other) by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 02/24/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 52 of 130

02/25/2016 02/29/2016 03/01/2016
03/01/2016 03/01/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016
03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/04/2016 03/10/2016

374 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 347 Order, filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
375 MOTION for Protective Order by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/21/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
376 Cross MOTION to Compel Production of Requested Documents and Response to Motion for Protective Order by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Plaintiffs' Fifth Set of Requests for Production to Defendants, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Correspondence from Plaintiffs' Counsel Regarding the Requests, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Email from Dr. Buskirk regarding heat−related injury classification, # 5 Exhibit 4 − CMHC Policy D−27.2 Heat Stress, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Autopsy, # 7 Exhibit 6 − Autopsy, # 8 Exhibit 7 − Autopsy, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Autopsy, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Defendants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Fifth Set of Requests for Production)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
377 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 03/01/2016)
378 NOTICE of Setting as to 376 Cross MOTION to Compel Production of Requested Documents and Response to Motion for Protective Order, 375 MOTION for Protective Order. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 3/2/2016 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
379 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clifford Fairfax re: 347 Order, filed. (gkelner, 4) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
380 RESPONSE to 376 Cross MOTION to Compel Production of Requested Documents and Response to Motion for Protective Order filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 3/2/2016 376 Cross MOTION to Compel Production of Requested Documents and Response to Motion for Protective Order, 375 MOTION for Protective Order. Rulings made on the record. Parties may submit an order for Judge's signature. Appearances:(Law Clerk: R. Vogel) Mr. James f/Plaintiff. Cynthia Burton.(Court Reporter: H. Alcaraz), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
381 MOTION to Seal Exhibits A,B,C,D,E by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/23/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
382 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
383 TRANSCRIPT re: Telephoe Conference held on February 12, 2016 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen Miller. Ordering Party Cynthia Burton Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/1/2016., filed. (kmiller, ) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
384 ORDER Granting 381 Defendant's Motion to Seal.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
385 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twenty−First Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
386 NOTICE DEFENDANTS' SECOND NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO REPORT OF KATHRYN MEANS, MD, CMD, CHCQM by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Erwin, Lori) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
387 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 383 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
388 NOTICE of Appearance by Phillip P. Boyd on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/10/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 53 of 130

03/22/2016 03/28/2016
03/31/2016 04/14/2016 04/15/2016 04/19/2016 04/21/2016
04/27/2016 04/27/2016
04/29/2016 04/29/2016
05/02/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016

389 NOTICE OF TWENTY−SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES TO PLAINTIFF by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
390 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Class Certification Hearing set for 5/26/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison Class Certification Hearing set for 5/27/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison Class Certification Hearing set for 6/1/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison Class Certification Hearing set for 6/2/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
391 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Cynthia Burton for Transcript of Motion Hearing on 3/2/16 before Judge Ellison. Expedited (7 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Heather Alcaraz, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
392 TRANSCRIPT re: Telephone Conference held on 3/2/16 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter Heather Alcaraz. Ordering Party Cynthia Burton. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2016, filed. (halcaraz, ) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
393 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 392 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
394 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order by Ariel Dulitzky, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/10/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Proposed Order)(Soto, Esteban) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
395 ORDER FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE AND ORDER SETTING HEARING ; Motion−related deadline set re: 394 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order. Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2016 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison. Expedited Responses due by 4/28/2016.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
396 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 5/12/2016 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
397 ORDER ; Motion−related deadline set re: 394 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order Motion Hearing reset to 5/12/2016 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison. Responses due by 5/4/2016. The deposition of Professor Dulitzky is hereby STAYED pending consideration of the motion.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
398 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia Tulinski on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Tulinski, Patricia) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
399 MOTION MOTION ASERTING DAUBERT AND FRE 702 CHALLENGES TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS−ACTION−CERTIFICATION EXPERT TESTIMONY by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/20/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tulinski, Patricia) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
400 MOTION for Lori K. Erwin to Withdraw as Attorney by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/23/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
401 NOTICE of Appearance by Phillip P. Boyd on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Boyd, Phillip) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
402 NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin Moczygemba on behalf of Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Moczygemba, Kevin) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
403 ORDER granting 400 MOTION for Lori K. Erwin to Withdraw as Attorney.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(mmiller, 4) (Entered: 05/02/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 54 of 130

05/02/2016 05/04/2016 05/04/2016 05/04/2016
05/04/2016 05/04/2016
05/06/2016
05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016
05/11/2016 05/12/2016 05/12/2016

404 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twenty−Third Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
405 MOTION to Seal Appendix No.'s 3 and 4 by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/25/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
406 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
407 MOTION to Compel Deposition, MOTION to Strike AND DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO NON−PARTY PROFESSOR ARIEL DULITZKY'S OPPOSED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION ( Motion Docket Date 5/25/2016.) by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Contents, # 2 Appendix NO. 1, # 3 Appendix NO. 2, # 4 Appendix NO. 3 − SEALED, # 5 Appendix NO. 4− SEALED, # 6 Appendix NO.5, # 7 Appendix NO.6, # 8 Appendix NO.7, # 9 Appendix NO.8, # 10 Appendix NO.9, # 11 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
408 ORDER Granting 405 Motion to Seal Appendix 3 and 4.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
409 RESPONSE to 394 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 2.A, # 4 Exhibit 2.B, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Proposed Order on Motion for Protective Order, # 18 Proposed Order on Motion to Quash)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
410 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint and Supplement to Amended Class Certification Motion by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, Lavar John Santee, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/27/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint − Exhibit 1 − 2nd Amended Complaint, # 2 Supplement − Exhibit 2 − Supplement to Amended Motion for Class Certification, # 3 Exhibit 2.1 −Exhibit 1 to Supplement − Declaration of Lavar Santee, # 4 Exhibit 2.2 − Exhibit 2 to Supplement − Heat Restriction List, # 5 Exhibit 2.3 − Exhibit 3 to Supplement − 2nd Supplement to Report of Dr. Susi Vassallo, # 6 Proposed Order on Motion for Leave to File)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
411 ORDER granting 410 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
412 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice filed by Richard Elvin King, Marvin Ray Yates, Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace. Modified on 5/10/2016 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 05/09/2016)
413 SUPPLEMENT to Motion for Class Certification by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(arrivera, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/10/2016: # 1 Exhibit 2.1 −Exhibit 1 to Supplement − Declaration of Lavar Santee, # 2 Exhibit 2.2 − Exhibit 2 to Supplement − Heat Restriction List, # 3 Exhibit 2.3 − Exhibit 3 to Supplement − 2nd Supplement to Report of Dr. Susi Vassallo) (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 05/09/2016)
414 REPLY in Support of 394 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Ariel Dulitzky. (Soto, Esteban) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 5/12/2016. The Court takes the 394 Motion for protective order and 407 Motion to Compel /Motion to Quash under advisement. Appearances:David James. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Esteban Soto, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: G. Dye), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/12/2016. Parties to submit proposed scheduling order to the

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 55 of 130

05/16/2016 05/16/2016 05/16/2016
05/17/2016
05/17/2016
05/17/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/20/2016 05/20/2016

Court on all related cases. Appearances:David James. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Esteban Soto, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: G. Dye), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
415 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
416 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Blaine D Elder re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (smurdock, 4) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
417 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to attorney James C Harrington as to James Allen Harris re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
418 MOTION for Amanda M. Kates to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/7/2016. (cvillegas, 7) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
419 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twenty−Fourth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
420 ORDER granting 418 MOTION for Amanda M. Kates to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
421 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Leo Motte re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
422 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Rudy Garza Molina re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
423 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher King re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
424 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ronnie Armstrong re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
425 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
426 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jason Bridges re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
427 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Emery F. Smith re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
428 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Tashumbre L. Jones re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (RTS − gone)(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
429 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Dennis Pickard re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
430 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (amireles, 2) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
431 RESPONSE in Opposition to 399 MOTION MOTION ASERTING DAUBERT AND FRE 702 CHALLENGES TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS−ACTION−CERTIFICATION EXPERT TESTIMONY, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Expert Report of Dr. Susi Vassallo, # 2 Exhibit 2 − CV of Dr. Susi Vassallo, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Deposition Excerpts of Dr. Susi Vassallo, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Letter to opposing counsel with literature reviewed by Dr. Susi Vassallo, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Thermoregulatory Principles by Susi Vassallo & Kathleen Delaney, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Amended Expert Report of Dr. Michael McGeehin, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Subpoena duces tecum response of Dr. Michael McGeehin, # 8 Exhibit 8 − CV of Dr. Michael McGeehin, # 9 Exhibit 9 − The Potential Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Temperature−Related Morbidity and Mortality in the United States by Michael McGeehin and Maria Mirabelli, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Municipal Heat Wave Response Plans by Susan Bernard and Michael McGeehin, # 11 Exhibit 11 − Deposition

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 56 of 130

05/20/2016 05/20/2016 05/23/2016
05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016
05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/25/2016 05/25/2016 05/25/2016

Excerpts of Dr. Michael McGeehin, # 12 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
432 ANSWER to 412 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., with Jury Demand by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
433 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Second Supplement to Report of Kathryn Means by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
434 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/13/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List and Index to Appendix, # 2 Appendix pages 1−170, # 3 Appendix pages 171−338, # 4 Appendix pages 339−430, # 5 Appendix pages 661−662, # 6 Appendix pages 663−671)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
435 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
436 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher Guffey re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (dterrell, 2) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
437 Order for Expedited Briefing on Scheduling Plaintiffs' Emergency Preliminary Injunction and ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 434 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2016 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
438 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clifford Fairfax re: 403 Order, Add and Terminate Attorneys, filed. (dterrell, 2) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
439 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twenty−Fifth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
440 SUPPLEMENT to 272 Amended MOTION to Certify Class by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
441 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twenty−Sixth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
442 RESPONSE to 437 Order Setting Hearing on Motion, As to Expedited Briefing of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
443 RESPONSE DEFENDANTS STATEMENT ON SCHEDULING OF PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
444 NOTICE Regarding Hearing on Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
445 NOTICE of Setting as to 434 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Parties notified. Injunction Hearing set for 5/26/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
446 Second SUPPLEMENT to 272 Amended MOTION to Certify Class by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/25/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 57 of 130

05/25/2016 05/26/2016 05/26/2016
05/26/2016
05/27/2016 05/27/2016 05/30/2016 05/30/2016 05/31/2016

447 Opposed MOTION to Strike or Exclude Exhibit 46 of Plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction Motion, and Defendants' Supplemental Briefing Concerning the Proper Burden for Plaintiffs' Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/15/2016. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING held on 5/26/2016. Testifying witnesses: Cody Ginsel, Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Dr. Heidi Bojes, Brian Carney. Admitted Plaintiff's Exhibits: 1−3. Admitted Defendant's Exhibits: 1−10. Preliminary Injunction will resume tomorrow before turning to the Class Certification Hearing. Appearances:(Law Clerk: R. Vogel). Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Michael C Singley, Jeremy L Doyle, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Laura Wells), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 05/26/2016)
455 Court's Exhibit and Witness List (arrivera, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/27/2016: # 1 Defendan's exhibits−1−6, # 2 Defendant's exhibits 7−12, # 3 Defendant's exhibits 13 pages 1−75, # 4 Defendant's exhibit 13 pages 76−end, # 5 Defendant's exhibits 14−16) (smurdock, 4). # 6 Plaintiff''s exhibits 1−12, # 7 Plaintiff's exhibit 13 tabs 1−4, # 8 Plaintiff's exhibit tabs 5−8, # 9 Plaintiff's exhibit 14 tabs 1−10, # 10 Plaintiff's exhibit 14 tabs 11−18, # 11 Plaintiff's exhibit 14 tab 19, # 12 Plaintiff's exhibit 14 tabs 20−26, # 13 Plaintiff's exhibit 14 tab 27, # 14 Plaintiff's exhibit 14 tabs 28−32) (smurdock, 4). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/28/2016: # 15 Exhibit List Preliminary Injuntion Motion, # 16 Exhibit List tabbed index Preliminary Injunction Motion, # 17 Exhibit 15−17, # 18 Exhibit 18−22, # 19 Exhibit 23−27, # 20 Exhibit 28−32, # 21 Exhibit 33−48, # 22 Exhibit 49−62) (smurdock, 4). Modified on 7/28/2016 (smurdock, 4). (Entered: 06/03/2016)
511 Hearing EXHIBITS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defts Exhibits 1−6, # 2 Exhibit Defts Exhibits 7−12, # 3 Exhibit Defts Exhibit 13 pgs 1−75, # 4 Exhibit Defts Exhibits 13 pgs 76−end, # 5 Exhibit Defts Exhibits 14−16, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibits 1−12, # 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 13 tabs 1−4, # 8 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 13 tabs 5−8, # 9 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 tabs 1−10, # 10 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 tabs 11−18, # 11 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 tab 19, # 12 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 tab 20−26, # 13 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 tab 27, # 14 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 tabs 28−32, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit List Preliminary Injunction Motion, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit List tabbed index Preliminary Injunction Motion, # 17 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibits 15−17, # 18 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibits 18−22, # 19 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibits 23−27, # 20 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibits 28−32, # 21 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibits 33−48, # 22 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibits 49−62)(mperez, 1) Modified on 8/2/2016 (mperez, 1). (Entered: 08/02/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING held on 5/27/2016, CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING held on 5/27/2016. Testifying witness: Michael McGeehin. Defendant's Exhibit 11 ADMITTED. Plaintiff's Exhibits 4−12. Class Certification resumes Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. Appearances:(Law Clerk: R. Vogel). Jeffrey S Edwards, Brian Rolland McGiverin, Wayne Nicholas Krause, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Laura Wells), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
448 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Plaintiffs/David James for Transcript of Motion Hearing on May 26, 2016 before Judge Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells, filed. (James, David) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
449 NOTICE DEFENDANTS' THIRD NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT OF KATHRYN MEANS, MD by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 05/30/2016)
450 SUPPLEMENT by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit A through O)(Kammerlocher, Derek) (Entered: 05/30/2016)
451 NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Class Certification Hearing set for 6/1/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 58 of 130

05/31/2016 05/31/2016
06/01/2016
06/02/2016 06/02/2016
06/06/2016 06/06/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/08/2016 06/08/2016

452 RESPONSE Defendants' Post−Hearing Briefing and Response to the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
453 Opposed MOTION to Strike 433 Notice (Other), 449 Notice (Other) , Testimony of Dr. Kathryn Means by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/21/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Deposition Excerpts of Dr. Means, # 2 Exhibit 2 − May 30 Report of Dr. Means, # 3 Exhibit 3 − May 30 "Conclusions" of Dr. Means, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Study by lead author Naughton, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Article by lead author Bouchama, # 6 Exhibit 6 − May 20 Table by Dr. Means, # 7 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. EVIDENTIARY HEARING Class Certification hearing and arguments on Preliminary Injunction heard held on 6/1/2016. Testifying witnesses: Dr. Susi Vassallo. Admitted Plaintiff's Exhibits: 13 and 14. Class Certification resumes tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Appearances:(Law Clerk: R. Vogel). Jeffrey S Edwards, Brian Rolland McGiverin, Michael C Singley, Amanda M. Kates, Cynthia Burton, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Laura Wells), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
454 REPLY in Support of 434 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Doyle, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING held on 6/2/2016. Testifying witnesses: Dr. Dean Rieger, Dr. Kathryn Means. Admitted Plaintiff Exhibits: 15−62. Admitted Defendant's Exhibits: 12−16. Parties have until 6/12/2016 to submit proposed findings and facts and conclusions of law on the Preliminary Injunction portion. The matters are taken under advisement. Appearances:(Law Clerk: R. Vogel). Jeffrey S Edwards, Brian Rolland McGiverin, Kevin Andrew Moczygemba, Cynthia Burton, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: Laura Wells), filed.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
456 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Cynthia Burton for Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing on 5/26/16 and 5/27/2016 before Judge Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
457 Exhibit List and Witness list for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING AND CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING ONLY.(sloewe, 4) Modified on 7/28/2016 (smurdock, 4). Duplicates entry # 455 all admitted exhibits have been attached at entry # 455 (Entered: 06/06/2016)
458 NOTICE of Change of Address by John Cloud, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
459 TRANSCRIPT re: Volume 1 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification held on May 26, 2016 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Cynthia Burton Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/6/2016., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
460 TRANSCRIPT re: Volume 2 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification held on May 27, 2016 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Cynthia Burton Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/6/2016., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
461 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Plaintiffs/Jeff Edwards for Transcript of Motion Hearings on May 26 thru June 2 2016 before Judge Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
462 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 460 Transcript, 459 Transcript,. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 59 of 130

06/10/2016
06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/13/2016 06/13/2016 06/13/2016 06/13/2016 06/13/2016 06/13/2016 06/14/2016
06/14/2016

463 Unopposed MOTION to Admit ECF Filings as Hearing Exhibits for the Record by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/1/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Unopposed Motion to Admit ECF Filings as Hearing Exhibits for the Record, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Plaintiffs' Unopposed Electronically Filed Exhibits)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
464 ORDER denying 351 Motion for Primary Plaintiff Status; denying 353 Motion for Review of Evidence; denying as moot 359 Motion to Stay. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
465 TRANSCRIPT re: Volume 3 of 4 Volumes Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification held on June 1, 2016 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Cynthia Burton Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/8/2016., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
466 TRANSCRIPT re: Volume 4 of 4 Volumes, Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification held on June 2, 2016 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Cynthia Burton Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/8/2016., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
474 ORDER granting 463 Motion to admit ECF filings as hearing exhibits for the record.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
467 Supplemental SUPPLEMENT to 450 Supplement by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kammerlocher, Derek) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
468 MOTION to Admit ECF Filings as Hearing Exhibits for the Record by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/5/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
469 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 466 Transcript, 465 Transcript,. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
470 Proposed Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − TDCJ Administrative Directive 10.64 rev. 6 (2008))(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
471 Proposed Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
475 ORDER granting 468 Motion to admit ECF filings into evidentiary record for Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
472 Opposed MOTION to Strike 450 Supplement, 468 MOTION to Admit ECF Filings as Hearing Exhibits for the Record and Response to Same by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/5/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts from June 1 Transcript, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Excerpts from Santee's Deposition, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Excerpts from Eason's Deposition, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Heat Precaution Email 2011, # 5 Exhibit 5 − National Weather Service Chart, # 6 Exhibit 6 − TDCJ Inclement Weather Policy, # 7 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) Modified on 6/16/2016 (smurdock, 4).exhibits 2−3 filed in error attorney will re file (Entered: 06/14/2016)
473 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Class Certification is hereby GRANTED. The General Class, the heat−sensitive subclass, and the disability subclass, as defined in Part I, are certified.For the reasons stated at the hearing, both Defendants Motion Asserting Daubert and FRE 702 Challenges to Plaintiffs Expert Testimony (Doc. No. 399) and Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Testimony of Dr. Kathryn Means (Doc. No. 453) are DENIED.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 60 of 130

06/16/2016 06/21/2016
06/30/2016 07/01/2016 07/05/2016 07/05/2016
07/06/2016

476 Corrected EXHIBITS re: 472 Opposed MOTION to Strike 450 Supplement, 468 MOTION to Admit ECF Filings as Hearing Exhibits for the Record and Response to Same by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2 − Corrected Excerpts of Santee Deposition, # 2 Exhibit 3 − Corrected Excerpts of Eason Deposition)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
477 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 434 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction This Court finds that the inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit are entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to provide drinking water that comports with EPA maximum contaminant level requirements during the hottest part of the year. TDCJ is hereby ORDERED to provide drinking water to the inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit that conforms with EPA maximum contaminant level requirements for arsenic beginning not later than fifteen days from the date of this Order and continuing until September 22, 2016. TDCJ is free to provide drinking water, which complies with EPA standards, from whichever source and in whatever manner it deems best.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
478 Opposed MOTION to Stay Trial Date and Discovery by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/21/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
479 Opposed MOTION DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
480 RESPONSE to 472 Opposed MOTION to Strike 450 Supplement, 468 MOTION to Admit ECF Filings as Hearing Exhibits for the Record and Response to Same DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Kammerlocher, Derek) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
481 First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/26/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit Summary of Fees and Expenses, # 3 Exhibit Expenses Edwards Law, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Jeff Edwards, # 5 Exhibit Jeff Edwards Hours Spreadsheet, # 6 Exhibit Sean Flammer Hours Spreadsheet, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Scott Medlock, # 8 Exhibit Scott Medlock Hours Spreadsheet, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of David James, # 10 Exhibit David James Hours Spreadsheet, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of Jeremy Doyle, # 12 Exhibit Jeremy Doyle Bio, # 13 Exhibit Nathan Smith Bio, # 14 Exhibit Reynolds Frizzell Hours and Expenses, # 15 Exhibit Declaration of Wayne Krause−Yang, # 16 Exhibit Tecas Civil Rights Project Expenses, # 17 Exhibit Wayne Krause−Yang Hours, # 18 Exhibit Brian McGiverin Hours, # 19 Exhibit Law Clerk Hours, # 20 Exhibit Declaration of Wallis Nader, # 21 Exhibit Wallis Nader Hours Spreadsheet, # 22 Exhibit Declaration of Mike Singley, # 23 Exhibit Declaration of Ranjana Natrarajan, # 24 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) Modified on 7/6/2016 (smurdock, 4). filed in error attorney will re file (Entered: 07/05/2016)
482 Unopposed MOTION to Amend 481 First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/27/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Leave to Amend, # 2 Amended First Motion for Attorneys' Fees, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Exhibit 1 − Summary of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, # 5 Exhibit 2 − Edwards Law Expenses, # 6 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of Jeff Edwards, # 7 Exhibit 3A − Jeff Edwards' Hours, # 8 Exhibit 3B − Sean Flammer's Hours, # 9 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of Scott Medlock, # 10 Exhibit 4A − Scott Medlock's Hours, # 11 Exhibit 5 − Declaration of David James, # 12 Exhibit 5A − David James' Hours, # 13 Exhibit 6 − Declaration of Jeremy Doyle, # 14 Exhibit 6A − Jeremy Doyle's CV, # 15 Exhibit 6B − Nathan Smith's CV, # 16 Exhibit 6C − Reynolds Frizzell's Hours and Expenses, # 17 Exhibit 7 − Declaration of Wayne Krause Yang, # 18 Exhibit 7A − Texas Civil Rights Project Expenses, # 19 Exhibit 7B − Wayne Krause Yang's Hours, # 20 Exhibit 7C − Brian McGiverin's Hours, # 21 Exhibit 7D − Texas Civil Rights Project Law

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 61 of 130

07/06/2016 07/06/2016
07/06/2016 07/07/2016
07/07/2016 07/08/2016 07/13/2016 07/14/2016 07/19/2016 07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/20/2016

Clerk, Law Student Hours, # 22 Exhibit 8 − Declaration of Wallis Nader, # 23 Exhibit 8A − Wallis Nader's Hours, # 24 Exhibit 9 − Declaration of Michael Singley, # 25 Exhibit 10 − Declaration of Ranjana Natarajan, # 26 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' First Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs)(Medlock, Scott) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
483 ORDER granting 482 Motion for leave to file Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Attorney's fees and costs.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
484 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/27/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Summary of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Edwards Law Expenses, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of Jeff Edwards, # 5 Exhibit 3A − Jeff Edwards' Hours, # 6 Exhibit 3B − Sean Flammer's Hours, # 7 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of Scott Medlock, # 8 Exhibit 4A − Scott Medlock's Hours, # 9 Exhibit 5 − Declaration of David James, # 10 Exhibit 5A − David James' Hours, # 11 Exhibit 6 − Declaration of Jeremy Doyle, # 12 Exhibit 6A − Jeremy Doyle's CV, # 13 Exhibit 6B − Nathan Smith's CV, # 14 Exhibit 6C − Reynolds Frizzell's Hours and Expenses, # 15 Exhibit 7 − Declaration of Wayne Krause Yang, # 16 Exhibit 7A − Texas Civil Rights Project Expenses, # 17 Exhibit 7B − Wayne Krause Yang's Hours, # 18 Exhibit 7C − Brian McGiverin's Hours, # 19 Exhibit 7D − Texas Civil Rights Project Law Clerk, Law Student Hours, # 20 Exhibit 8 − Declaration of Wallis Nader, # 21 Exhibit 8A − Wallis Nader's Hours, # 22 Exhibit 9 − Declaration of Michael Singley, # 23 Exhibit 10 − Declaration of Ranjana Natarajan, # 24 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' First Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs)(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
485 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 477 Memorandum and Order,,, by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0541−16909813), filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
486 Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 485 Notice of Appeal,. Fee status: Paid. Reporter(s): Fred Warner, Ct. Rptr; Mayra Malone, Ct. Rptr; Kathy Miller, Ct. Rptr; Johnny Sanchez, Ct. Rptr; and Gayle Dye, Ct. Rptr, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Order being appealed, # 3 Public Docket Sheet) (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
Appeal Review Notes re: 485 Notice of Appeal,. Fee status: Paid. The appeal filing fee has been paid. Hearings were held in the case − some transcripts have been produced. DKT13 transcript order form(s) due within 14 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Number of DKT−13 Forms expected: 5, filed.(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
487 Letter from Mr. Ray Hightower re: requesting copy of Court's Memorandum and Order, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
488 Letter from Prisoners from the Coffield Unit re: contaminated water, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 16−20445 re: 485 Notice of Appeal,, filed.(jtabares, 1) Modified on 7/18/2016 (jtabares, 1). (Entered: 07/14/2016)
501 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clifford Fairfax re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (srussell, 2) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
489 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Matthew Greer. Transcript is unnecessary for appeal purposes This order form relates to the following: 485 Notice of Appeal,, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
490 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Matthew Greer. Transcript is unnecessary for appeal purposes This order form relates to the following: 485 Notice of Appeal,, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
491 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Matthew Greer. Transcript is unnecessary for appeal purposes This order form relates to the following: 485 Notice of Appeal,, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 62 of 130

07/20/2016
07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/20/2016
07/20/2016 07/21/2016 07/21/2016 07/21/2016
07/21/2016 07/22/2016 07/22/2016
07/22/2016 07/22/2016 07/22/2016

492 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Matthew Greer. Transcript is already on file in Clerks office regarding Status Conference on 2/12/2016 before Judge Ellison. (A transcript is requested). Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller. This order form relates to the following: Status Conference, 485 Notice of Appeal,, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
493 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Matthew Greer. Transcript is unnecessary for appeal purposes This order form relates to the following: 485 Notice of Appeal,, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
494 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Matthew Greer. Transcript is unnecessary for appeal purposes This order form relates to the following: 485 Notice of Appeal,, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
495 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Matthew Greer. Transcript is already on file in Clerks office regarding Preliminary Injunction & Class Certification Hearing, 5/26/16, 5/27/16, 6/1/16, 6/2/16, before Judge Ellison. (A transcript is requested). Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells. This order form relates to the following: Injunction Hearing,,, Class Certification Hearing,, Injunction Hearing,, Class Certification Hearing,, Evidentiary Hearing,, 466 Transcript, 485 Notice of Appeal, 460 Transcript, 465 Transcript, 459 Transcript,, filed. (Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
505 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Blaine D Elder re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (mxperez, 5) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/25/2016: # 1 envelope) (mxperez, 5). (Entered: 07/25/2016)
496 Letter from In mate re: contaminated water, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Offender Grievence) (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
497 Letter from Inmate re: contaminated water, filed. (sloewe, 4) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
498 RESPONSE in Opposition to 478 Opposed MOTION to Stay Trial Date and Discovery, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A − Fifth Circuit Order Denying Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction (July 21, 2016), # 3 Exhibit B − Respondents' Answer in Opposition to Petition for Permission to Appeal Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) (July 8, 2016), # 4 Exhibit C − National Weather Service Special Weather Statement re: Navasota, Texas (July 13, 2016))(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
499 Order of USCA re: 485 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 16−20445. IT IS ORDERED that appellants' opposed motion for stay of district court's order for injunctive relief pending appeal is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's motion for expedited briefing schedule is GRANTED, filed.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
500 Copy Request from James A. Harris re: Docket Sheet. Customer was not contacted. defendant in custody, filed. Docket sheet mailed (vcantu, 5) (vcantu, 5). (Entered: 07/22/2016)
502 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended First Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Opposed MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal ( Motion Docket Date 8/12/2016.) by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Neuhoff, Daniel) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
503 ORDER Granting In Part 502 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended First Motion for Attorneys' Fees Opposed MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal ( Responses to Motion for Attorneys' fees due by 8/26/2016.)(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
Electronic record on appeal certified to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals re: 485 Notice of Appeal, USCA No. 16−20445, filed.(mperez, 1) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
Electronic Access to Record on Appeal Provided re: 485 Notice of Appeal, to counsel for appellee, counsel for appellant. Attorneys of record at the Circuit may download the record from the Court of Appeals. (USCA No. 16−20445), filed.(mperez, 1) (Entered: 07/22/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 63 of 130

07/22/2016
07/26/2016 07/27/2016 07/27/2016 07/28/2016 07/28/2016 07/29/2016
08/02/2016 08/04/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016
08/05/2016
08/05/2016 08/05/2016

504 RESPONSE in Opposition to 479 Opposed MOTION DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
508 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (srussell, 2) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
REQUEST for Electronic Access to the Certified Record on Appeal re: 485 Notice of Appeal, by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
510 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Emery F. Smith re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (dterrell, 2) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2016: # 1 Envelope) (dterrell, 2). (Entered: 08/01/2016)
506 MOTION for Phillip P. Boyd to Withdraw as Attorney by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/18/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Boyd, Phillip) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
507 ORDER granting 506 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Phillip Paul Boyd withdrawn as attorney of record.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
509 Order of USCA − PER CURIAM re: 485 Notice of Appeal. USCA No. 16−90023. It is ordered that the unopposed motion to place motion for leave to appeal under seal is GRANTED. It is further ordered that the opposed motion to place exhibits in support under seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. We seal only those exhibits already sealed in the district court. All other exhibits, those unsealed in the district court, will remain unsealed in this Appeal. A party may seek to designate additional documents for sealing, though every effort should be made to get consent from all parties to any additional sealing, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
512 MOTION Defendants' Motion to View and Release of Sealed Documents by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/23/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
513 ORDER granting 512 Motion to view and release sealed documents for purpose of inclusion in the record on Defendants' appeal to the Fifth Circuit.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
514 NOTICE of Appearance by David James on behalf of Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (James, David) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
515 Agreed MOTION for Clarification by David Bailey, Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/26/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Docket Report for This Case, # 2 Proposed Order to Clarify Parties, # 3 Proposed Order to Clarify Case Caption)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
516 Unopposed MOTION for Brian McGiverin and James Harrington to Withdraw as Attorney( Motion Docket Date 8/26/2016.), Unopposed MOTION for Clarification by David Bailey, Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Clarify Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, # 2 Proposed Order for Brian McGiverin and James Harrington to Withdraw from Representation)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
517 ORDER granting 515 Motion to Clarify Parties on the Court's Docket.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
518 ORDER granting 515 Agreed Motion to Update Case Caption.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 64 of 130

08/05/2016 08/08/2016 08/08/2016
08/08/2016 08/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/12/2016 08/12/2016 08/16/2016 08/17/2016 08/17/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 08/23/2016

519 ORDER granting 516 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney James C Harrington and Brian Rolland McGiverin withdrawn.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
520 Order of USCA re: 485 Notice of Appeal, ; USCA No. 16−20445. Appellee's unopposed motion to view and obtain sealed documents is GRANTED., filed.(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
521 Transmittal Letter on Appeal re: 485 Notice of Appeal,. The electronic record on CD is being sent to Appellant's Counsel, Matthew Greer, via regular mail and Appellee's Counsel, David James, via Fed−Ex. (USCA No. 16−20445), filed. (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
USCA Appeal Fees received $505.00, receipt number HOU065035 re: 509 ,, filed.(koradiegwu, 4) Modified on 8/9/2016 (knguyen, 4). (Entered: 08/09/2016)
522 Mail Returned Undeliverable − Gone as to Rudy Garza Molina re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
523 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ronnie Armstrong re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
524 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Dennis Pickard re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
525 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (vrios, 2) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/10/2016: # 1 Continuation) (vrios, 2). (Entered: 08/10/2016)
526 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
527 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Tashumbre L. Jones re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
528 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher Guffey re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation) (vrios, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
529 Letter from Jesse P. Skinner re: Copy of Docket Sheet, filed. (olindor, 4) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
530 ORDER denying as moot 394 Motion for Protective Order; denying as moot 407 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 407 Motion to Strike.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
531 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Leo Motte re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (bgarces, 7) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
532 ORDER denying 479 Opposed MOTION DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
533 ORDER denying 326 Motion for Summary Judgment.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
534 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twenty−Seventh Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Kates, Amanda) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
535 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jason Bridges re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
536 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 65 of 130

08/26/2016 08/26/2016
08/29/2016 08/29/2016 08/29/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016
09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/01/2016
09/01/2016 09/09/2016 09/14/2016

537 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/16/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
538 RESPONSE to 484 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Contents, # 2 Appendix Exhibit A, # 3 Appendix Exhibit B, # 4 Appendix Exhibit C, # 5 Appendix Exhibit D, # 6 Appendix Exhibit E, # 7 Appendix Exhibit F, # 8 Appendix Exhibit G, # 9 Appendix Exhibit H, # 10 Appendix Exhibit I, # 11 Appendix Exhibit J, # 12 Appendix Exhibit K, # 13 Appendix Exhibit L, # 14 Appendix Exhibit M, # 15 Appendix Exhibit N, # 16 Appendix Exhibit O, # 17 Appendix Exhibit P, # 18 Appendix Exhibit Q, # 19 Appendix Exhibit R, # 20 Appendix Exhibit S, # 21 Appendix Exhibit T, # 22 Appendix Exhibit U, # 23 Appendix Exhibit V, # 24 Appendix Exhibit W, # 25 Appendix Exhibit X, # 26 Appendix Exhibit Y, # 27 Appendix Exhibit Z, # 28 Appendix Exhibit AA, # 29 Appendix Exhibit BB, # 30 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
539 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twenty−Eighth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Kates, Amanda) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
540 ORDER granting 537 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
541 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ssilva, 7) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
542 MOTION for Patricia Tulinski to Withdraw as Attorney by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/21/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tulinski, Patricia) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
543 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of First Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/21/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
544 ORDER granting 543 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of First Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees; Motion−related deadline set re: 484 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Replies due by 9/14/2016.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
545 ORDER granting 542 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Patricia M Tulinski terminated.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
Electronic record on appeal certified to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals re: 485 Notice of Appeal, USCA No. 16−20505, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
Electronic Access to Record on Appeal Provided re: 485 Notice of Appeal, to Jeremy Doyle, Jeff Edwards, Matthew Frederick, David James, Scott Medlock, Michael Singley and Nathan Smith. Attorneys of record at the Circuit may download the record from the Court of Appeals. (USCA No. 16−20505), filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
546 Letter from Jesse P. Skinner re: request for copies, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
547 Opposed MOTION to Substitute Party Bryan Collier in place of Brad Livingston by Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/30/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
548 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/5/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/14/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 66 of 130

09/14/2016
09/14/2016 09/16/2016
09/16/2016 09/16/2016 09/19/2016 09/21/2016 09/28/2016 09/28/2016 09/29/2016 09/29/2016 09/29/2016 09/29/2016 09/30/2016 10/03/2016

549 REPLY in Support of 484 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Amended Summary of Fees, Costs, and Expenses Requested, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Meza v. Livingston (W.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2009), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Meza v. Aliseda, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Corrected Exhibit A to Declaration of Scott Medlock, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Declaration of R. Natarajan (refiled), # 6 Exhibit 6 − Herrera Depo. Appearances, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Aug. 8, 2015 Hearing Appearances, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Aug. 26, 2014 Inspection Appearances, # 9 Exhibit 9 − Oct. 23, 2014 Hearing Appearances, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Nov. 14, 2014 Hearing Appearances, # 11 Exhibit 11 − Dec. 11, 2014 Hearing Appearances, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Attorney Rep Visit April 14, 2014, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Attorney Rep Visit April 29, 2014, # 14 Exhibit 14 − Bojes Depo. Appearances, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Means Depo. Appearances, # 16 Exhibit 16 − Rieger Depo. Appearances, # 17 Exhibit 17 − Linthicum Depo. Appearances, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Williams Depo. Excerpts, # 19 Proposed Order Granting Award as Modified)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
550 ORDER granting 548 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
551 Unopposed MOTION TO FILE SUR−REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/7/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Neuhoff, Daniel) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
552 SURREPLY to 484 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Neuhoff, Daniel) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
553 ORDER granting 551 Unopposed MOTION TO FILE SUR−REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
561 Letter from Ferrell Bucklew re: joining class action lawsuit, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
570 Letter from Victor DelBusto Molina re: Attorney Information, filed. (ssilva, 7) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
554 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Blaine D Elder re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Address was updated and Order was re−noticed, filed. (avleal, 1) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
555 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher King re: 486 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal. An updated address was not located, filed. (avleal, 1) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
556 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Emery F. Smith re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (RTS; Discharged)(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
557 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher King re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (RTS; Discharged)(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
558 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (RTS; Discharged)(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
559 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (RTS; Discharged)(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
560 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Blaine D Elder re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
562 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 10/04/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 67 of 130

10/03/2016 10/03/2016 10/03/2016 10/03/2016 10/03/2016 10/04/2016
10/05/2016 10/05/2016 10/05/2016 10/11/2016 10/11/2016 10/11/2016 10/11/2016 10/13/2016
10/18/2016 11/28/2016
11/28/2016 12/01/2016
12/05/2016
12/06/2016

563 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher King re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
564 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
565 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Emery F. Smith re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
566 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Blaine D Elder re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
567 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
568 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Twenty−Ninth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Roberto M Herrera, Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
569 ORDER granting 547 Motion to Substitute Party. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
571 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (cvillegas, 7) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
572 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (cvillegas, 7) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
573 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Emery F. Smith re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
575 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
576 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher King re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
577 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 550 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
574 Order of USCA re: 485 Notice of Appeal, ; USCA No. 16−20505. It is Ordered that appellees' unopposed motion to view and obtain sealed documents is Granted, filed.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
***Delivery Confirmation; delivery date(s) 10/14/2016 re: 578 Document(s) Sent, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
579 MOTION for Kevin Moczygemba to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Moczygemba, Kevin) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
580 Letter from Robert H. McCray re: Water Quality, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope) (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
581 ORDER denying as moot 472 Opposed MOTION to Strike; denying as moot 447 Opposed MOTION to Strike.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
582 ORDER granting 579 MOTION for Kevin Moczygemba to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Kevin Andrew Moczygemba terminated. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gclair, 4) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
583 ADVISORY by David Bailey, Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Nicholas Diaz, Blaine D Elder, James Allen Harris, Merrill Haskell, Christopher King, Richard Elvin King, Robert Blake King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Lavar John Santee, Mark A Smith, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/06/2016)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 68 of 130

12/07/2016 12/16/2016 01/13/2017 01/25/2017 01/30/2017 02/02/2017 02/06/2017 02/07/2017 02/16/2017 02/16/2017
02/22/2017
02/22/2017 02/23/2017
03/02/2017
03/02/2017 03/08/2017
03/27/2017

584 ORDER denying 484 Motion for Attorney Fees.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
585 ORDER denying as moot 478 Motion to Stay.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
586 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Michael Camarata re: 585 Order on Motion to Stay, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
587 Letter from Jesse P. Skinner re: Payment for copies, filed. (cvillegas, 7) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
588 NOTICE of Change of Address by Mark A Smith, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
590 MOTION for Joinder as to 1 Complaint by Joseph Peter Le'Dee', filed. Motion Docket Date 2/23/2017. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
591 MOTION for Joinder of Claims Pursuant Fed. R. Civ. Proc, Rule (18(a) by Quincy Deshan Butler, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/27/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 envelope)(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
***Delivery Confirmation; delivery date(s) 2/3/2017 re: 589 Document(s) Sent,, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
592 NOTICE of Appearance by Harold J. Liller on behalf of Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Liller, Harold) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
593 RESPONSE in Opposition to 590 MOTION for Joinder as to 1 Complaint, 591 MOTION for Joinder, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Liller, Harold) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
594 Order of USCA − ORDER; Judgment issued as mandate 2/22/2017 re: 485 Notice of Appeal, ; USCA No. 16−20445. The appeal is dismissed as moot, the order of the district court is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this court. It is further ordered that each party bear its own costs on appeal., filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
595 Order of USCA − PER CURIAM re: 485 Notice of Appeal, ; USCA No. 16−20445. we dismiss the TDCJ's appeal as moot, vacate the district court's order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion, filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
596 RESPONSE in Opposition to 590 MOTION for Joinder as to 1 Complaint, 591 MOTION for Joinder, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
597 MOTION for Cynthia L. Burton to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/23/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order on Motion to Withdraw)(Burton, Cynthia) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
598 ORDER granting 597 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Cynthia Burton terminated.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
599 MOTION for Reconsideration of 584 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/29/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Jeff Edwards, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of Scott Medlock, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of David James, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of Michael Singley, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Declaration of Nathan Smith)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
600 MOTION to Intervene, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/17/2017. (dgonzalez, 5) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/27/2017: # 1 Envelope) (dgonzalez, 5). (Entered: 03/27/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 69 of 130

03/27/2017 03/28/2017
04/04/2017 04/05/2017 04/05/2017 04/05/2017 04/06/2017
04/11/2017 04/11/2017 04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/13/2017
04/17/2017 04/17/2017 04/17/2017

601 MOTION for Appointment by R Wayne Johnson, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/17/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(dgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
602 RESPONSE to 482 Unopposed MOTION to Amend 481 First MOTION for Attorney Fees, 599 MOTION for Reconsideration of 584 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 481 First MOTION for Attorney Fees, 484 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
603 REQUEST for pre−motion conference, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
604 Amended REQUEST for pre−motion conference, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
605 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 4/13/2017 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
606 REPLY in Support of 599 MOTION for Reconsideration of 584 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
607 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. All parties in this case are opposedto the proposed interventions. (Doc. Nos. 593 & 596.) Moreover, it is the opinion of the Court that the proposed interventions will unduly delay the adjudication of the original parties' rights. Both pending Motions to Intervene are therefore DENIED. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
608 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirtieth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Kates, Amanda) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
609 NOTICE of Change of Address by Michael Singley, counsel for Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Singley, Michael) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
610 NOTICE of Appearance by Craig M. Warner on behalf of Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
611 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−First Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Kates, Amanda) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 4/13/2017. Parties agree to June 19 preliminary injunction hearing. Plaintiffs will have the broad contours of the requested relief submitted to the Court by the week of May 1. The parties are encouraged to communicate with each other about any issues, including supplementation of discovery. (Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 6/19/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison ) Appearances:Lee Haney, Heather Rhea, Shanna Molinare, Graig Alvarez. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Michael C Singley.(Court Reporter: L. Wells), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
612 Letter from John Henry Jackson re: Request for attorney names and mailing addresses, filed. (MonicaBalboa, ) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
613 NOTICE of Appearance by Leah J. O'Leary on behalf of Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
614 RESPONSE in Opposition to 601 MOTION for Appointment, 600 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 70 of 130

04/18/2017 04/19/2017
04/27/2017 04/28/2017 05/01/2017 05/01/2017
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 05/05/2017
05/07/2017 05/07/2017
05/08/2017 05/08/2017 05/08/2017
05/10/2017 05/15/2017 05/15/2017

615 MOTION to Intervene by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/9/2017. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
616 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by AMANDA KATES for Transcript of Status Conference 04/13/2017 before Judge Ellison. Ordinary (30 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells, filed. (Kates, Amanda) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
617 NOTICE of Appearance by C Daniel LiLizia on behalf of Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (DiLizia, C.) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
618 RESPONSE in Opposition to 600 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DiLizia, C.) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
619 RESPONSE in Opposition to 615 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DiLizia, C.) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
620 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction( Motion Docket Date 5/22/2017.), MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
621 RESPONSE in Opposition to 615 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
622 Letter MOTION to Intervene by Robert Leon Roberts, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/25/2017. (smurdock, 4) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
623 TRANSCRIPT re: Status Conference held on April 13, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Ms. Amanda Kates Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
628 ORDER granting 626 Motion for Leave to File Third AMENDED Complaint. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
629 Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Richard Elvin King, Marvin Ray Yates, Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace. Related document: 412 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., filed by Richard Elvin King, Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Marvin Ray Yates, Fred Wallace, Lavar John Santee. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
624 RESPONSE in Opposition to 622 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DiLizia, C.) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
625 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 623 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
626 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Lavar John Santee, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/30/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Complaint − 3rd Amended Complaint)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
627 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−Second Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
630 RESPONSE in Opposition to 622 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
631 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Plaintiffs for Transcript of Status conference held on April 13, 2017 before the Honorable Keith P. Ellison, United States District

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 71 of 130

05/16/2017 05/16/2017
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 05/18/2017
05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017
05/22/2017 05/25/2017
05/26/2017
05/26/2017 05/26/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017

Court Judge. Ordinary (30 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells, filed. (James, David) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
632 ORDER denying 599 Motion for Reconsideration.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
633 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 622 , 600 , 615 Motions to Intervene. Furthermore, Mr. Johnsons motion to disqualify and motion for injunctive relief are also DENIED.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
646 Letter from Pack Unit Offender, filed. (arrivera, 4) (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 05/26/2017)
634 ADVISORY by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
635 Opposed MOTION to Enforce the Court's April 13th Order and Alternatively, Motion for Continuance of the June 19th Hearing by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/8/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
636 Notice and Request for Response. Responses due by 6/2/2017.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
637 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−Third Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
638 NOTICE of Appearance by Darren McCarty on behalf of Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
639 Letter from R Wayne Johnson, filed. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
640 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/12/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
641 RESPONSE to 620 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
642 ORDER granting 640 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gclair, 4) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
643 Joint MOTION Joint Motion to Release the May 16, 2017 Letter to the Court by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/15/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
644 MOTION for Andrew Pennebaker to Withdraw as Attorney by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/16/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
645 ORDER granting 643 Motion to release May 16, 2017 Correspondence.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
647 ORDER Granting 644 Andrew Pennebaker Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
648 Opposed REQUEST for pre−motion conference, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter from C. Warner)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
649 NOTICE of Setting as to 648 Opposed REQUEST for pre−motion conference, 635 Opposed MOTION to Enforce the Court's April 13th Order and Alternatively, Motion for Continuance of the June 19th Hearing. Parties notified. Telephone Conference set for 6/1/2017 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera,

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 72 of 130

05/31/2017 06/01/2017 06/01/2017
06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/07/2017
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017

4) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
650 MOTION Motion for Leave to Take the Oral Deposition of Incarcerated Persons by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/21/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
651 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION AND OPINION TO CLASS MEMBER ROBERT LEON ROBERTS MOTION TO INTERVENE filed by Robert Leon Roberts (SandraSilva, 7) 7). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/1/2017: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope) (SandraSilva, 7). (Entered: 06/01/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 6/1/2017. Arguments heard. Defendant's motion to enforce (Doc. No. 635 ) denied. Defendant's motion for leave to take oral deposition (Doc. No. 650 ) partially granted: TDCJ and Plaintiffs may take depositions of 3 witnesses on each side, subject to a 2−hour per deposition maximum. Appearances:Heather Rhea,. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Wallis Anne Nader, David Anthony James, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, Darren Lee McCarty.(Court Reporter: M. Malone)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
652 RESPONSE to 636 Order TDCJ Defendants' Response to the Court's Notice and Request for Response, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Herrera Affidavit re: 2017 deaths, # 2 Exhibit B− McWhorter Affidavit re: 2017 deaths, # 3 Exhibit D− Hall Affidavit re: Pack Unit Deaths)(Kates, Amanda) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
653 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 06/02/2017)
654 RESPONSE to 636 Order , filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Second Amended Deposition Notice)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
655 MOTION to Compel Emergency Discovery Regarding "Power Breezer" Devices( Motion Docket Date 6/28/2017.), MOTION to Expedite Relief by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − June 6, 2017 Letter from C. Warner, # 2 Exhibit 2 − August 24, 2016 Letter to C. Burton, # 3 Exhibit 3 − December 14, 2016 Letter to M. Greer, # 4 Exhibit 4 − May 5, 2017 Email to C. Warner, # 5 Exhibit 5 − May 16, 2017 Letter to C. Warner, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Breezer Mobile Cooling Technical Specifications, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Defendants' September 19, 2014 Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Defendants' November 17, 2014 Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, # 9 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
656 ORDER FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE AND ORDER SETTING HEARING ; Motion−related deadline set re: 655 MOTION to Compel Emergency Discovery Regarding "Power Breezer" Devices MOTION to Expedite Relief Motion Hearing set for 6/14/2017 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison Responses due by 6/12/2017.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
657 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−Fourth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
658 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Jackie Brannum by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
659 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Keith Cole by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 73 of 130

06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017

660 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Michael Denton by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
661 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Richard King by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
662 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Fred Wallace by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
663 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Marvin Ray Yates by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
664 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of John Ford by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
665 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Ira Goodwin by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
666 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Carlos Huerta by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
667 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Thomas Pennington by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
668 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Aaron Smith by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
669 Unopposed MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for appearance of Laddy Valentine by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
670 ORDER granting 658 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Jackie Brannum.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
671 ORDER granting 659 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Keith Cole.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
672 ORDER granting 660 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Michael Denton.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
673 ORDER granting 665 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Ira Goodwin.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
674 ORDER granting 661 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Richard King.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 74 of 130

06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 06/12/2017
06/12/2017 06/12/2017
06/13/2017 06/14/2017
06/14/2017
06/15/2017

675 ORDER granting 662 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Fred Wallace.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
676 ORDER granting 663 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Ray Yates.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
677 ORDER granting 664 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to John Ford.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
678 ORDER granting 666 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Carlos Huerta.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
679 ORDER granting 667 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Thomas Pennington.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
680 ORDER granting 668 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Aaron Smith.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
681 ORDER granting 669 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Laddy Valentine.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, John Ford, Ira Goodwin, Carlos Huerta, Thomas Pennington, Aaron Smith,Laddy Valentine for Injunction Hearing on 6/19/2017. Copies delivered to USM. ( Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
682 RESPONSE to 639 Letter , filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
683 RESPONSE to 655 MOTION to Compel Emergency Discovery Regarding "Power Breezer" Devices MOTION to Expedite Relief filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
684 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−Fifth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
685 REPLY in Support of 655 MOTION to Compel Emergency Discovery Regarding "Power Breezer" Devices MOTION to Expedite Relief, filed by David Bailey, Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Nicholas Diaz, Blaine D Elder, James Allen Harris, Merrill Haskell, Christopher King, Richard Elvin King, Robert Blake King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Lavar John Santee, Mark A Smith, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 6/14/2017. Arguments heard: Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Compel partially granted. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
686 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate 676 Order on Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum, 677 Order on Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/6/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 06/15/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 75 of 130

06/15/2017 06/15/2017 06/16/2017 06/16/2017 06/16/2017 06/17/2017 06/18/2017 06/19/2017 06/19/2017 06/19/2017 06/19/2017
06/20/2017
06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017

687 ORDER granting 686 Motion to Vacate Writs of Ad Testificandum as to Inmates John Ford and Marvin Ray Yates.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
688 Letter from James A. Harris re: Order Setting Hearing for June 14, 2017, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
689 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Leah O'Leary for Transcript of Motion Hearing on 06/01/2017 before Judge Ellison. Expedited (7 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Mayra Malone, filed. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
690 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−Sixth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
691 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Amanda Kates for Transcript of Motion Hearing 6/14/2017 before Judge Ellison. Expedited (7 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells, filed. (Kates, Amanda) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
692 TRANSCRIPT re: Telephonic Hearing on Motion held on June 14, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Amanda Kates Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/15/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 06/17/2017)
693 STIPULATION re: Fact and Testimony by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/18/2017)
694 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clifford Fairfax re: 656 Order,, filed. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
695 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 692 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
696 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Blaine D Elder re: 656 Order,, filed. (gsalinas, 5) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING held on 6/19/2017. Witnesses: Richard King, Jackie Brannum, Thomas Pennington, Carlos Huerta, Keith Cole. Admitted Plaintiff's Exhibits: 2 (bates 105348, 105351, 105380), 21, 24, 40, 47, 52, 54. Admitted Defendant's Exhibits: 36, 93, 121. Preliminary Injunction hearing will resume 6/20/17 at 9:00 a.m. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Darren Lee McCarty, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING held on 6/20/2017. Witnesses: Ron Brown, Eldon Vail. Admitted Plaintiff's Exhibits: 2, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 44, 58, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 105, 113, 117. Admitted Defendant's Exhibits: 5, 12. Injunction hearing to resume 6/21/2017 at 1:00 p.m. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Darren Lee McCarty, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
697 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jason Bridges re: 656 Order,, filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
698 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Rudy Garza Molina re: 656 Order,, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
699 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 656 Order,, filed. (ocasas, 7) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
700 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher King re: 656 Order,, filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 76 of 130

06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017
06/22/2017 06/22/2017
06/23/2017
06/23/2017

701 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 656 Order,, filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
702 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Merrill Haskell re: 656 Order,, filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
703 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Emery F. Smith re: 656 Order,, filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
704 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jorge Jones re: 656 Order,, filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
705 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Leo Motte re: 656 Order,, filed. (smurdock, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
706 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Dennis Pickard re: 656 Order,, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
707 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Stephen re: 656 Order,, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
708 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Michael Camarata re: 656 Order,, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
709 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Tashumbre L. Jones re: 656 Order,, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
710 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher Guffey re: 656 Order,, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
711 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ronnie Armstrong re: 656 Order,, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING held on 6/21/2017. Witnesses: RObert Herrera. Defendant's Admitted Exhibits: 27, 36, 93, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134. Injunction hearing to resume 6/23/2017 at 10:00 a.m. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Darren Lee McCarty, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer(Court Reporter: L. Wells), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
712 MOTION for Recusal by R Wayne Johnson, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/13/2017. (jengonzalez, 7) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING held on 6/22/2017. Witnesses: Robert Herrera. Plaintiff's Admitted Exhibits: 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22−25 (removing index), 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 51(2017 version), 52, 59, 61, 62, 65, 81, 84, 85, 116, 117, 122A, 122C, 122D, 122G, 123, 124. Defendant's Admitted Exhibits: 1, 56. Injunction hearing to resume 6/23/2017 at 10:00 a.m. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Darren Lee McCarty, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
713 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Summary Evidence by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Summary of Defendants' Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Summary of Brenham High Heat Index in 2016, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Example of Heat Index Calculator)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING held on 6/23/2017. Witness: Robert Herrera, Phyllis McQuarter, Cody Ginsel. Plaintiff's Admitted Exhibits: 20, 21, 116, 129Defendant's Admitted Exhibits: 8, 28, 30 (conditionally), 32, 34, 36a, 36b, 36c, 50, 56, 90, 121, 136 w/video, 137, 138. Injunction hearing to resume 6/26/2017 at 9:00 a.m. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Darren Lee McCarty, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 77 of 130

06/25/2017 06/26/2017 06/26/2017
06/26/2017 06/27/2017
06/28/2017 06/28/2017
06/29/2017 06/29/2017
06/29/2017

714 TRANSCRIPT re: Motion Hearing held on June 1, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mayra Malone. Ordering Party Leah O'Leary Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/25/2017., filed. (mmalone, ) (Entered: 06/25/2017)
715 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 714 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING held on 6/26/2017. Witness: Cody Ginsel, Admitted Plaintiff's Exhibits: 11, 14, 47, 52, 64, 116Admitted Defendant's Exhibits:88, 109, 139. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
723 RESPONSE to 682 Response, filed by R Wayne Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 NDTX Letter Attachment, # 2 Envelope)(amartinez, 2) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING held on 6/27/2017. Witnesses: Dr. Rieger, Frank Traknyak, Plaintiffs Admitted Exhibits: 105. Defendants Admitted Exhibits: 20, 88, 91, 119, 136. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
716 Letter from Charles Malouff, Jr. re: Criminal Retaliation, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Grievance Form, # 2 Envelope) (klopez, 7) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING continued on 6/28/2017. Witness: Frank Traknyak, Kim Ferguson. Admitted Plaintiffs Exhibits: 114, 130. Admitted Defendants Exhibits: 120. Injunction hearing to continue 6/29/17 at 9:00 a.m. Appearances:Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
717 MOTION Defendants' Offer of Proof and Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Testimony of Dr. Dean Rieger by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/20/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. INJUNCTION HEARING continued on 6/29/2017. Witness: LaMorris Marshall, Michael Denton. Admitted Plaintiffs Exhibits: 2a1, 2b, 4, 15, 42, 43, 46, 51, 117, 122b, 127, 131−134. Admitted Defendants Exhibits 7, 24, 139. Parties rest. Supplemental briefing due for Plaintiff's on July 5, Defendants supplemental briefing due by July 7. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, C. Daniel DiLizia, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: H. Crowell), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
732 Plaintiffs Exhibit List − Preliminary Injunction Hearing(arrivera, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/27/2017: # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 2A, # 4 Exhibit 2A1, # 5 Exhibit 2B, # 6 Exhibit 5 Part 1, # 7 Exhibit 5 Part 2, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10 Part 1, # 13 Exhibit 10 Part 2, # 14 Exhibit 10 Part 3, # 15 Exhibit 11, # 16 Exhibit 12, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 16 Part 1, # 19 Exhibit Part 2, # 20 Exhibit 16 Part 4, # 21 Exhibit 16 Part 5, # 22 Exhibit 18 Part 1, # 23 Exhibit 18 Part 2, # 24 Exhibit 18 Part 3, # 25 Exhibit 18 Part 4, # 26 Exhibit 18 Part 5, # 27 Exhibit 18 Part 6, # 28 Exhibit 18 Part 7, # 29 Exhibit Part 8, # 30 Exhibit 18 Part 9, # 31 Exhibit Part 10, # 32 Exhibit Part11, # 33 Exhibit Part 12, # 34 Exhibit Part 13, # 35 Exhibit Part 14, # 36 Exhibit 18 Part 15, # 37 Exhibit Part 16, # 38 Exhibit Part 17, # 39 Exhibit Part 18, # 40 Exhibit Part 19, # 41 Exhibit Part 20, # 42 Exhibit Part 21, # 43 Exhibit Part 22, # 44 Exhibit 20 Part 1, # 45 Exhibit 20 Part 2, # 46 Exhibit 20 Part 3, # 47 Exhibit Part 4, # 48 Exhibit 20 Part 5, # 49 Exhibit Part 6, # 50 Exhibit Part 7, # 51 Exhibit Part 8, # 52 Exhibit 20 Part 9, # 53 Exhibit 21, # 54

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 78 of 130

06/29/2017 06/29/2017
06/29/2017

Exhibit 22, # 55 Exhibit 23, # 56 Exhibit 24 Part 1, # 57 Exhibit 24 Part 2, # 58 Exhibit 25, # 59 Exhibit 28, # 60 Exhibit 30, # 61 Exhibit 31, # 62 Exhibit 32, # 63 Exhibit 33, # 64 Exhibit 34 Part 1, # 65 Exhibit 34 Part 2, # 66 Exhibit 36 Part 1, # 67 Exhibit 36 Part 2, # 68 Exhibit 37, # 69 Exhibit 38, # 70 Exhibit 39, # 71 Exhibit 42, # 72 Exhibit 43, # 73 Exhibit 44, # 74 Exhibit 45, # 75 Exhibit 46, # 76 Exhibit 47, # 77 Exhibit 51, # 78 Exhibit 52, # 79 Exhibit 54, # 80 Exhibit 58, # 81 Exhibit 59, # 82 Exhibit 61, # 83 Exhibit 62, # 84 Exhibit 65, # 85 Exhibit 81, # 86 Exhibit 84, # 87 Exhibit 85, # 88 Exhibit 86, # 89 Exhibit 87, # 90 Exhibit 88, # 91 Exhibit 89, # 92 Exhibit 90, # 93 Exhibit 91, # 94 Exhibit 92, # 95 Exhibit 93, # 96 Exhibit 94, # 97 Exhibit 96, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 105 Part 1, # 101 Exhibit 105 Part 2, # 102 Exhibit 105 Part 3, # 103 Exhibit 105 Part 4, # 104 Exhibit 105 Part 5, # 105 Exhibit 105 Part 6, # 106 Exhibit 105 Part 7, # 107 Exhibit 105 Part 8, # 108 Exhibit 113 Part 1, # 109 Exhibit 113 Part 2, # 110 Exhibit 113 Part 3, # 111 Exhibit 113 Part 4, # 112 Exhibit 113 Part 5, # 113 Exhibit 113 Part 6, # 114 Exhibit 114, # 115 Exhibit 116, # 116 Exhibit 117, # 117 Exhibit 122A, # 118 Exhibit 122B, # 119 Exhibit 122C, # 120 Exhibit 122D, # 121 Exhibit 122G, # 122 Exhibit 122H, # 123 Exhibit 122J, # 124 Exhibit 122K, # 125 Exhibit 122L, # 126 Exhibit 123, # 127 Exhibit 124, # 128 Exhibit 127, # 129 Exhibit 129, # 130 Exhibit 130, # 131 Exhibit 131, # 132 Exhibit 132, # 133 Exhibit 133, # 134 Exhibit 134, # 135 Exhibit 135) (arrivera, 4). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/29/2017: # 136 Exhibit 16 part 3, # 137 Exhibit 64) (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 07/14/2017)
733 Defendants Exhibit List − Preliminary Injunction Hearing(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
921 Plaintiff's Exhibit List− Preliminary Injunction Hearing Re: 732 , filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 2A, # 3 Exhibit 2A1, # 4 Exhibit 2B, # 5 Exhibit 5 Part 1, # 6 Exhibit 5 Part 2, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10 Part 1, # 12 Exhibit 10 Part 2, # 13 Exhibit 10 Part 3, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 16 Part 1, # 18 Exhibit 16 Part 2, # 19 Exhibit 16 Part 3, # 20 Exhibit 16 Part 4, # 21 Exhibit 16 Part 5, # 22 Exhibit 18 Part 1, # 23 Exhibit 18 Part 2, # 24 Exhibit 18 Part 3, # 25 Exhibit 18 Part 4, # 26 Exhibit 18 Part 5, # 27 Exhibit 18 Part 6, # 28 Exhibit 18 Part 7, # 29 Exhibit 18 Part 8, # 30 Exhibit 18 Part 9, # 31 Exhibit 18 Part 10, # 32 Exhibit 18 Part 11, # 33 Exhibit 18 Part 12, # 34 Exhibit 18 Part 13, # 35 Exhibit 18 Part 14, # 36 Exhibit 18 Part 15, # 37 Exhibit 18 Part 16, # 38 Exhibit 18 Part 17, # 39 Exhibit 18 Part 18, # 40 Exhibit 18 Part 19, # 41 Exhibit 18 Part 20, # 42 Exhibit 18 Part 21, # 43 Exhibit 18 Part 22, # 44 Exhibit 20 Part 1, # 45 Exhibit 20 Part 2, # 46 Exhibit 20 Part 3, # 47 Exhibit 20 Part 4, # 48 Exhibit 20 Part 5, # 49 Exhibit 20 Part 6, # 50 Exhibit 20 Part 7, # 51 Exhibit 20 Part 8, # 52 Exhibit 20 Part 9, # 53 Exhibit 21, # 54 Exhibit 22, # 55 Exhibit 23, # 56 Exhibit 24 Part 1, # 57 Exhibit 24 Part 2, # 58 Exhibit 25, # 59 Exhibit 28, # 60 Exhibit 30, # 61 Exhibit 31, # 62 Exhibit 32, # 63 Exhibit 33, # 64 Exhibit 34 Part 1, # 65 Exhibit 34 Part 2, # 66 Exhibit 36 Part 1, # 67 Exhibit 36 Part 2, # 68 Exhibit 37, # 69 Exhibit 38, # 70 Exhibit 39, # 71 Exhibit 42, # 72 Exhibit 43, # 73 Exhibit 44, # 74 Exhibit 45, # 75 Exhibit 46, # 76 Exhibit 47, # 77 Exhibit 51−3, # 78 Exhibit 52, # 79 Exhibit 54, # 80 Exhibit 58, # 81 Exhibit 59, # 82 Exhibit 61, # 83 Exhibit 62, # 84 Exhibit 64, # 85 Exhibit 65, # 86 Exhibit 81, # 87 Exhibit 84, # 88 Exhibit 85, # 89 Exhibit 86, # 90 Exhibit 87, # 91 Exhibit 88, # 92 Exhibit 89−1, # 93 Exhibit 90, # 94 Exhibit 91, # 95 Exhibit 92, # 96 Exhibit 93, # 97 Exhibit 94, # 98 Exhibit 96, # 99 Exhibit 98, # 100 Exhibit 99, # 101 Exhibit 105 Part 1, # 102 Exhibit 105 Part 2, # 103 Exhibit 105 Part 3, # 104 Exhibit 105 Part 4, # 105 Exhibit 105 Part 5, # 106 Exhibit 105 Part 6, # 107 Exhibit 105 Part 7, # 108 Exhibit 105 Part 8, # 109 Exhibit 113 Part 1, # 110 Exhibit 113 Part 2, # 111 Exhibit 113 Part 3, # 112 Exhibit 113 Part 4, # 113 Exhibit 113 Part 5, # 114 Exhibit 113 Part 6, # 115 Exhibit 114, # 116 Exhibit 116, # 117 Exhibit 117, # 118 Exhibit 122A, # 119 Exhibit 122B, # 120 Exhibit 122C, # 121 Exhibit 122D, # 122 Exhibit 122G, # 123 Exhibit 122H, # 124 Exhibit 122J, # 125 Exhibit 122K, # 126 Exhibit 122L, # 127 Exhibit 123, # 128 Exhibit 124, # 129 Exhibit 127, # 130 Exhibit 129, # 131 Exhibit 130, # 132 Exhibit 131, # 133 Exhibit 132, # 134 Exhibit 133, # 135 Exhibit 134, # 136 Exhibit 135)(arrivera, 4) Modified on 12/7/2017 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 12/06/2017)
922 Defendants Exhibit List− Preliminary Injunction Hearing Re: 733 EXHIBITS, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 4, # 3 Exhibit 5, # 4 Exhibit 7, # 5 Exhibit 8, # 6 Exhibit 12, # 7 Exhibit 20, # 8 Exhibit 24, # 9 Exhibit 27, # 10 Exhibit 28, # 11 Exhibit 30, # 12 Exhibit 32, # 13 Exhibit 36, # 14 Exhibit 50, # 15 Exhibit 56, # 16

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 79 of 130

06/30/2017 06/30/2017 07/03/2017
07/05/2017 07/05/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/11/2017

Exhibit 88, # 17 Exhibit 90, # 18 Exhibit 91, # 19 Exhibit 93, # 20 Exhibit 107, # 21 Exhibit 109, # 22 Exhibit 119, # 23 Exhibit 120, # 24 Exhibit 121, # 25 Exhibit 126b, # 26 Exhibit 127b, # 27 Exhibit 128, # 28 Exhibit 129, # 29 Exhibit 130, # 30 Exhibit 131, # 31 Exhibit 132, # 32 Exhibit 133, # 33 Exhibit 134, # 34 Exhibit 136, # 35 Exhibit 137, # 36 Exhibit 138, # 37 Exhibit 139a, # 38 Exhibit 139b)(arrivera, 4) Modified on 12/7/2017 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 12/06/2017)
718 NOTICE DEFENDANTS' CROSS−DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY OF DOCTOR SUSI VASSALLO by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
719 NOTICE DEFENDANTS DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF DOCTOR MICHAEL McGEEHIN by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
720 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Dr. Charles Adams, M.D. Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Dr. Glenda Adams, M.D. Excerpts (Mar. 7, 2013), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Dr. Glenda Adams, M.D. Excerpts (Nov. 19, 2013), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Dr. Glenda Adams, M.D. Excerpts (Jan. 31, 2017), # 5 Exhibit 5 − Debra Allison Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Dr. Fausto Avila, M.D. Excerpts (Mar. 5, 2015), # 7 Exhibit 7 − Dr. Fausto Avila, M.D. Excerpts (Mar. 11, 2016), # 8 Exhibit 8 − Bryan Collier Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit 9 − George Crippen, R.N. Excerpts, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Robert Eason Excerpts, # 11 Exhibit 11 − Cody Ginsel Excerpts, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Frank Inmon Excerpts, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Dr. Lanette Linthicum, M.D. Excerpts (Jan. 13, 2016), # 14 Exhibit 14 − Dr. Lanette Linthicum, M.D. Excerpts (Jan. 14, 2016), # 15 Exhibit 15 − Brad Livingston Excerpts (Oct. 1, 2015), # 16 Exhibit 16 − Brad Livingston Excerpts (Oct. 2, 2015), # 17 Exhibit 17 − Maj. Matthew McClarin Excerpts, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Fred Wallace Excerpts, # 19 Exhibit 19 − Marvin Yates Excerpts, # 20 Exhibit 20 − Dr. Susi Vassallo, M.D. Excerpts (Feb. 26, 2016), # 21 Exhibit 21 − Dr. Susi Vassallo, M.D. Excerpts (May 10, 2017), # 22 Exhibit 22 − Declaration of Fred Wallace, # 23 Exhibit 23 − Declaration of Marvin Yates)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
721 STIPULATION re: Fact by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
722 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ON DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO PROP 16 (f) by James Allen Harris, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/26/2017. (ocasas, 7) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/6/2017: # 1 DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF JAMES A. HARRIS, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Cover Letter, # 4 Envelope) (ocasas, 7). (Entered: 07/06/2017)
724 Proposed Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
725 Proposed Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Earles v. Travis County (unpublished order))(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
726 RESPONSE in Opposition to 717 MOTION Defendants' Offer of Proof and Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Testimony of Dr. Dean Rieger, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts from Dr. Rieger's Deposition)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
727 Letter from Charlie Malouff re: Pack Unit, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
728 MOTION for Harold J. Liller to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/1/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Liller, Harold) (Entered: 07/11/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 80 of 130

07/13/2017 07/13/2017 07/13/2017
07/14/2017 07/17/2017 07/19/2017 07/19/2017
07/20/2017 07/20/2017
07/21/2017
07/21/2017 07/21/2017 07/21/2017
07/21/2017 07/24/2017
07/24/2017 07/25/2017
07/25/2017 07/25/2017 07/26/2017

729 MOTION for Protective Order by Richard Jaxson, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/3/2017. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
730 Prisoner Letter from Glenn A. Bracy, filed. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
731 ORDER on 728 MOTION for Harold J. Liller to Withdraw as Attorney, Assistant Attorney Harold J Liller terminated.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
734 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert Blake King re: 656 Order,, filed. (ocasas, 7) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
735 Letter rom Plaintiff to Judge with Grievance Form attached., filed. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
736 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Thomas Byron re: 656 Order, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
737 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 620 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction (Submission Date 8/3/2017, Miscellaneous Hearing set for 8/8/2017 at 02:00 PM at Courtroom 3A before Judge Keith P Ellison) (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (rosaldana, 4) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
738 MOTION for Joinder of Claims by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/10/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation, # 2 Envelope)(cvillegas, 7) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
739 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−Seventh Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
740 MOTION to Seal Exhibits to Defendants Response to Court Inquiry by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/11/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
741 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
742 RESPONSE To Court Inquiry, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
743 MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs' Initial Response to Court's Request for Investigative Response Regarding Retaliation at Pack Unit Respite Areas by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/11/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
744 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
745 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Exhibit to Defendants' Response to Court Inquiry by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
746 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
747 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendants/Craig Warner for Transcript of Second Preliminary Injunction Hearing, 06/19/17 − 06/29/17, before Judge Keith Ellison. 14−Day turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
748 ORDER granting 743 Motion to Seal. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (rosaldana, 4) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
749 ORDER granting 740 Motion to Seal. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (rosaldana, 4) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
750 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Master Index held on 6−19−17 through 6−29−17 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 81 of 130

07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/27/2017 07/27/2017 07/27/2017

751 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Concordance held on 6−19−17 to 6−29−17 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
752 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 1 held on June 19, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
753 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 2 held on June 20, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
754 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 3 held on June 21, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
755 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 4 held on June 22, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
756 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 5 held on June 23, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
757 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 6 held on June 26, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
758 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 7 held on June 27, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
759 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 8 held on June 28, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
760 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Injunction − Day 9 held on June 29, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Mr. Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2017., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
761 Letter from Charles Malouff re: Retaliation, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
762 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 759 Transcript, 753 Transcript, 757 Transcript, 751 Transcript, 760 Transcript, 756 Transcript, 758 Transcript, 755 Transcript, 750 Transcript, 754 Transcript, 752 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (dhansen, 4) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
763 RESPONSE to 682 Response In Opposition To R. Wayne Johnson's Motion For Sanctions and Motion To Dismiss, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
764 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time PLaintiffs to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees by David Bailey, Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Nicholas Diaz, Blaine D Elder, James Allen Harris, Merrill Haskell, Christopher King, Richard Elvin King, Robert Blake King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Lavar John Santee, Mark A Smith, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/17/2017.

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 82 of 130

07/27/2017 07/28/2017 07/31/2017 08/01/2017 08/03/2017 08/07/2017
08/08/2017
08/08/2017 08/09/2017 08/10/2017 08/11/2017 08/14/2017 08/16/2017 08/17/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
765 RESPONSE to Harris and Johnson's Motion for Sanctions, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DiLizia, C.) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
766 ORDER granting 764 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline to file a motion for attorneys' fees is due September 18, 2017. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
767 RESPONSE in Opposition to 729 MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
768 ORDER denying 717 Motion for Defendants' Offer of Proof and Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Testimony of Dr. Dean Rieger. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gclair, 4) (Entered: 08/01/2017)
769 RESPONSE to 737 Memorandum and Opinion, , filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
770 NOTICE of Resetting as to 737 Miscellaneous hearing,. Parties notified. Miscellaneous Hearing set for 8/8/2017 at 02:00 PM at Courtroom 8B before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. COURTROOM CHANGE ONLY. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING held on 8/8/2017. Order to issue. Appearances:Sharon Howell. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Michael C Singley, Nathan M Smith, Craig Michael Warner, Darren Lee McCarty, Matthew J Greer.(Court Reporter: J. Sanchez)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
771 ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
774 Letter from Michael Denton re: Medical Needs, filed. (ocasas, 7) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
772 RESPONSE in Opposition to 738 MOTION for Joinder of Claims, filed by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
773 Letter from James A. Harris re: Requesting Copy of Docket Sheet, filed. (MonicaBalboa, 4) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
775 MOTION for Appointment of counsel and Medical Attention by Stanley Bernard Sherman, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/5/2017. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
776 Letter from Anthony Ortiz re: Grievance Form, filed. (MonicaBalboa, 4) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
777 Letter from Tommy Shoefstall re: Officers violating Court Order, filed. (jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
778 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−Eighth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
779 Joint MOTION for Continuance of Filing Deadline by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/8/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Joint)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
780 Other EXHIBITS re: 779 Joint MOTION for Continuance of Filing Deadline by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
781 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 771 Order, 737 Memorandum and Opinion, by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 83 of 130

08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/21/2017
08/21/2017
08/21/2017 08/23/2017 08/23/2017 08/23/2017
08/25/2017 08/28/2017 09/01/2017
09/01/2017
09/01/2017
09/01/2017

of Criminal Justice (Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0541−18812373), filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
782 Letter from Charles A Malouff Jr re: Second Request/Criminal Investigator, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Grievance Form, # 2 Envelope, # 3 Envelope) (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
783 ORDER granting 779 Motion for Continuance. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
784 Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 781 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Paid. Reporter(s): Kathy Miller, Fred Warner, Johnny Sanchez, Mayra Malone, Heather Alcaraz, Gail Dye, and Laura Wells, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Order 737, # 3 Order 771, # 4 Public docket sheet) (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
Appeal Review Notes re: 781 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Paid. The appeal filing fee has been paid. 30 Hearings were held in the case. 22 of the 30 transcripts were produced. DKT13 transcript order form(s) due within 14 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Number of DKT−13 Forms expected: 30, filed. rnieto, 1) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
785 Letter from James A. Harris re: copy of docket 765, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 17−20529 re: 781 Notice of Appeal, filed.(rnieto, 1) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
786 RESPONSE to 783 Order on Motion for Continuance Status Report and Proposed Policy, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
787 RESPONSE to 783 Order on Motion for Continuance, 771 Order, 737 Memorandum and Opinion, , filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Plaintiffs' Proposed Heat Wave Plan, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Heat Training Script, # 3 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
788 Letter from Kelvin Jones re: Harassment, Retaliation, and Insubordination, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
789 ADVISORY by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
790 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Leah O'Leary. Transcript is already on file in Clerks office regarding Class Certification Hearing 5/26−27/2016 and 6/1−2/2016 before Judge Ellison. (No transcript is needed). Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells. This order form relates to the following: Injunction Hearing,,, Class Certification Hearing,, Injunction Hearing,, 781 Notice of Appeal, Class Certification Hearing,, Evidentiary Hearing,, 466 Transcript, 460 Transcript, 465 Transcript, 459 Transcript,, filed.(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
791 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Leah O'Leary. Transcript is already on file in Clerks office regarding Motion Telephone Conference 6/1/2017 before Judge Ellison. (No transcript is needed). Court Reporter/Transcriber: Mayra Malone. This order form relates to the following: Telephone Conference,, 714 Transcript, filed.(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
792 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Leah O'Leary. Transcript is already on file in Clerks office regarding Status Conference 4/13/2017 before Judge Ellison, Motion Hearing 6/14/2017 before Judge Ellison. (No transcript is needed). Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells. This order form relates to the following: 623 Transcript, Status Conference,, 692 Transcript, Motion Hearing,, filed.(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
793 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Leah O'Leary. Transcript is already on file in Clerks office regarding Injunction Hearing 06/19−23/2017 & 06/26−29/2017

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 84 of 130

09/01/2017
09/01/2017
09/01/2017
09/05/2017
09/05/2017 09/05/2017
09/05/2017 09/05/2017 09/05/2017
09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/07/2017

before Judge Ellison. (No transcript is needed). Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells. This order form relates to the following: Injunction Hearing,, Injunction Hearing,, 759 Transcript, 753 Transcript, Injunction Hearing,, Injunction Hearing,, Injunction Hearing,, 757 Transcript, 751 Transcript, Injunction Hearing,, Injunction Hearing, Injunction Hearing, 760 Transcript, 756 Transcript, 758 Transcript, 755 Transcript, 750 Transcript, 754 Transcript, Injunction Hearing,, 752 Transcript, filed.(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
794 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Leah O'Leary. This is to order a transcript of Miscellaneous Hearing 08/08/2017 before Judge Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Johnny Sanchez. This order form relates to the following: Miscellaneous Hearing,, filed.(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
795 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Leah O'Leary. Transcript is already on file in Clerks office regarding Status Conference 02/12/2016 before Judge Ellison. (No transcript is needed). Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller. This order form relates to the following: Status Conference, 383 Transcript, filed.(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
796 Opposed MOTION to Modify Preliminary Injunction Due to Emergency Hurricane Evacuations as to 771 Order by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/22/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Tracy Bailey, # 2 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
797 ORDER Re: 796 Opposed MOTION to Modify Preliminary Injunction Due to Emergency Hurricane Evacuations as to 771 Order. Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion shall be submitted by 9/8/2017 Defendants' reply shall be submitted by 9/11/2017.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
798 RESPONSE in Opposition to 775 MOTION for Appointment of counsel, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nader, Wallis) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
799 ORDER Approving Defendants' Proposed Heat Wave Plan. 786 −2. The Court approves upon training script 786 −1, to be used for oral instruction to all those incarcerated at the Pack Unit.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
800 NOTICE of Non−Compliance by Ronald Scott Catt, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
801 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying 738 MOTION for Joinder of Claims (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
802 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying 712 MOTION for Recusal, 722 MOTION for Sanctions, 639 Motion to Dismiss & 729 Motion for Protective Order.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) Modified on 9/26/2017 (arrivera, 4). (Main Document 802 replaced on 9/26/2017) (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 09/06/2017)
803 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ronnie Armstrong re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (sanderson, 3) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
804 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Leo Motte re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
805 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Tashumbre L. Jones re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
806 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
807 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Stephen re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
808 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Dennis Pickard re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 85 of 130

09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/08/2017
09/08/2017 09/08/2017 09/08/2017 09/08/2017 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/12/2017 09/14/2017 09/14/2017

809 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Michael Camarata re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
810 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jorge Jones re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
811 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Thomas Byron re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
812 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Rudy Garza Molina re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (sanderson, 3) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
813 RESPONSE in Opposition to 796 Opposed MOTION to Modify Preliminary Injunction Due to Emergency Hurricane Evacuations as to 771 Order, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − TDCJ Survey of Which Units Have Air Conditioning, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter from J. Edwards to C. Warner (Aug. 28, 2017), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Email from D. McCarty to J. Edwards (Aug. 29, 2017), # 4 Exhibit 4 − National Weather Service, "Weather observations for the past three days" (Aug. 30, 2017), # 5 Exhibit 5 − Tabular Forecast for Sep. 11 & 12, 2017, Brenham, Texas (Retrieved Sep. 7, 2017), # 6 Exhibit 6 − TDCJ Offenders Evacuated from Ramsey, Stringfellow and Terrell Units to Pack on 08/26/2017 (Placeholder − filed separately under seal), # 7 Exhibit 7 − Email from Carrier Rentals Systems, Special alert: Carrier Rental Systems is mobilizing for Hurricane Harvey (Aug. 24, 2017), # 8 Exhibit 8 − Excerpts from Pack Unit Master Assignment Roster (July 12, 2017), # 9 Exhibit 9 − Excerpts from TDCJ Offenders Evacuated from Ramsey, Stringfellow and Terrell Units to Pack on 08/26/2017, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Letter to Hon. K. Ellison from P. Price, re: Newton County Correctional Center, # 11 Exhibit 11 − W. Jensen, Ware Unit in Colorado City set to close next month (KTXS 12, Jul. 11, 2017, # 12 Exhibit 12 − B. Collier, Executive directors legislative update (TDCJ Criminal Justice Connections, MayJune 2017), # 13 Exhibit 13 − Email re Transfers from P1−DO 08/17/17 (Aug. 16, 2017), # 14 Exhibit 14 − Excerpt from Pack Unit Inmate Locator Report (Sep. 7, 2017), # 15 Exhibit 15 − TDCJ Offender Information Search (retrieved Sep. 7, 2017), # 16 Exhibit 16 − TDCJ Criminal Justice Connections, TDCJ in Eye of the Storm as Hurricane Ike Roars Ashore, # 17 Exhibit 17 − Declaration of D. W. Lynch, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Declaration of M. Rodrigeuz, # 19 Exhibit 19 − Declaration of R. Vandyke, # 20 Exhibit 20 − Declaration of M. Denton, # 21 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
814 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
815 MOTION to Vacate; 771 Order, 737 Order by R Wayne Johnson, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/29/2017. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
816 Follow−Up on Retaliation Against a Witness in Cole, et al v. Collier, et al by Charles A Malouff, Jr, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(sanderson, 3) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
818 ORDER granting 814 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
817 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clifford Fairfax re: 784 Clerk's Notice of Filing of an Appeal,, filed. (sanderson, 3) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
819 REPLY to Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction Due to Emergency Hurricane Evacuations (DE 813), filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
Appeal Remark re: 781 Notice of Appeal. Pending the filing of appeal transcript re: 794 Misc. Hearing, filed.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
820 ORDER denying 796 Motion to Modify the injunction.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
823 Letter from Edward Perez re: Retaliation Against a Witness/Victim with copy of Step 1 Grievance and Step 2 Grievance attached, filed. (sanderson, 3) (Entered:

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 86 of 130

09/14/2017 09/15/2017 09/15/2017
09/19/2017
09/19/2017 09/19/2017 09/21/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/25/2017 09/27/2017 09/28/2017

09/15/2017)
824 Letter from Plaintiff to Judge, filed. (mmapps, 4) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
821 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clifford Fairfax re: 799 Order,, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
822 Letter from Travis Campbell re: wanting to know name/address of attorney representing pending litigation, filed. (sanderson, 3)**** Mailed 1st page of docket sheet containing Attorney's address representing Pltfs' to Travis Campbell, #31992613, Connally Unit, 899 FM 632, Kenedy, TX 78111 (Entered: 09/15/2017)
825 MOTION to Seal Attachment 1 to Defendants' Advisory to the Court by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/10/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
826 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
827 ADVISORY by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
828 NOTICE from Shannon Douthit RE: David Ramos, filed. (gsalinas, 5) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
829 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Rudy Garza Molina re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
830 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Emery F. Smith re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
831 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Leo Motte re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
832 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Dennis Pickard re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
833 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Thomas Byron re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
834 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
835 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
836 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Tashumbre L. Jones re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
837 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jorge Jones re: 799 Order,, filed. (RTS; Attempted Not Known)(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
838 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Stephen re: 799 Order,, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
839 Letter from Lakeith Amir Sharif re: request for copies, filed. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
840 ORDER granting 825 Motion to Seal Attachement 1.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
841 Letter from Dung Than re: Removal from Case, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
842 USCA LETTER for the Fifth Circuit advising court reporter Johnny Sanchez the transcript must be filed with the District Court Clerk within 30 days from the date the USCA received the purchase order (USCA No. 17−20529), filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 09/28/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 87 of 130

09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/29/2017 10/02/2017
10/03/2017 10/04/2017
10/05/2017 10/10/2017 10/11/2017
10/11/2017
10/12/2017 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 10/13/2017

843 Letter from Reginold Nelson re: Illegal Actions by TDCJ, filed. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
844 Letter to the Court from Charles Malouff re: retaliation, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 envelope) (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
845 ADVISORY to the court by Reginal Nelson, filed.(ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
846 ORDER entered. The Court has been receiving correspondence from inmates concerning this litigation. Accordingly, the Court asks counsel for the parties to discuss among themselves how best to make available to inmates in the Pack Unit access to pertinent orders, and to report back to the Court within TEN DAYS on their recommendations. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
847 Letter from George Clegg re: Are those who were evacuated to the Pack Unit now in this lawsuit, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
848 Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/25/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Table of Approx. Hours per Day Above 88 F Heat Index in Brenham, Texas, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Chart of Approx. Hours per Day Above 88 F Heat Index in Brenham, Texas, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Chart of Maximum, Average, and Minimum Approx. Hours per Day Above 88 F Heat Index in Brenham, Texas, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Excerpts from Brenham, Texas Weather Data for April, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Excerpts from Brenham, Texas Weather Data for October, # 6 Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Extend Preliminary Injunction)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
849 Letter from Dung Tran re: severing Dung Tran's name and self from Keith Cole vs. Bryan Collier lawsuit, 4:14−cv−1698, filed. (cjones, 7) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
850 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Thirty−Ninth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
851 MOTION to Compel Files for Grievances, Use of Force Reports, and Disciplinary Cases by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/1/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Plaintiffs' First Set of Discovery to TDCJ (Aug. 4, 2014), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Plaintiffs' Eighth Set of Requests for Production to TDCJ (July 25, 2017), # 3 Exhibit 3 − TDCJ's Responses to Plaintiffs' Eighth Set of Requests for Production (Aug. 24, 2017), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Letter to TDCJ (Sep. 11, 2017), # 5 Exhibit 5 − Disciplinary Report of C. Roberts (July 18, 2017), # 6 Exhibit 6 − Disciplinary Report of J. White (July 26, 2017), # 7 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
854 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 848 Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction entered. TDCJ is hereby ORDERED to propose any changes or clarifications to its plan for compliance, consistent with the foregoing, by February 9, 2018. Plaintiffs shall respond no later than March 23, 2018. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
852 Letter from Dung Tran re: Requesting to be removed from case, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
853 MOTION for Jonier of Claims as to Alex Wayne Grace, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/2/2017. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
855 Letter from Lakeith Amir Sharif, filed. (AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
859 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 775 MOTION for Appointment of counsel, and denying 815 MOTION to Vacate. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
856 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Briana M. Webb in place of Amanda M. Kates by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Webb, Briana) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 88 of 130

10/13/2017
10/13/2017
10/16/2017 10/16/2017 10/16/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017
10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017
10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/20/2017
10/20/2017 10/23/2017 10/23/2017
10/23/2017 10/23/2017 10/23/2017 10/23/2017 10/24/2017

857 Joint RESPONSE to 846 Order, , filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
858 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Fortieth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
860 Letter from Lakeith Amir−Sharif re: exclusion request information, filed. (cjones, 7) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
861 Letter from Tyrone Grant re: Complaints about prison, filed. (cjones, 7) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
862 Letter from James Meeks, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope) (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
Appeal Remark re: 781 Notice of Appeal. Pending the filing of appeal transcript re: 794 Misc. Hearing, filed.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
863 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLTF'S MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injuction by Joseph P Ledee, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proof of Address)(mmarquez, 5) Modified on 10/17/2017 (mmarquez, 5). (Entered: 10/17/2017)
864 DECLARATION of Joseph P. Ledee, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Address)(mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
865 AFFIDAVIT of Joseph P. Ledee, filed. (Attachments: # 1 TDCJ Balance Report, # 2 Proof of Address)(mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
866 ORDER granting 856 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Briana M. Webb in place of Amanda M. Kates. Attorney Amanda Marie Kates terminated. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gclair, 4) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
867 ADVISORY by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
868 Letter from Ralph Johnson, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
869 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Forty−First Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
870 MOTION to Remove From Lawsuit, filed by William Fitzgerald. Motion Docket Date 11/13/2017. (MonicaBalboa, 4) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
871 Letter from Scott Douglas Gary re: Declaration for Exclusion from Class−Action Claim/Complaint, filed. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
872 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 10/30/2017 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
877 Letter from Richard Lares re: Relocation, filed. (tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
879 Unsworn DECLARATION of Lakeith Amir−Sharif, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
885 Letter from Reginald Nelson re: Exclusion from Class Action, filed. (tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
886 Letter from Scott Douglas Gary re: Exclusion from Class Action, filed. (tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
873 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT re Motion Hearing held on August 8, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter J. Sanchez. Ordering Party: Margaret Espino. This transcript relates to the following: 794 Appeal Transcript Request,. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2018., filed. (jsanchez, ) (Entered: 10/24/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 89 of 130

10/24/2017 10/24/2017 10/25/2017 10/26/2017 10/26/2017 10/26/2017 10/26/2017 10/26/2017 10/30/2017 10/30/2017 10/30/2017
11/03/2017 11/06/2017
11/06/2017 11/09/2017
11/10/2017 11/13/2017

880 Letter from Jeffrey Alan Olivan re: Removal from Class Action, filed. (tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
881 Letter from Brandon Meadors re: Withdrawal and Removal from the Class Action, filed. (tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
874 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 873 Transcript − Appeal,. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
875 ORDER Denying 853 Motion for Joinder..(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
876 ORDER Denying 863 MOTION for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
882 Letter from Anthony C. Diaz re: Withdrawal and Removal from the Civil Action, filed. (tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
883 Letter from Larry Dynel Dever re: Withdrawal and Removal from the Class Action, filed. (tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
884 Letter from Cory Cornell Cochran re: Withdrawal and Removal from the Class Action, filed. (tconrad, 4) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
878 MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/20/2017. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
887 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Forty−Second Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 10/30/2017. The parties will confer to create a property claim form and mechanism. Defendants will submit information to the Court by November 6, 2017 regarding pre−parole programs, medical staffing, and medical services at units where class members are housed. Defendants will also submit information regarding location of medication pick−up area at the LeBlanc Unit and timeline for providing beds to all LeBlanc class members. Appearances: For Plaintiff: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock., For Defendant: Sharon Howell, Craig Michael Warner, Daniel Christopher Neuhoff.(Court Reporter: K. Miller), (Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
888 ADVISORY by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
889 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Craig Warner for Transcript of Status Conference on 10/30/217 before Judge Keith P. Ellison. Ordinary (30 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
890 ADVISORY by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
891 MOTION for Daniel C. Neuhoff to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/30/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Neuhoff, Daniel) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
892 ADVISORY by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 11/10/2017)
893 ORDER granting 891 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Daniel Christopher Neuhoff withdrawn.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 90 of 130

11/14/2017 11/14/2017
11/14/2017 11/14/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 11/20/2017 11/20/2017 11/20/2017 11/20/2017 11/21/2017 11/21/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017

Electronic record on appeal certified to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals re: 781 Notice of Appeal, USCA No. 17−20529, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
Electronic Access to Record on Appeal Provided re: 781 Notice of Appeal, to Jeff Edwards, David James, Scott Medlock, Leah O'Leary and Michael Singley. Attorneys of record at the Circuit may download the record from the Court of Appeals. (USCA No. 17−20529), filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
897 Letter/Motion to Court from Raymond Torres, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Cover letter, # 2 Envelope) (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
902 MOTION by Reginald Nelson, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/5/2017. (rsmith, 4) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
895 Letter to Court from Lupe R. Hernandez re: T.D.C.J. November 2017 Defendant's Advisory (Property Damaged Form), filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
901 ADVISORY from class member by James A. Meeks, filed.(rsmith, 4) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
894 MOTION for C Daniel DiLizia to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DiLizia, C.) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
896 Letter to Court from Reginold Nelson re: requesting documentation for exclusion from case, filed. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
903 MOTION for Injunctive Relief by Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/8/2017. (rsmith, 4) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
904 EMERGENCY MOTION for Court Order and Motion for Protective Order ( Motion Docket Date 12/8/2017.) by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(rsmith, 4) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
899 ORDER granting 894 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney C. Daniel DiLizia terminated. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
908 MOTION to be Removed from Class by Gerry Delano Hudson, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/11/2017. (amireles, 2) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
909 Jewish class members original Motion to waive all rights and privileges associated with Keith Cole Vs. Brian Collier Lawsuit by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/11/2017. (jengonzalez, 7) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
912 NOTICE REGARDING ATTORNEY VISIT by Richard Lares, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(amireles, 2) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
898 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 11/28/2017 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
911 MOTION to be Released from Injunction by Samuel Solomon, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/12/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(jengonzalez, 7) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
900 NOTICE of Appearance by John S. Langley on behalf of Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Langley, John) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
905 SEALED EVENT, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/13/2017. (rsmith, 4) Modified on 3/6/2018 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 11/22/2017)
910 MOTION to be Removed from Class by Ryan Howard, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/13/2017. (amireles, 2) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
913 MOTION to be Released from Class by Jeffery Dobbins, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/13/2017. (jengonzalez, 7) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 91 of 130

11/27/2017 11/27/2017 11/28/2017 11/28/2017
11/28/2017 11/28/2017 11/29/2017 11/30/2017 12/01/2017 12/05/2017
12/05/2017 12/05/2017 12/06/2017 12/06/2017 12/07/2017 12/08/2017

906 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing held on October 30, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen Miller. Ordering Party Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/26/2018., filed. (kmiller, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
918 Request for Removal from Class (duplicate of Dkt Entry 910 ) by Ryan Howard, filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
907 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 906 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (dhansen, 4) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 11/28/2017. Trial set for March 5, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 851 ) is withdrawn. Appearances:Sharon Howell. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Michael C Singley, Craig Michael Warner, Darren Lee McCarty, John S Langley.(Court Reporter: F. Warner)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) Modified on 11/30/2017 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 11/29/2017)
915 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order( Motion Docket Date 12/19/2017.), MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Kelvin Jones, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Envelope) (ltien, 4) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
916 AFFIDAVIT of Kelvin Jones re: 915 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed. (ltien, 4) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
965 Supplement REPLY to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Doc. No. 919 filed by Reginald Nelson. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
914 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Craig Warner for Transcript of Status Conference 11/28/2017 Judge Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Warner, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
917 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Forty−Third Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
919 RESPONSE to 902 MOTION, 775 MOTION for Appointment of counsel, 774 Letter, 847 Letter, 776 Letter, 915 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 845 Advisory, 800 Notice (Other), 788 Letter, 897 Letter, 905 MOTION to be Added to Cases, 895 Letter, 828 Notice (Other), 868 Letter, 843 Letter, 855 Letter, 861 Letter, 877 Letter, 844 Letter, 823 Letter, 903 MOTION Injunctive Relief, 816 Document, 862 Letter, 912 Notice (Other), 904 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION for Entry of Order re:, 916 Affidavit, 782 Letter, 901 Advisory, 777 Letter, 879 Declaration , filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
920 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 12/12/2017 at 04:30 PM by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
925 MOTION for an Order Compelling Restoration of Trustee Status by Israel Garcia, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/26/2017. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
923 MOTION for Withdrawal and Removal from Civil Action by Samuel Solomon, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/27/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(SandraSilva, 7) (Main Document 923 replaced on 12/8/2017) (SandraSilva, 7). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/8/2017: # 2 Letter) (SandraSilva, 7). (Entered: 12/08/2017)
924 ADVISORY by James A. Meeks, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
927 NOTICE Request for Withdrawal and Removal From the Civil Action, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
926 Order of USCA re: 781 Notice of Appeal; USCA No. 17−20529. It is ordered that appellees' unopposed motion to view and obtain sealed documents is GRANTED, filed.(mperez, 1) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 92 of 130

12/12/2017 12/12/2017
12/13/2017 12/14/2017
12/14/2017 12/15/2017 12/18/2017 12/18/2017
12/18/2017 12/18/2017 12/18/2017 12/18/2017 12/20/2017 12/20/2017 12/20/2017 12/20/2017 12/21/2017 12/21/2017 12/22/2017

928 Letter from Lakeith Amir−Sharif, filed. (AdrianDeLaRosa, 7) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 12/12/2017. Appearances:Jeffrey Dobbins, Samuel Solomon, Gerry Hudson, Lakeith Amir−Sharif. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Wallis Anne Nader, David Anthony James, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, Darren Lee McCarty, John S Langley.(Court Reporter: K. Metzger)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
934 Notice Request for Withdrawal and Removal from Civil Action and Subsequent Injunction by Herman Arthur Peterman, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/3/2018. (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
937 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Initial Pleading by Class Member Steven Perez, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/4/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement to Initial Pleading)(ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/20/2017: # 2 Affidavit of Richard Henry, # 3 Exhibits, (4) Exhibits, # 5 Request for Service, # 6 Envelope) (ltien, 4). (Entered: 12/20/2017)
938 ADVISORY from Class Members, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/20/2017: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Cover Letter) (ltien, 4). (Entered: 12/20/2017)
929 MOTION for Matthew J. Greer to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Greer, Matthew) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
Supplemental Electronic record on appeal certified to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals re: 781 Notice of Appeal,, filed.(jtabares, 1) Modified on 12/18/2017 (jtabares, 1). (Entered: 12/18/2017)
Electronic Access to Record on Appeal Provided re: 781 Notice of Appeal,. Attorneys of record at the Circuit may download the record from the Court of Appeals. (USCA No. Michael C. Singley, Scott Charles Medlock, Jeff S. Edwards, Leah O'Leary, David James, Craig Michael Warner), filed.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
930 ORDER granting 929 MOTION for Matthew J. Greer to Withdraw as Attorney (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
931 Letter from Reginald Nelson re: concerns about health and safety at the jail, filed. (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
932 Letter from Robert Gutierrez re: conditions at the jail, filed. (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
935 Letter from George S. Clegg re: Becoming a member of the class action., filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
933 Letter from Steven Tidball re: excusal from Pack One Unit lawsuit, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
936 Letter from Mr. Owen D. Jones, filed. (jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
939 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Forty−Fourth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
943 Petition to Enforce Crime: Victim Rights Act: 18USC−3771 by R Wayne Johnson, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/10/2018. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
940 MOTION To Leave Class by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/11/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Envelope)(SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
941 MOTION To Leave Class by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/11/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
942 MOTION to Leave Class by Dung Tran, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/12/2018. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 envelope)(sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 12/22/2017)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 93 of 130

12/22/2017 12/22/2017 12/22/2017 12/22/2017 12/29/2017
01/03/2018 01/03/2018 01/03/2018 01/04/2018 01/08/2018 01/08/2018 01/11/2018
01/12/2018 01/12/2018 01/19/2018 01/22/2018 01/24/2018 01/24/2018 01/26/2018
01/29/2018

944 Letter re: 910 MOTION to be Removed from Class, filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/27/2017)
948 REPLY in Support of 915 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Kelvin Jones. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
949 Letter from Andrew Williams, filed. (srussell, 2) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2018: # 1 Exhibit) (srussell, 2). (Entered: 01/05/2018)
950 Class Member Objection to Status Conference, filed by Kelvin Jones. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
945 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with Brief in Support by Steven Perez, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/19/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Cover Letter)(ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 12/29/2017)
947 Petition to Enforce Crime: Victim Rights Act: 18USC−3771 by R Wayne Johnson, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/24/2018. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
952 Status of the facility by Charles Ray Walten, filed. (wbostic, 4) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
953 NOTICE of Change of Address by Charles A Malouff, Jr, filed. (gkelner, 4) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
946 RESPONSE to 937 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Initial Pleading filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
951 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Craig Warner for Transcript of Status Conference 12/12/2017 Judge Ellison. Ordinary (30 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathy Metzger, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
966 Letter from Lakeith Amir−Sharif re: request to be added to noticing list, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
954 Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/1/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
955 Memorandum and Opinion Setting Out Findings of Face and Conclusions of Law granting 954 Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
964 MOTION to Join Class Action by David Weir, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/2/2018. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
956 RESPONSE to 945 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
967 DECLARATION of Reginald Nelson Regarding Exclusion from Class Action, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope) (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
957 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Forty−Fifth Supplemental Disclosures to Plaintiffs by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
958 RESPONSE to 947 MOTION Petition to Enforce Crime: Victim Rights Act: 18USC−3771 , filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
959 Opposed EMERGENCY MOTION, MOTION for Continuance ( Motion Docket Date 2/16/2018.) by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
960 ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 94 of 130

01/29/2018
01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/31/2018 01/31/2018
01/31/2018 02/02/2018 02/02/2018
02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/05/2018 02/08/2018
02/14/2018 02/14/2018

961 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT re Status Conference held on Novembe 28, 2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber FWarner. Ordering Party: CWarner. This transcript relates to the following: 914 AO435 Transcript Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/30/2018., filed. (fwarner, ) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
976 ADVISORY from Class Member by James A. Meeks, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation, # 2 Envelope)(BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
978 RESPONSE to Defendants' Response to His ProSe Supplement to Initial Pleading, filed by Steven Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
962 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 961 Transcript − Appeal,. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
963 TRANSCRIPT re: Status Conference held on 12/12/2017 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber K. Metzger. Ordering Party Craig Warner Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/30/2018, filed. (kmetzger) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
968 ORDER ; Motion−related deadline set re: 959 Opposed EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION for Continuance. Responses due by 2/8/2018.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
969 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 963 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (dhansen, 4) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
970 ORDER denying 870 Motion; denying 908 Motion; denying 909 Motion; denying 910 Motion; denying 911 Motion; denying 913 Motion; denying 923 Motion; denying 934 Motion to Withdraw; denying 940 Motion; denying 941 Motion; denying 942 Motion.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
971 ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
972 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 2/2/2018 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/2/2018. The parties informed the Court that they have reached a settlement in principle in this action and related individual actions. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Michael C Singley, Craig Michael Warner, Darren Lee McCarty.(Court Reporter: K. Miller)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
974 MOTION for Removal from Class by Raymond Torres, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/23/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
975 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Removal by Raymond Torres, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/23/2018. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
977 ADVISORY from Class by Lupe R. Hernanez, filed.(BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
973 Order of USCA − JUDGMENT; Judgment issued as mandate 2/8/2018 re: 781 Notice of Appeal, ; USCA No. 17−20529. the appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the right of either party to reinstate the appeal by letter to the clerk of this court within 180 days from this date., filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
979 Unnamed Plaintiff's First Motion Seeking Joinder of Parties filed by Todd Alan Feemster. Motion Docket Date 3/7/2018. (Attachments: # 1 letter, envelope) (yhausmann, 6) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
982 Unnamed Plaintiff's First MOTION for Joinder of Parties by Todd Alan Feemster, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/7/2018. (Attachments: # 1 letter, # 2 Envelope)(vcantu, 5) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 95 of 130

02/15/2018 983 ADVISORY by Herbert Darrell Hay, filed. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

02/20/2018 981 Response to the Court's January 29, 2018, Order and Response to the Parties Tentative Settlement filed by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

02/21/2018 980 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 3/7/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018 984 COMPLAINT by Class Member Ryan Gresham. (Attachments: # 1 grievance form, # 2 Envelope)(vcantu, 5) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

02/23/2018 988 MOTION for Court to Take Judicial Notice of Pleading Filed by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/16/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

02/28/2018 987 Letter from James Arthur Meeks, III re: questions about case, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope) (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

03/01/2018 985 Letter from James Meeks re: Request for Copies of prior Orders 737 & 854 , filed. (AdrianDeLaRosa, 7) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018

Trial setting March 5, 2018 terminated. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/05/2018 986 NOTICE of Change of Address by Steven Perez, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

03/05/2018 1013 Letter from Rodney Orlando Sutton re: Address Change, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/05/2018 1014 NOTICE of Change of Address by Charles A Malouff, Jr, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/06/2018

989 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of of Class Action Settlement( Motion Docket Date 3/27/2018.), MOTION to Amend 473 Memorandum and Order,, by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Setting Fairness Hearing, # 2 Proposed Order Approving Class Settlement, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Class Action Opt Out Form, # 4 Exhibit 2 − Proposed Settlement Agreement and Release, # 5 Exhibit 3 − List of Inmates, # 6 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of B. Collier, # 7 Exhibit 5 − Deposition of M. Yates, # 8 Exhibit 6 − Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees Summary, # 9 Exhibit 7 − Declaration of J. Edwards, # 10 Exhibit 8 − Plaintiffs' Expenses, # 11 Exhibit 9 − C. Haley Time Sheet, # 12 Exhibit 10 − J. Atkinson Time Sheet, # 13 Exhibit 11 − S. Rovzar Time Sheet, # 14 Exhibit 12 − G. Garcia Time Sheet, # 15 Exhibit 13 − H. Herzog Time Sheet, # 16 Exhibit 14 − H. Johnson Time Sheet, # 17 Exhibit 15 − K. Corpus Time Sheet, # 18 Exhibit 16 − L. Knapton Time Sheet, # 19 Exhibit 17 − P. O'Callahan Time Sheet, # 20 Exhibit 18 − S. Flammer Time Sheet, # 21 Exhibit 19 − Declaration of M. Singley, # 22 Exhibit 20 − Declaration of S. Medlock, # 23 Exhibit 21 − Declaration of D. James, # 24 Exhibit 22 − Declaration of M. Marziani, # 25 Exhibit 23 − Declaration of N. Smith, # 26 Exhibit 24 − Declaration of M. Yates, # 27 Exhibit 25 − Declaration of J. Brannum, # 28 Exhibit 26 − Declaration of M. Denton, # 29 Exhibit 27 − Declaration of R. King, # 30 Exhibit 28 − Declaration of F. Wallace, # 31 Exhibit 29 − F. Inmon Deposition Corrected Exhibit Excerpt, Analysis Packaged HVAC Units, # 32 Exhibit 30 − Parsons v. Ryan, Stipulation, # 33 Exhibit 31 − Nunez v. New York, Exhibit A, Consent Judgment, # 34 Exhibit 32 − Hernandez v. Cnty of Monterey, Settlement Agreement, # 35 Exhibit 33 − R. Steffa Deposition Exhibit 8, Pack Unit Injunction Costs)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

03/06/2018

990 Emergency MOTION to Stay, MOTION for Appointment of Independent Counsel, MOTION Declaratory Relief( Motion Docket Date 3/6/2018.), filed by Class and Subclass Members. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope)(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/06/2018 991 MOTION for Hearing re: 990 MOTION to Stay MOTION for Appointment of Independent Counsel MOTION Declaratory Relief by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/6/2018. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 96 of 130

03/07/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING. Argument heard on 3/7/2018 regarding Unopposed Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. No. 989 ). Order to issue. Appearances:Sharon Howell, Crysti D. Farra. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Michael C Singley, Nathan M Smith, Craig Michael Warner, John S Langley.(Court Reporter: J. Sanchez)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/07/2018 1015 MOTION for joinder to join the class action 4:14cv1698 by James H Gentry, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/28/2018. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/08/2018 992 Letter from Anthony Aguilar re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 993 Letter from Ricky Adams re: Emergency Motion filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 994 Letter from Michael Burks Jr. re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 995 Letter from Marshall W. Strifler re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 996 Letter from Robert Ortiz re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 997 Letter from McCarty Jones re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 998 Letter from James Zertuche re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 999 Letter from Rick E. Fras re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1000 Letter from David S. Padilla re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1001 Letter from Michael Graham re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1002 Letter from Douglas P. Braf re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1003 Letter from Jeremy Godinez re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1004 Letter from Kenneth Ellzey re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1005 Letter from Mark Earl Kirby re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1006 Letter from Aguilar David re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1007 Letter from Jerry L. Thomas re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1008 Letter from Jose L Munoz re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1009 Letter from Rodney R. Anzaldua re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1010 Letter from Gonzales Ruben re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1011 Letter from Blair Duane Wright re: Emergency Motion, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 97 of 130

03/08/2018 1012 Letter from Timothy Singleton re: Hearing on Emergency Motion, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1037 MOTION for Hearing on Emergency Motion sent with over 180 inmates, on Objection Filed 11/8/17, and on Motion for Misjoiner on 1/29/18 by Raymond Torres, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/29/2018. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/08/2018 1038 LETTER MOTION for Hearing on Emergency Motion submitted 2/28/18 by Michael Walton, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/29/2018. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/08/2018 1039 LETTER MOTION for Hearing on emergency submitted by Wisdom L Simms, Jr, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/29/2018. (srussell, 2) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/08/2018 1040 Letter from Joe Wolf re: emergency motion, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/09/2018 1016 SUPPLEMENT to 989 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of of Class Action Settlement MOTION to Amend 473 Memorandum and Order,, by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018 1021 Letter from Clayton Willson re: Emergency Motion, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1022 Letter from Quavonn White re: Emergency Motion, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1023 Letter from Jeff Steadman re: Emergency Motion, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1024 Letter from Simon Martin Sanchez re: Emergency Motion, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1025 Letter from Steven A. Hayes re: Class action suit, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1026 Letter from John Paul Garcia re: Emergency Motion, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1027 Letter from Richard P Leblanc re: Emergency Motion, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1028 Letter from Emmanuel Doyle re: Emergency Motion, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1030 Letter from Joe Albert Ramon, Sr. re: emergency motion, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1031 Letter from Albie Eugene Hopkins re: emergency motion, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1032 Letter from Polanco Tatman re: emergency motion, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/09/2018 1033 Letter from Dusty Seaton re: emergency motion, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/12/2018 1017 ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Notice) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1018 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 3/14/2018 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018

1019

ADVISORY by David Bailey, Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Nicholas Diaz, Blaine D Elder, Israel Garcia, James Allen Harris, Merrill Haskell, Christopher King, Richard Elvin King, Robert Blake King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Lavar John Santee, Mark A Smith, Fred Wallace, Ray Wilson, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1041 Letter from Haley Dawn Mayberry, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 98 of 130

03/12/2018 1042 Letter from Ray Garcia, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/12/2018 1043 Letter from Clem Hollingsworth, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/12/2018 1044 Letter from Robert Earl Pitts Jr, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/12/2018 1045 Letter from Jorgeforo Benjamin O. re: emergency motion, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/13/2018 1020 Letter from Damion Gran Johnson re: Emergency Motion, filed. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018 1029 NOTICE TO NON−CLASS MEMBERS − PROPOSED UNOPPOSED by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018 1034 MOTION for Hearing, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/3/2018. (jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018 1035 RESPONSE to 1017 Order Defendant's Response to the Court's Proposed Class Action Notice, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018 1036 RESPONSE to 990 MOTION to Stay MOTION for Appointment of Independent Counsel MOTION Declaratory Relief filed by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018 1046 Letter from Freeman Lamar re: Hearing, filed. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/13/2018 1048 Letter from Ryan D. Gresham re: Complaint (Copy of Docket Sheet for the last 30 days sent via regular First Class Mail), filed. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/13/2018 1049 Letter from Lakeith Amir Sharif re: Copy of Docket Sheet (Copy of Docket Sheet and Copy Request Form sent via regular First Class Mail), filed. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/14/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 3/14/2018. Court takes the issues under advisement. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Michael C Singley, Craig Michael Warner, Leah Jean O'Leary, Darren Lee McCarty, John S Langley.(Court Reporter: K. Metzger)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/14/2018 1047 Letter from Anthony E. McGuire re: Rights and Interest, filed. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/14/2018 1052 Letter from Ronald Dawson re: consider and rule on emergency motion, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/14/2018 1053 Letter from Q. Hokashi−Mechalith re: request for hearing on emergency motion, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/15/2018 1054 Letter from Shawn Mason re: request for hearing and rule on emergency motion, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/15/2018 1055 Letter from Antwain Burks re: request for hearing on emergency motion, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/15/2018 1056 Letter from Norris Goynes re: request for hearing on emergency motion, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/15/2018 1057 LETTER/MOTION for Hearing by Dawn Redenbaugh, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/5/2018. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/16/2018 1051 Letter from Tommy Edwards re: consider and rule on motion filed in court, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/19/2018 1050 NOTICE of Setting re: 990 MOTION to Stay MOTION for Appointment of Independent Counsel MOTION Declaratory Relief. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2018 at 04:00 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed.

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 99 of 130

(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/20/2018

1058

RESPONSE to 995 Letter, 1039 MOTION for Hearing, 999 Letter, 1033 Letter, 1037 MOTION for on Emergency Motion, on Objection Filed 11/8/17, and on Motion for Misjoiner on 1/29/18 Hearing re: 990 MOTION to Stay MOTION for Appointment of Independent Counsel MOTION Declaratory Relief, 1011 Letter, 1003 Letter, 994 Letter, 992 Letter, 990 MOTION to Stay MOTION for Appointment of Independent Counsel MOTION Declaratory Relief, 1030 Letter, 1006 Letter, 1045 Letter, 1005 Letter, 1021 Letter, 1032 Letter, 1007 Letter, 998 Letter, 1026 Letter, 1034 MOTION for Hearing, 1008 Letter, 1049 Letter, 1027 Letter, 1001 Letter, 1043 Letter, 1010 Letter, 1022 Letter, 1002 Letter, 993 Letter, 1025 Letter, 1023 Letter, 996 Letter, 1044 Letter, 1038 MOTION for Hearing on Emergency Motion submitted 2/28/18 Hearing, 1031 Letter, 997 Letter, 1024 Letter, 991 MOTION for motion Hearing re: 990 MOTION to Stay MOTION for Appointment of Independent Counsel MOTION Declaratory Relief, 1013 Letter, 1020 Letter, 1009 Letter, 1046 Letter, 1028 Letter, 1041 Letter, 1000 Letter, 1042 Letter, 1012 Letter, 1040 Letter, 1047 Letter, 1048 Letter, 1004 Letter Inmates' Letters Regarding Class Settlement, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/20/2018 1060 Letter from James Matthew Fields re: lawsuit, filed. (lrivera, 2) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018

1059

Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/11/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Memorandum And Opinion Setting Out Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 3/21/2018. Argument heard on Emergency Motion (Doc. No. 990 ). Motion is DENIED. Order to issue. Motions 991 1034 1038 1039 1057 DENIED as moot. Appearances:Lakeith Amir−Sharif. Sharon Howell. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Nathan M Smith, Darren Lee McCarty.(Court Reporter: M. Malone) (Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/23/2018 1061 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 1059 Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 1063 MOTION to Compel TDCJ to Settle Property Claim by Ronnald L Barrow, I, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/13/2018. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/27/2018 1062 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Craig Warner for Transcript of Motion Hearing on 3/21/2018 before Judge Ellison. Ordinary (30 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Mayra Malone, filed. (Warner, Craig) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/27/2018 1064 ORDER denying 990 , denying as moot 991 1034 1038 1039 1057 motions requesting a hearing. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) Modified on 4/17/2018 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/27/2018

1065

ORDER re: 989 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of of Class Action Settlement MOTION to Amend 473 Memorandum and Order,, (Objections due by 4/27/2018, Fairness Hearing set for 5/8/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison)(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/27/2018 1067 OBJECTIONS to Edwards Law Firms Motion to deny, filed by Raymond Torres. (gsalinas, 5) (Entered: 03/29/2018)

03/27/2018 1141 OBJECTIONS To the Settlement Pending Before The Court, filed by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

03/28/2018 1066 NOTICE of Multiparty Jurisdiction by Derek M. Bailey, filed. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

03/28/2018 1068 MOTION to Dismiss 885 Letter Request to be Excluded for Above Captioned Case by Reginald Nelson, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/18/2018. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 100 of 130

03/28/2018 1069 MOTION for Rehearing and reconsideration of the Emergency Motion Hearing held on March 15, 2018 by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/18/2018. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

03/28/2018 1070 MOTION for Sanctions against class counsel Jeff Edwards by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/18/2018. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

03/28/2018 1071 MOTION for Order instructing TDCJ officials to return confiscated legal materials related to this lawsuit by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/18/2018. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

03/28/2018 1072 MOTION for findings of facts and conclusions of law regarding the Court's denial of class and subclass members emergency motion on 3/21/18 by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/18/2018. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

03/28/2018 1073 MOTION for amended or additional findings of facts and conclusions of law, or in the alternate, Motion to set aside the July 19, 2017 findings and conclusions of law by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/18/2018. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

03/28/2018 1074 PROPOSED ORDER re: 1073 MOTION for amended or additional findings of facts and conclusions of law, or in the alternate, Motion to set aside the July 19, 2017 findings and conclusions of law, filed. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/05/2018 1075 Unamed Plaintiff's First Motion Seeking Joinder of Parties by Clayborne Levester Baity, Jr., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/26/2018. (drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

04/05/2018 1076 MOTION to Join Class Action Case by Donald Shelby, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/26/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(drodriguez, 7) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

04/05/2018 1078 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by Dusty Seaton, filed.(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/05/2018 1080 FIRST MOTION Seeking Joinder of Parties by Terry Reece Franklin, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/26/2018. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/05/2018 1081 First MOTION Seeking Joinder of Parties as to Trevais Freeman 1 Complaint, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/26/2018. (mperez, 1) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/06/2018 1077 MOTION for Craig M. Warner to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/27/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Warner, Craig) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/06/2018 1082 First MOTION Seeking Joinder of Parties by Daniel Puga, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/27/2018. (mperez, 1) Modified on 4/11/2018 (bcampos, 1). (Entered: 04/10/2018)

04/09/2018

1079

Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 1078 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. Reporter(s): Kathleen Miller, Ct. Rptr.; Fred Warner, Ct. Rptr.; Johnny Sanchez, Ct. Rptr.; Mayra Malone, Ct. Rptr.; Kathy Metzger, Ct. Rptr.; Gayle Dye, Ct. Rptr., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (bcampos, 1) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018

Appeal Review Notes re: 1078 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. The appeal filing fee has not been paid, and appellant is a pro se litigant.Hearings were held in the case. DKT13 transcript order form(s) due within 14 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Number of DKT−13 Forms expected: 5, filed.(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1087 MOTION for Joinder of Parties by Barry Newman, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/30/2018. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/09/2018 1088 MOTION Seeking Joinder of Parties by Wayne Windell Williams, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/30/2018. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/09/2018 1091 Objection to Settlement filed by Charles A Malouff, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 101 of 130
04/10/2018 1083 Objection to Settlement filed by Terry Reece Franklin. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/10/2018 1084 Objection to Settlement filed by Claiborne Baily. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/10/2018 1086 OBJECTIONS to SETTLEMENT, filed by Ryan D Gresham. (Attachments: # 1 letter, # 2 Envelope)(vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/10/2018 1089 OBJECTIONS filed by Jeffery Dobbins. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/10/2018 1092 Motion Regarding Property Request by Antwain Burks, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2018. (vcantu, 5) Modified on 4/30/2018 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/10/2018 1094 Letter requesting testimony from Mr. Dobbins, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/11/2018 1085 MOTION to Intervene and present claims of defenses or otherwise to come into the action by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/11/2018 1090 OBJECTIONS, filed by Richard Lares. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 Envelope)(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/12/2018 1096 OBJECTIONS OF SETTLEMENT, filed by Barry Newman. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Proof of Address)(mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/16/2018 1093 ORDER granting 1077 MOTION for Craig M. Warner to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Dfts. Darren McCarty is substituted as Attorney−in−Charge for Dfts....*** Attorney Craig Michael Warner terminated. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/16/2018 1097 NOTICE of Intention to Appear by Telephone by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Proof of Address)(mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/17/2018 1098 OBJECTIONS (Docket No. 1065 , filed by James Allen Harris. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Proof of Address)(mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/18/2018 1095 RESPONSE in Opposition to 1070 MOTION for Sanctions, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
04/18/2018 1100 OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT, filed by Jeffrey R Adams. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/19/2018 1099 Motion to Grant Relief Regarding Disability Accommodation by Victor Salinas, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/10/2018. (nortiz, 5) Modified on 4/30/2018 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/19/2018 1101 OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT, filed by James H Gentry. (nortiz, 5) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/19/2018 1105 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by David Bailey, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/10/2018. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/20/2018 1102 SUPPLEMENT to 1095 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
04/20/2018 1106 Letter from Steven Keith Green re: copies proposed agreement between said parties and the Judge's order adopting the agreement, filed. (nortiz, 5) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/23/2018 1104 OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT, filed by Herbert L Ellis. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/23/2018 1118 OBJECTIONS to Settlement Agreement, filed by Jerry L. Thomas. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/24/2018 1109 Letter from Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif re: Clarification regarding the Notice of Appeal, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 102 of 130
04/24/2018 1121 OBJECTIONS PRO SE OBJECTION TO CLASS ACTION, filed by Keith Cole. (ehernandez, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/25/2018 1103 OBJECTIONS to the Proposed Settlement, filed by David Weir. (nortiz, 5) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/25/2018 1107 Unnamed Plaintiffs First MOTION Seeking Joinders of Parties by Steve Galloway, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/16/2018. (nortiz, 5) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/25/2018 1108 Letter to the Court from Anthony Aguilar re: MOTION/LETTER/NOTICE, filed. (nortiz, 5) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/25/2018 1120 OBJECTIONS to Pending Settlement Agreement, filed by Dusty Seaton. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1110 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1093 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
04/26/2018 1111 Notice of Multiparty Jurisdiction by Ricky Wayne Beckett, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1112 MOTION for Return of Property of lost pictures and lost law books by Anthony Ray Banks, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/17/2018. (ehernandez, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1113 MOTION for Fairness Hearing by Charles A Malouff, Jr, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/15/2018. (dmorales, 5) Modified on 5/3/2018 (dmorales, 5). (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1114 MOTION for Fairness Hearing by Ryan D Gresham, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/17/2018. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1122 Amended OBJECTIONS to Settlement, filed by Ryan D Gresham. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1124 First Amended OBJECTIONS to Settlement, filed by Charlie Malouff. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1125 OBJECTIONS to Settlement, filed by Billy Joe Britton. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1126 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT, filed by William Harrison Blackwell. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1127 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT, filed by David C Garrett. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1128 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT, filed by Albert Hunter. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1129 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT, filed by Robert Lewis Hall. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1130 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT, filed by Jim Smith. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1131 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT, filed by Darl Allen Stewart. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1132 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT, filed by Steve Parker. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/26/2018 1134 Letter from Cecil R. McDonald re: Damage to Inmate Property, filed. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/27/2018 1133 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Keith Cole, filed.(dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/27/2018 1135 Letter from L. Amir−Sharif re: pending motions, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
04/27/2018 1136 Letter from Albert V. Thomas re: objection to settlement, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 103 of 130

04/27/2018 1137 OBJECTIONS to Settlment, filed by James E Archer, Jr. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

04/27/2018 1138 Complaint/Letter/Notice from Bobby Casados re: property, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

04/27/2018 1146 MOTION Re: Property Complaint by Patrick Ford, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/18/2018. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

04/28/2018

1115

MOTION for Return of Property of Fan, Headphones, Radio hot pot muliti−outlet, clamp on lamp, Typewriter, Legal material 30 in., two T−Shirts, Shower shoes, Brush, Baby powder, Deodorant, Hair dressing, Two thermal (top and bottom), Soapdish, Toothbrush and holder, Commisary bag, Cup, Mirror cool towel, etc by Charles L Williams, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/21/2018. (ehernandez, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

04/28/2018 1123 OBJECTIONS TO CLASS ACTION, filed by Michael Walton. (ehernandez, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/01/2018 1147 OBJECTION, filed by Richard Lares. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/02/2018 1150 Letter from Billy Jack Stone, Jr. re: Personal Property Request, filed. (dnoriega, 1) Modified on 5/7/2018 (dnoriega, 1). (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/03/2018

1116

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 982 MOTION for Joinder, 937 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Initial Pleading, 1085 MOTION to Intervene, 925 MOTION to Compel, 1076 MOTION for Joinder, 1037 MOTION for on Emergency Motion, on Objection Filed 11/8/17, and on Motion for Misjoiner on 1/29/18 Hearing re: 990 MOTION to Stay MOTION for Appointment of Independent Counsel MOTION Declaratory Relief, 1068 MOTION to Dismiss 885 Letter, 979 MOTION for Joinder, 947 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 1015 MOTION for joinder to join the class action 4:14cv1698, 943 MOTION Petition to Enforce Crime: Victim Rights Act, 902 MOTION, 1082 MOTION for Joinder, 1075 MOTION for Joinder, 1107 MOTION for Joinder, 1080 MOTION Joinder of Parties, 1088 MOTION for Joinder, 1081 MOTION for Joinder as to 1 Complaint, 915 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 964 MOTION to Join Class Action, 975 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Removal, 1087 MOTION for Joinder, 903 MOTION Injunctive Relief, 974 MOTION for Removal from Class (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(kpicota, 4) (Main Document 1116 replaced on 5/4/2018) (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/03/2018 1117 Letter from Steve Galloway re: Receipt of Objections (Docket Sheet Mailed), filed. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/03/2018 1119 OBJECTIONS TO CLASS ACTION, filed by Ryan D Gresham. (ehernandez, 5) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/03/2018 1139 Letter regarding Property Claim filed by Robert Arthur Voris. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) Modified on 5/7/2018 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/04/2018 1140 Objection by Mario Martinez, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/25/2018. (gsalinas, 5) Modified on 5/4/2018 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018 1142 Notice by Richard Lares, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/25/2018. (AdrianDeLaRosa, 7) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018 1143 Notice of Multi Party Jurisdiction by Anthony Ray Banks, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/25/2018. (AdrianDeLaRosa, 7) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018 1144 Notice of MultiParty Jurisdiction by Antwain Burks, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/25/2018. (AdrianDeLaRosa, 7) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018 1145 Motion for Federal Question of MultiParty Jurisdiction and Declaratory Judgmentby Henry T. Garland, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/25/2018. (AdrianDeLaRosa, 7) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018 1148 ORDER Re: 1113 and 1114 Request to attend the fairness hearing(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 104 of 130

05/04/2018 1149 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 5/7/2018 at 02:00 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/07/2018 1151 OBJECTIONS, filed by Charles A Malouff, Jr. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 1152 OBJECTIONS, filed by John Ford. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 1153 ORDER denying 1111 Motion ; denying 1143 Motion; denying 1144 Motion; denying 1145 Motion.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 1154 RESPONSE to The Class Settlement Objections, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 1155 RESPONSE to The Class Settlement Objections (ignore doc 1154 filed in error), filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

1156

MOTION for Jeff Edwards, Michael Singley, Scott Medlock, David James, Wallis Nader, Jeremy Doyle, Nathan Smith, Edwards Law, Texas Civil Rights Project, Reynolds Frizzell LLC to Withdraw as Attorney by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/29/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

1157

SUPPLEMENT to 989 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of of Class Action Settlement MOTION to Amend 473 Memorandum and Order,, by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Scott Medlock, # 2 Exhibit 2 − List of Inmates Attending Presentation)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 1158 RESPONSE to 1099 MOTION To Grant Relief filed by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

1159

Corrected SUPPLEMENT to 989 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of of Class Action Settlement MOTION to Amend 473 Memorandum and Order,, by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Scott Medlock, # 2 Exhibit 2 − List of Inmates Attending Presentation)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

1160

RESPONSE to 1130 Objections, 1084 Objections, 1090 Objections, 1125 Objections, 1131 Objections, 1126 Objections, 1101 Objections, 1091 Objections, 1103 Objections, 1120 Objections, 1083 Objections, 1104 Objections, 1147 Objections, 1132 Objections, 1124 Objections, 1146 MOTION Re: Property Complaint, 1122 Objections, 1139 Objections, 1117 Letter, 1100 Objections, 1086 Objections, 1123 Objections, 1107 MOTION for Joinder, 1118 Objections, 1096 Objections, 1128 Objections, 1098 Objections, 1138 Letter, 1133 Advisory, 1140 MOTION Objection, 1089 Objections, 1136 Letter, 1129 Objections, 1152 Objections, 1151 Objections, 1145 MOTION Motion for Federal Question of MultiParty Jurisdiction and Declaratory Judgment, 1119 Objections, 1137 Objections, 1141 Objections, 1115 MOTION for Return of Property of Fan, Headphones, Radio hot pot muliti−outlet, clamp on lamp, Typewriter, Legal material 30 in., two T−Shirts, Shower shoes, Brush, Baby powder, deodorant, hair dressing, two thermal (top and bottom), soapdisg, toothbr, 1134 Letter, 1127 Objections, 1142 MOTION Notice, 1121 Objections , filed by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Letter from D. McCarty (May 2, 2018))(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

1161

RESPONSE to 852 Letter, 927 Notice (Other), 849 Letter, 882 Letter, 936 Letter, 841 Letter, 880 Letter, 884 Letter, 883 Letter, 910 MOTION to be Removed from Class, 881 Letter, 918 Document, 868 Letter, 911 MOTION , filed by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 105 of 130

05/07/2018 1163 AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/07/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/7/2018. TDCJ will make arrangements for class members who filed objections to the settlement to appear at the Fairness Hearing on 5/8/2018 Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Michael C Singley, Nathan M Smith, Leah Jean O'Leary, Darren Lee McCarty.(Court Reporter: G. Dye)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/07/2018 1166 MOTION to Take Judicial Notice by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/29/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Continuation, # 3 Envelope)(dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/09/2018)

05/07/2018 1167 MOTION for Hearing re: 904 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION for Entry of Order re: by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/29/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(dmorales, 5) (Entered: 05/09/2018)

05/08/2018 1162 ORDER granting 1156 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Scott Charles Medlock; Wallis Anne Nader; Michael C Singley; Nathan M Smith; Jeremy L Doyle and Jeffrey S Edwards terminated as counsel for Keith Cole.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/08/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING held on 5/8/2018. Objections made on the record by: Clayborne Baity, Ryan Gresham, Jeffery Dobbins, Richard Lares, Charles Malouff, Jeffery Adams, Keith Cole, Albert Hunter, Jim Smith, Don Allen Stewart, Patrick Ford, Antwain Burks. The Court approves the class action settlement. Order to issue.Appearances:Sharon Howell. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Michael C Singley, Nathan M Smith, Leah Jean O'Leary, Darren Lee McCarty, John S Langley.(Court Reporter: G. Dye)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/08/2018 1165 MOTION to Enforce by Richard Lares, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/29/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(dmorales, 5) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/9/2018: # 2 Envelope) (dmorales, 5). (Entered: 05/09/2018)

05/09/2018 1164 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/30/2018. (dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 05/09/2018)

05/15/2018 1168 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1116 Memorandum and Order, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/15/2018 1169 MOTION to Enforce by Richard Lares, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/5/2018. (BelindaSaenz, 7) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/15/2018 1171 MOTION regarding property by Joshua A Howard, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(hler, 4) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/21/2018 1198 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 1188 Final Judgment, 1116 Memorandum and Order, by James A. Meeks, filed.(arrivera, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/19/2018: # 1 Cover Letter) (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 06/19/2018)

05/21/2018 1200 MOTION for Reconsideration by Richard Lares, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/11/2018. (arrivera, 4) Modified on 7/12/2018 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 06/19/2018)

05/22/2018 1170 ORDER re: 989 Unopposed Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement., (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(kpicota, 4) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018 1172 NOTICE of Appearance by Natalia Cornelio on behalf of Keith Cole, filed. (Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018 1173 NOTICE of Appearance by Natalia Cornelio on behalf of Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/25/2018 1174 ORDER denying 904 Motion for Entry of Order; denying 988 Motion; denying 1069 Motion for Rehearing; denying 1070 Motion for Sanctions; denying 1071 Motion;

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 106 of 130

denying 1072 Motion; denying 1073 Motion; denying 1166 Motion; denying 1167 Motion for Hearing.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 1175 RESPONSE to 1170 Order , filed by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 1183 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/15/2018. (jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

05/29/2018 1177 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Clem Hollingsworth, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/19/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

05/29/2018 1178 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Clem Hollingsworth, filed. (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

05/29/2018 1179 MOTION for Specific Performance by Jack Reeves, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/19/2018. (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

05/30/2018 1176 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Leah O'Leary for Transcript of Fairness Hearing on 5/08/18 before Judge Ellison. Ordinary (30 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Gayle Dye, filed. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/31/2018 1184 MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) by James Allen Harris, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/21/2018. (olindor, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/01/2018 1185 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed On Appeal In Forma Pauperis by Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/22/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Inmate Trust Account)(olindor, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/05/2018 1180 MOTION To Relation Back of Class/Mass Certification by Derek M. Bailey, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/26/2018. (AdrianDeLaRosa, 7) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 1181 Order of USCA re: 1078 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. The appeal is dismissed as to appellant Lakeith R. Amir−Shariff as of June 5, 2018, for want of prosecution. The appellant failed to timely pay fee, filed.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/06/2018 1182 Corrected Order of USCA − JUDGMENT; Judgment issued as mandate 6/5/2018 re: 1078 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. the appeal is dismissed as to appellant Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif as of 6/5/2018, for want of prosecution., filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 06/06/2018)

06/08/2018 1186 ORDER for Defendants to file a responsesupported by evidence with the Court regarding Mr. Salinas's status and the allegations in his motion within ten days of this order; Dfts' Responses due by 6/18/2018.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018

1187

ORDER denying 1105 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis of Faustino Perez; denying 1183 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Lakeith Amir−Sharif; granting 1164 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis James Meeks; granting 1177 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis of Clem Hollingsworth.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 1188 FINAL ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS' FEES.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018

1189

ORDER denying 1063 Motion to Compel TDCJ to Settle Property Claim by Ronnald Barrow; denying 1092 Motion Regarding Property Request by Antwain Burks ; denying 1112 Motion for Return of Property by Anthony Banks; denying 1115 Motion for Return of Property by Charles Williams; denying 1134 Complaint/Letter re: Damage to Inmate Property by Cecil McDonald ; denying 1138 Complaint/Letter re: Property by Bobby Casados ; denying 1146 Motion re: Property Complaint by Patrick Ford; denying 1171 Motion re: Property by Joshua Howard; denying 1179 Motion for Specific Performance by Jack Reeves. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 107 of 130

notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 1190 ORDER re: 984 & 1119 ,(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/13/2018 1191 TRANSCRIPT re: Fairness Hearing held on May 8, 2018, before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Dye. Ordering Party Leah J. O'Leary Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/11/2018., filed. (gdye, ) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/14/2018 1192 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 1191 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (dhansen, 4) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/14/2018 1193 Order of USCA; Judgment issued as mandate 6/14/2018 re: 1078 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. The appeal, as to appellants, Dusty Seaton, Wisdom Simms, Jr., and Michael Walton, is dismissed as of June 14, 2018, for want of prosecution., filed.(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/15/2018

1194

Order of USCA; Judgment issued as mandate 6/15/18 re: 1078 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 16−20505. This cause was considered on the record on appeal and was argued by counsel. It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party bear its own costs on appeal, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018 1195 Order of USCA; Per Curiam re: 1078 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 16−20505. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the General Class or the subclasses, we AFFIRM, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/18/2018 1196 RESPONSE to 1186 Order, 1099 MOTION To Grant Relief Response to the Court's Order regarding Victor Salinas, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/18/2018 1197 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1188 Final Judgment, filed. (JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/18/2018 1199 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 1163 Memorandum and Order, 1116 Memorandum and Order, 1170 Order by Raymond Torres, filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/18/2018 1213 Letter from Lakeith Amir−Sharif re: 904 request for order instructing TDCJ officials to return unlawfully confiscated legal documents, filed. (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018

1201

*This entry was incorrectly recorded and has been re−docketed as document #1202* Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 1199 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. Reporter(s): 5, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (jtabares, 1) Modified on 6/20/2018 (jtabares, 1). (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018

1202

Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 1199 Notice of Appeal, 1200 MOTION for Reconsideration of 1188 Final Judgment. Fee status: Not Paid. Reporter(s): F. Warner, J. Sanchez, Malone, K. Miller, H. Alcaraz, G. Dye, L. Wells, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018

Appeal Review Notes re: 1199 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. The appeal filing fee has not been paid, and appellant is a pro se litigant.Hearings were held in the case − some transcripts were produced. Number of DKT−13 Forms expected: 1, filed.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1203 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1187 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed. Clegg has been released from TDCJ. (JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1204 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1189 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Return of Property, filed. (JenniferLongoria, 1) Clegg is no longer in TDCJ custody. Modified on 6/20/2018 (JenniferLongoria, 1). (Entered: 06/20/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 108 of 130

06/20/2018 1205 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1186 Order,, filed. Clegg is no longer in TDCJ custody. (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1206 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1187 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed. Malouff is no longer in TDCJ custody. (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1207 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Barry Newman re: 1189 Order on Motion to Compel,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, Order on Motion for Return of Property,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed. (jmarks, 2) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1208 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1189 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Return of Property, filed. Malouff is no longer in TDCJ custody. (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1209 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Barry Newman re: 1187 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1210 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1186 Order,, filed. (jmarks, 2) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1211 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charlie Malouff re: 1187 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed. Malouff released from TDCJ. (JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 1212 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Barry Newman re: 1186 Order,, filed. (SamanthaWarda, 4) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/22/2018 1218 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 1189 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Return of Property by Antwain Burks, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/25/2018

Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 18−20216 re: 1199 Notice of Appeal, filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018 1219 Letter from Lakeith Raqib Amir−Sharif re: Doc # 1187, filed. (ocasas, 7) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/25/2018 1220 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. (ocasas, 7) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/26/2018 1214 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charlie Malouff re: 1186 Order, filed. (nortiz, 5) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

06/26/2018 1215 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1189 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Return of Property, filed. (dgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

06/27/2018 1216 ORDER denying as moot 878 Motion for Permanent Injunction.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018 1217 ORDER denying 1099 Motion to Grant Relief Regarding Disability Accommodation.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018

1221

Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 1218 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. Reporter(s): F. Warner, J. Sanchez, Malone, K. Miller, H. Alcaraz, G. Dye, L. Wells, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018

Appeal Review Notes re: 1218 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. The appeal filing fee has not been paid, and appellant is a pro se litigant.Hearings were held in the case − transcripts were produced. Number of DKT−13 Forms expected: 1, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/28/2018

Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 18−20401 re: 1199 Notice of Appeal, filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 109 of 130

06/28/2018

Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 18−20402 re: 1198 Notice of Appeal, filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

06/28/2018 1222 ORDER granting 1185 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed On Appeal In Forma Pauperis of Michael Graham. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

06/28/2018 1223 ORDER granting 1183 1219 1220 Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

06/28/2018 1224 Notice filed by Bobby Casados, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 07/03/2018)

07/02/2018 1236 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by Joshua A Howard, filed.(dgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/03/2018 1225 NOTICE of Change of Address by Richard Lares, filed. (hler, 4) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/06/2018 1226 Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 1198 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 07/06/2018)

07/06/2018

Appeal Review Notes re: 1198 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. The appeal filing fee has not been paid, and appellant is a pro se litigant.No hearings were held in the case − no transcripts. Number of DKT−13 Forms expected: 1, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 07/06/2018)

07/06/2018

Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 18−20419 re: 1218 Notice of Appeal, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 07/06/2018)

07/06/2018 1234 MOTION Requesting Transcript at Government Expense by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/27/2018. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/06/2018 1235 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel for Pro Se Appellant by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/27/2018. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/09/2018 1227 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 1228 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clifford Fairfax re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 1229 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clem Hollingsworth re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 1230 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Barry Newman re: 1216 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 1231 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, re: 1216 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 1232 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charlie Malouff re: 1216 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, filed. (vcantu, 5) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 1233 Letter from Robert Arthur Voris re: Request for Settlement Agreement, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/11/2018 1237 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Barry Newman re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (SamanthaWarda, 4) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/11/2018 1238 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charlie Malouff re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (SamanthaWarda, 4) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/11/2018 1239 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (SamanthaWarda, 4) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/12/2018 1240 Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 1236 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid, filed. (scastillo, 1) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 110 of 130

07/12/2018

Appeal Review Notes re: 1236 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. The appeal filing fee has not been paid, and appellant is a pro se litigant.No hearings were held in the case − no transcripts. Number of DKT−13 Forms expected: 1, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/12/2018 1241 Notice of Non−Compliance. Appellant has failed to: Submit the DKT13 transcript order form. Parties notified, filed. (scastillo, 1) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/12/2018 1262 EMERGENCY MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Derek M. Bailey, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/2/2018. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/13/2018 1242 Letter from James Harris re: Copy of Documents, filed. (ckrus, 4) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 1243 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clem Hollingsworth re: 1216 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 1244 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1216 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/17/2018 1263 Letter from Samuel Solomon re: Delete Name and Address, filed. (BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/19/2018 1245 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Emery F. Smith re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. Unable to locate new address. (JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

07/19/2018 1246 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (SamanthaWarda, 4) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

07/19/2018 1248 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Leo Motte re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1249 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Dennis Pickard re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1250 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Christopher Guffey re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1251 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David Robert Veazey, Jr re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1252 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Stephen re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (yhausmann, 6) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1253 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Tashumbre L. Jones re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1254 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Thomas Byron re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1255 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jorge Jones re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1256 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James Michael Camarata re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (LaurenWebster, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1257 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Rudy Garza Molina re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (yhausmann, 6) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1258 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ronnie Armstrong re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (DesireeSillas, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1259 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jason Bridges re: 1217 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed. (SamanthaWarda, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/19/2018 1260 FILED IN ERROR. MOTION for Hal Emalfarb to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Specific Systems, LLC, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/9/2018. (DesireeSillas, 4) Modified on 7/24/2018 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 07/23/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 111 of 130

07/19/2018 1264 MOTION to Grant Relief, Temporary Injunction Appoint Counsel by Victor Salinas, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/9/2018. (BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/20/2018 1247 Order of USCA − JUDGMENT; Judgment issued as mandate 7/20/2018 re: 1199 Notice of Appeal, appeal is dismissed, filed.(dnoriega, 1) Modified on 7/24/2018 (dnoriega, 1). (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/23/2018

Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 18−20419 re: 1236 Notice of Appeal, filed.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/23/2018 1265 MOTION for Court to Take Judicial Notice by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/13/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(dmorales, 5) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

07/24/2018 1261 Letter from Rolando Patlan re: Copy request, filed. (AdrianDeLaRosa, 7) (Entered: 07/24/2018)

07/25/2018

Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 18−20216 re: 1236 Notice of Appeal, filed.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/31/2018 1266 ADVISORY BRIEF by Joe Albert Ramon requesting to join appeal., filed.(JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018 1286 MOTION requesting Order requiring defendants to accomodate disability by Robert Leon Roberts, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/22/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/02/2018 1267 Amended ORDER granting 1164 application to proceed in forma pauperis on civil appeal number 18−20216.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 1268 AMENDED ORDER granting 1185 application to proceed in forma pauperis on civil appeal by Michael James Graham. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 1269 AMENDED ORDER withdrawing Amir−Sharif's leave to proceed in forma puperis; denying 1183 1219 1220 applications to proceed in forma pauperis on civil appeal. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 1270 ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1235 Motion for Appointment of counsel on appeal.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 1271 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference to discuss with parties the opt−out process in light of inquiries the Court has received set for 8/7/2018 at 11:00 AM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018

Appeal Remark re: 1198 Notice of Appeal. (USCA No. 18−20216) The court issued an order for James Meeks to proceed IFP, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 1272 ORDER denying 1184 Motion to Alter Judgment.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 1273 ORDER denying 1142 Motion; denying 1165 Motion to Enforce; denying 1169 Motion to Enforce; denying 1200 Motion for Reconsideration.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 1274 ORDER denying 1180 Motion; denying without prejudice 1262 Motion for Emergency.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 1277 Letter from Reverend K.O. Black re: Request for Docket Sheet, filed. (DesireeSillas, 4). (Entered: 08/07/2018)

08/02/2018 1279 MOTION Request to Prepare Reporter's Record by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/23/2018. (AmandaZepeda, 2) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/10/2018: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope) (AmandaZepeda, 2). (Entered: 08/10/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 112 of 130

08/02/2018 1280 STATEMENT of the Issues to be Presented on Appeal by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed.(AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/02/2018 1281 MOTION Requests for Documents to be Included in Clerk's Record by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/23/2018. (AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/02/2018 1282 MOTION Requesting Transcripts at Government Expense by Ricky Ybarra, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/23/2018. (AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/02/2018 1283 MOTION Requesting Transcripts at Government Expense by Richard Vetter, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/23/2018. (AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/02/2018 1284 MOTION for Transcripts at Government Expense by Jason P. Smith, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/23/2018. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/03/2018 1275 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1234 Motion requesting transcripts.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/03/2018 1276 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/24/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/03/2018 1278 NOTICE of Change of Address by Derek M. Bailey, filed. (AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/03/2018 1285 MOTION Requesting Trascripts at Governments Expense by Joe Albert Ramon, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/24/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/03/2018 1288 MOTION for transcripts at Government Expense by Clayton Wilson, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/24/2018. (sguevara, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/10/2018: # 1 Proposed Order \\txs\ho\hodata\share\Central1gw\central09\ 20180810112454rsmith−002.pdf) (sguevara, 4). (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/06/2018 1287 MOTION for Transcripts at Government Expense by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/27/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/07/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 8/7/2018. Class Counsel is directed to supplement its motion for approval of opt−outs (Doc. No. 1276 ) with an attorney declaration and copies of the relevant opt−out forms. The opt−out forms may be submitted ex parte and under seal if they include privileged material, and under seal if they include confidential material. The parties are ordered to update the Court regarding Mr. Salinas's disability accommodations within seven days. Appearances: Scott Charles Medlock, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: J. Sanchez)(Law Clerk: J. Marks), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

08/08/2018 1293 MOTION to Correct 1267 Amended Order by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/29/2018. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/10/2018 1289 Order of USCA re: Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. Under FED.R.APP.42(b), the appeal as to Rick Edmund Fras is dismissed as of August 10, 2018, pursuan to appellant's motion, filed.(mperez, 1) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018 1290 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/14/2018 1291 ORDER granting 1276 Motion for Approval to Opt Out of Class Action Settlement.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018 1292 NOTICE Regarding Class Member Victor Salinas re: 1291 Order on Motion for Approval by Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 113 of 130

08/14/2018 1294 ORDER denying without prejudice 1282 1283 1284 1285 1288 Motions for transcripts at governments expense.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018 1295 ORDER denying as moot 1287 Motion requesting transcripts at government expense.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018 1296 ORDER denying 1265 Motion for judicial notice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/15/2018

1297

ORDER denying without prejudice 1286 MOTION requesting Order requiring defendants to accommodate disability by Robert Leon Roberts. Mr. Roberts is not a party to this action and is not a member of the class. See Doc. No. 1065, Exh. 1. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/17/2018

1300

*THIS ENTRY WAS INCORRECTLY RECORDED AND HAS BEEN RE−DOCKETED AS DOCUMENT # 1301 * NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by Keith Cole, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal letter, # 2 Envelope). ** REMARK − FILING REVIEWED BY COURT AND CLEARED TO DOCKET **(dwilkerson, 3) Modified on 8/23/2018 (JenniferLongoria, 1). (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/17/2018 1303 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 1269 Order by Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/20/2018 1301 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel and to Clarify Previous Motions. by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/10/2018. (ltrevino, 3) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/20/2018 1302 Letter from James Meeks III re: Motion to Appoint Counsel and request for civil docket sheet. (civil docket sheet only mailed this date), filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ltrevino, 3) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/21/2018 1298 ORDER denying without prejudice 1293 Motion to Correct Order.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/21/2018 1299 ORDER denying 1279 Motion; denying 1281 Motion.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/23/2018 1304 Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 1303 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/23/2018

Appeal Review Notes re: 1303 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. The appeal filing fee has not been paid, and appellant is a pro se litigant.Hearings were held in the case − transcripts were produced. Number of DKT−13 Forms expected: 1, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/23/2018 1305 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by James A. Meeks III. Transcript is already on file in Clerks office. (No transcript is needed). This order form relates to the following: 1303 Notice of Appeal, filed.(JenniferOlson, 4) Modified on 8/28/2018 (scastillo, 1). (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/24/2018 1306 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/14/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Additional Motion to Proceed IFP, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope)(dperez, 3) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/24/2018 1307 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by James A. Meeks, filed. (dperez, 3) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/27/2018

Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 18−20216 re: 1303 Notice of Appeal, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

08/30/2018 1308 Addendum to the Emergency Advisory Brief Filed August 29, 2018 to Correct a Mistake of Fact by James A. Meeks, filed.(ltrevino, 3) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 114 of 130

08/31/2018 1310 Cover Letters by James A. Meeks, filed.(dperez, 3) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

08/31/2018

1311

Emergency Advisory to the Court Seeking Honorable Judge Keith P. Ellison's Intervention Concerning TDCJ−CID's Continuing Deliberate Indifference Toward Extreme Heat Situations on the Estelle Unit and Intervention Against Senior Warden Brewer for Threatening Me with Bodily Harm by James A. Meeks, filed. (dperez, 3) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/04/2018 1313 NOTICE/Request to Join Litigation Due to Imminent Threat of Physical Harm Due to Extreme Heat by Paul Minix, filed. (ltien, 4) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/05/2018 1309 Order of USCA; Judgment issued as mandate 9/5/2018 re: 1218 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20419. the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellant failed to timely pay the fee., filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/07/2018 1312 Notice of Non−Compliance. Appellant has failed to: Pay the notice of appeal filing fee. Parties notified, filed. (mperez, 1) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/07/2018 1314 ORDER granting 1306 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Meeks is ORDERED to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee in periodic installments..(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/07/2018 1315 ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1301 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/10/2018 1316 ORDER − The parties are directed to update the Court on the status ofMr. Salinas's requested accommodations within the next seven days....*** Notice of Compliance due by 9/17/2018. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/10/2018 1317 Order of USCA re: 1303 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216.Under 5TH CIR. R. 42.3, the appeal is dismissed as of September 10, 2018, for want of prosecution. The appellant failed to timely comply with this Court's notice of August 3, 2018, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/10/2018 1318 ORDER. For the reasons set forth the 1313 NOTICE/Request to Join Litigation Due to Imminent Threat of Physical Harm Due to Extreme Heat of Paul Minix is DENIED. Mr. Minix is not a member of the class. See Doc. No. 1065, Exh. I. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018 1319 ORDER denying without prejudice 1311 Emergency advisory (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/14/2018 1320 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Opt Out Requests of Certain Class Members by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/14/2018 1321 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/17/2018 1322 NOTICE Regarding Status of Class Member Victor Salinas's Requested Accommodations re: 1316 Order, by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/17/2018

1323

MOTION to Seal Motion to Seal TDCJ's Response to Court's Order 1316 Regarding Victor Salinas by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/9/2018. (Attachments: # 1 TDCJ's Response to Court's Order Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/18/2018 1324 ORDER granting 1320 Motion for Approval to Opt out of Class Action Settlement.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(kpicota, 4) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/24/2018

Electronic Access to Record on Appeal Provided re: 1303 Notice of Appeal to Jeff Edwards, David James, Scott Medlock, Leah O'Leary and Michael Singley. Attorneys of record at the Circuit may download the record from the Court of Appeals. (USCA No. 18−20402), filed.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 115 of 130

09/28/2018 1325 Order of USCA; Judgment issued as mandate 18−20419 re: 1236 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20419. Under 5th CIR.R. 42.3, the appeal is dismissed as of September 28, 2018, for want of prosecution. The appellant failed to timely pay the fee, filed.(mperez, 1) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/03/2018 1326 NOTICE of Change of Address by Raymond Torres, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/04/2018

1327

ORDER. The attached Motion to Admit and Preserve for the RecordMovant's Notice to the Court from Steven Hayes, TCDJ−ID No. 1601354 cannot be decided by this Court in this case. Movant may pursue his claims through a new properly−filed lawsuit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. Copy mailed to Steven Hayes, Hightower Unit, Dayton Texas. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4) Modified on 10/5/2018 (rguerrero, 4). (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/09/2018 1328 Order of USCA − JUDGMENT re: 1303 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. the appeal is dismissed as to Jackie Brannum only, as of 10/9/2018, pursuant to appellant's motion, filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/09/2018 1329 MOTION to grant relief and remove from lawsuit by Victor Salinas, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/30/2018. (arrivera, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/10/2018: # 1 Attachment) (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 10/10/2018)

10/15/2018 1330 NOTICE of Setting as to 1329 MOTION opt out. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2018 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. Parties may appear by phone. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018 1331 Letter from David Bailey re: request for copy of ROA, filed. (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/16/2018 1332 MOTION to Intervene filed by Eric Demond Lozano. Motion Docket Date 11/6/2018. (Attachments: # 1 letter, # 2 envelope) (yhausmann, 6) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/23/2018 1333 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Request to Opt Out of Class Action Settlement by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/13/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

10/23/2018 1334 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

10/23/2018 1335 ORDER granting 1333 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Request to Opt Out of Class Action Settlement by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/25/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 10/25/2018 on 1329 MOTION opt out. For the reasons stated on the record, the Motion is DENIED as moot. Appearances:Jeanine Coggeshall. Scott Charles Medlock, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: B. Slavin)(Law Clerk: R. Montiel), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/25/2018 1337 ORDER. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/29/2018

1336

Order of USCA re: 1303 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. IT IS ORDERED that the motion of Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace and Marvin Ray Yates to be added as appellees to the appeal is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace and Marvin Ray Yates to amend the caption is GRANTED, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

11/05/2018

Electronic Access to Record on Appeal Provided re: 1303 Notice of Appeal to Leah O'Leary and Darren McCarty. Attorneys of record at the Circuit may download the record from the Court of Appeals. (USCA No. 18−20216), filed.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/06/2018 1338 RESPONSE in Opposition to 1332 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments:

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 116 of 130

# 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/14/2018 1339 Petition for writ of mandamus by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

11/14/2018 1341 Letter by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/15/2018

Electronic Access to Record on Appeal Provided re: 1303 Notice of Appeal to Michael Singley, Scott Medlock, David James and Jeff Edwards. Attorneys of record at the Circuit may download the record from the Court of Appeals. (USCA No. 18−20216), filed.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

11/16/2018 1340 NOTICE of Setting as to 1339 Document. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 11/28/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/20/2018 1342 MOTION for Darren McCarty to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/11/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McCarty, Darren) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/20/2018 1343 Order of USCA; Judgment issued as mandate 18−20216 re: 1303 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. The appeal is dismissed as of November 20, 2018 for want of prosecution, filed.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/27/2018

1344

ORDER granting 1342 MOTION for Darren McCarty to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Leah O'Leary is substituted as Attorney−in−Charge for Defendants....***Attorney Darren Lee McCarty terminated. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 11/28/2018)

11/28/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 11/28/2018. For the reasons stated on the record, class member Douthit's petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Appearances: Scott Charles Medlock, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: F. Warner)(Law Clerk: R. Montiel), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/29/2018

REQUEST for Electronic Access to the Certified Record on Appeal re: 1198 Notice of Appeal, 1199 Notice of Appeal, 1078 Notice of Appeal, 1303 Notice of Appeal, 1236 Notice of Appeal by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed.(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/29/2018 1345 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Request to Opt Out of Class Action Settlement by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/20/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/29/2018 1346 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/29/2018 1347 ORDER granting 1345 Motion for Approval to Opt Out of Class Action Settlementas to Michael Napper and Christopher Wardlow. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gclair, 4) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

12/06/2018 1348 Letter from Shannon Douthit re: copy of order, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018 1349 ORDER that the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on Mr. Sossamon's attached Motion for a Federal Evidentiary Hearing.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) (Attachments: # 1 Motion) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/10/2018

Electronic Access to Record on Appeal Provided re: 1199 Notice of Appeal, 1078 Notice of Appeal, 1218 Notice of Appeal, 1303 Notice of Appeal to Jeff S. Edwards, David James, Darren Lee McCarty, Scott Charles Medlock, Leah O'Leary, Michael C. Singley. Attorneys of record at the Circuit may download the record from the Court of Appeals, filed.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/13/2018 1350 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (mxperez, 5) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 117 of 130

12/13/2018 1351 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jeffery Dobbins re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (mxperez, 5) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/13/2018 1352 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clem Hollingsworth re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (mxperez, 5) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/14/2018 1353 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Mario Martinez re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (dperez, 3) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/17/2018 1358 MOTION for Approval to Opt Out of Class Action, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/7/2019. (dterrell, 2) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018 1354 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charlie Malouff re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (dterrell, 2) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018 1355 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charlie Malouff re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (dterrell, 2) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018 1356 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Barry Newman re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (dterrell, 2) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018 1357 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ryan D Gresham re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (dperez, 3) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018 1359 Order of USCA − ORDER re: 1303 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20402. ordered that appellant's opposed motion for appointment of counsel is denied, filed.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/26/2018 1360 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert W Jurek re: 1344 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, filed. (SarahShelby, 4) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

01/09/2019 1361 Order of USCA − JUDGMENT − ; Judgment issued as mandate 1/9/2019 re: 1198 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20402. The judgment of the district court is affirmed and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 01/09/2019)

01/09/2019 1362 Order of USCA − PER CURIAM − re: 1198 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20402. We affirm the district court's denial of Meek's motion to intervene, filed.(JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 01/09/2019)

01/21/2019 1363 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Opt Out Request of Darren Monroe by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/11/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/21/2019)

01/21/2019 1364 Ex Parte SEALED EXHIBITS − Declaration of S. Medlock re: 1363 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Opt Out Request of Darren Monroe by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/21/2019)

01/23/2019 1365 ORDER granting 1363 Motion for Request to Opt Out of Class Settlement.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/29/2019

1366

ORDER granting 1323 MOTION to Seal TDCJ's Response to Court's Order 1316 Regarding Victor Salinas. IT IS ORDERED that TDCJ's Response to the Court's Order Regarding Victor Salinas and Attached Exhibits be sealed by the Clerk of the Court.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2019)

01/29/2019 1367 ORDER denying as moot 1264 MOTION to Grant Relief, Temporary Injunction Appoint Counsel of Victor Salinas.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2019)

02/05/2019 1368 Letter from Steven Kurt Baughman #2180609 re: Copy of Docket Report (Schedule of Fees sent regular First Class Mail), filed. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 02/05/2019)

02/07/2019 1369 Letter/ MOTION request for Approval of Opt Out by William Marshall Carman, Jr, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/28/2019. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 118 of 130

02/08/2019 1370 NOTICE of Setting as to 1369 MOTION for Approval of Opt Out, 1358 MOTION for Approval to Opt Out of Class Action. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 2/15/2019 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/12/2019 1371 Mail Returned Undeliverable (DISCHARGED − UNABLE TO FORWARD) as to Ryan D Gresham re: 1366 Order, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/12/2019 1372 Mail Returned Undeliverable (RETURN TO SENDER − REFUSED) as to Barry Newman re: 1366 Order, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/12/2019 1373 Mail Returned Undeliverable (DISCHARGED − UNABLE TO FORWARD) as to Albert Hunter re: 1366 Order, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/12/2019 1374 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charlie Malouff re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal,, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/12/2019 1375 Mail Returned Undeliverable (RETURN TO SENDER − RELEASED) as to Jeffery Dobbins re: 1366 Order, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/12/2019 1376 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clem Hollingsworth re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal,, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/12/2019 1377 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal,, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/14/2019 1378 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Mario Martinez re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal,, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/15/2019 1379 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/15/2019

1380

Ex Parte SEALED EXHIBITS re: 1379 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Keith Cole, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 18.12.14 William Carman Opt Out Form, # 2 Exhibit Charles Hart Opt Out Form, # 3 Exhibit 18.4.27 William Carman Opt Out Form, # 4 Exhibit 18.5.11 Letter to William Carman) (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/15/2019 1381 ORDER granting 1379 Motion for Approval requests to opt out of class action settlement.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/15/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 2/15/2019 on 1369 Motion for Approval to Opt Out; [Doc. 1358] Motion for Approval to Opt Out. For the reasons stated on the record, 1358 Motion for Approval to Opt Out is DENIED. 1369 Motion for Approval to Opt Out is GRANTED. Appearances:Jeanine Marie Coggeshall. Scott Charles Medlock.(Court Reporter: J. Sanchez)(Law Clerk: R. Montiel), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/20/2019 1382 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Wayne Windell Williams re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal,, filed. (bmendoza, 5) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019 1383 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to David C Garrett re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal, filed. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019 1384 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal, filed. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/28/2019 1385 NOTICE Of Opt Out Request of William McBride by Keith Cole, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/28/2019)

02/28/2019 1386 Ex Parte SEALED EXHIBITS to Notice of Opt Out Request re: 1385 Notice (Other) by Keith Cole, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit William McBride Opt Out Form) (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/28/2019)

03/01/2019 1387 Letter from Anthony Ray Banks re: this Court is still sending all my mail to the Leblanc Unit, filed. (nortiz, 5) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 119 of 130

03/06/2019 1388 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert W Jurek re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal,, filed. (aveliz, 5) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/11/2019 1389 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles C Taylor, Jr re: 1366 Order on Motion to Seal,, filed. (gsalinas, 5) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/12/2019 1390 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 1331 & Rule 21 against All Defendants filed by Shannon Mark Douthit.(mmarquez, 5) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/15/2019: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope) (mmarquez, 5). (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/12/2019 1391 MOTION for to Appear By Telephone At Mandamus Proceeding by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/2/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/12/2019 1392 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/2/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/12/2019 1393 SEALED DOCUMENT − Prisoner Financial Report by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/19/2019 1394 ANDREW JACKSON'S PRO SE MOTION FOR FEDERAL PROTECTIVE ORDER by Andrew Jackson, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/9/2019. (SandraSilva, 7) (Entered: 03/19/2019)

03/19/2019 1395 ORDER re: 1394 MOTION for Protective Order (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(kpicota, 4) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

03/20/2019 1396 ORDER granting 1385 Notice/Request. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(kpicota, 4) (Entered: 03/21/2019)

03/20/2019 1397 ORDER re: 1390 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Responses due by 4/5/2019.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(kpicota, 4) (Entered: 03/21/2019)

03/25/2019 1398 Order of USCA − Per Curiam re: 1303 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the appeal as to appellants Aaron Birchfield and Terry P. Delord is DENIED, filed.(mperez, 1) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

04/05/2019 1399 MOTION to Seal Portions of Their Response to Mr. Douthit's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Certain Exhibits by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/26/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 04/05/2019)

04/05/2019 1400 SEALED DOCUMENT Portions of TDCJ's Response to Mr. Douthit's Petition for Writ of Mandamus by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 04/05/2019)

04/05/2019 1401 RESPONSE to Mr. Douthit's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Certain Exhibits, filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (cover sheet only), # 2 Exhibit B)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 04/05/2019)

04/05/2019

1402

RESPONSE to 1390 Complaint, 1397 Order , filed by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter from S. Medlock (Oct. 9, 2018), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter from S. Medlock (Jan. 18, 2019), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Letter from S. Medlock (Mar. 12, 2019), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Email from S. Medlock (Mar. 12, 2019), # 5 Exhibit 5 − Email from TDCJ's Counsel, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Activity in Case Notification (Mar. 15, 2019), # 7 Proposed Order)(Medlock, Scott) (Entered: 04/05/2019)

04/09/2019 1403 Letter from Raymond Torres re: Docket Sheet, filed. (ehernandez, 5) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

04/11/2019 1406 RELATOR'S REPLY TO RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, filed by Shannon Mark Douthit. (ehernandez, 5) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 120 of 130

04/12/2019 1404 MOTION to Subpoena Video Footage for Mandamus Proceeding (Hearing) by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/3/2019. (dflores, 5) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

04/16/2019 1405 NOTICE of Change of Address by Richard Lares, filed. (mmarquez, 5) (Entered: 04/16/2019)

05/02/2019 1407 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Steffensen on behalf of Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Steffensen, Peter) (Entered: 05/02/2019)

05/02/2019 1408 MOTION for Natalia Cornelio to Withdraw as Attorney by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/23/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 05/02/2019)

05/10/2019 1410 ORDER granting 1408 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Natalia Marissa Cornelio terminated.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 05/16/2019)

05/16/2019 1409 Letter from Shannon Douthit re: requesting copy of docket sheet, filed. (rnieto, 1) (Entered: 05/16/2019)

05/17/2019

1411

Order of USCA; Per Curiam re: 1303 Notice of Appeal ; USCA No. 18−20216. Multiple parties are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and their pending motions are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the appeal as to appellants Aaron Birchfield and Terry P. Delord is DENIED, filed.(scastillo, 1) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/20/2019 1412 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/10/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/20/2019 1413 Ex Parte SEALED EXHIBITS re: 1412 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Keith Cole, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Original Opt Out Request from Ricky Davis, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Revised Opt Out Request from Ricky Davis) (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/28/2019 1414 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/28/2019 1415 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ryan D Gresham re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/28/2019 1416 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Wayne Windell Williams re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/28/2019 1417 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/28/2019 1418 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Mario Martinez re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

05/28/2019 1419 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Stanley Bernard Sherman re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

05/28/2019 1420 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Barry Newman re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

05/31/2019 1421 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Wisdom L Simms, Jr re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (dwilkerson, 3) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

05/31/2019 1422 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Albert Hunter re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

05/31/2019 1430 MOTION to Order Relator Heat−Sensitive Medical Restriction Consistent with Document 1165 by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/21/2019. (JenniferLongoria, 1) (Entered: 06/26/2019)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 121 of 130
06/03/2019 1423 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jeffery Dobbins re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (dwilkerson, 3) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 1424 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Rudy Garza Molina re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (sgonzalez, 5) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/05/2019 1425 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jorge Jones re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
06/05/2019 1426 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert W Jurek re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
06/05/2019 1427 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Thomas Byron re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
06/06/2019 1431 MOTION for Injunction by Michael Ewing, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/27/2019. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
06/06/2019 1432 MOTION for Relief by Joe R Weathers, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/27/2019. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
06/10/2019 1428 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clem Hollingsworth re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (ocasas, 7) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
06/11/2019 1429 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1410 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed. (ehernandez, 5) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
07/01/2019 1433 NOTICE re: 1432 MOTION by Keith Cole, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
07/01/2019 1434 ORDER granting 1412 Plaintiffs' Seventh Unopposed Motion to approve class opt−outs as to Ricky Davis.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
07/01/2019 1435 ORDER denying 1332 Motion for Eric Lozano to Intervene.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
07/01/2019 1436 ORDER denying 1432 Motion for Joe R. Weathers to opt−out. Mr. Weathers is not a member of the class, the court has no jurisdiction.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
07/01/2019 1437 ORDER granting 1399 Motion to Seal.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
07/03/2019 1438 ORDER granting 1392 Plaintiff Shannon Mark Douthit's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
07/09/2019 1439 ORDER denying 1339 Petition for Writ of Mandamus; denying as moot 1391 MOTION for to Appear, 1404 MOTION Subpoena Video Footage for Mandamus Proceeding (Hearing) (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
07/18/2019 1440 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
07/18/2019 1441 Ex Parte SEALED EXHIBITS re: 1440 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Keith Cole, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
07/23/2019 1442 ORDER granting 1440 Motion for Approval of Requests to Opt Out of Class Action Settlement as to David Williams(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
07/23/2019 1443 ORDER denying as moot 1430 Motion to order Relator heat−Sensitive medical Restriction as to Shannon Douthit..(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 122 of 130

07/23/2019 1444 Letter from Raymond Torres re: copy of Docket Sheet, filed. Copy of Docket Sheet sent via regular mail. (nortiz, 5) Modified on 7/26/2019 (nortiz, 5). (Entered: 07/26/2019)

08/07/2019 1446 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Telephone Conference set for 8/7/2019 at 04:05 PM by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 8/7/2019. For the reasons stated on the record, the parties are ordered to proceed with the 8/8/2019 visit to the LeBlanc Unit. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: B. Slavin)(Law Clerk: R. Montiel), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/11/2019)

08/09/2019 1447 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Telephone Conference set for 8/9/2019 at 02:30 PM by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/09/2019

1448

MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/30/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/09/2019 1449 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/09/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 8/9/2019. For the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 1449 ), the MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 1448 ) is GRANTED. Appearances: Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Michael C Singley, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: B. Slavin)(Law Clerk: R. Montiel), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/11/2019)

08/12/2019 1450 RESPONSE to 1449 Memorandum and Order , filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 08/12/2019)

08/14/2019 1451 Letter from Jesse P. Skinner re: copy request, filed. Clerk's Note: Cost of docket sheet provided to J. Skinner. (amireles, 2) (Entered: 08/14/2019)

08/21/2019 1452 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Jeff Edwards for Transcript of Telephone Conferences on 8/7/2019 and 8/9/2019 before Judge Ellison. 3−Day turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Bruce Slavin, filed. (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

08/23/2019 1453 TRANSCRIPT re: Teleconference held on 8−7−19 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber B. Slavin. Ordering Party Plaintiffs Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/21/2019., filed. (bslavin, ) (Entered: 08/23/2019)

08/26/2019 1454 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 1453 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (dhansen, 4) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/27/2019 1455 TRANSCRIPT re: Teleconference held on 8−9−19 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber B. Slavin. Ordering Party Plaintiffs Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/25/2019., filed. (bslavin, ) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

08/27/2019 1457 MOTION to extend coverage for lost or damaged property by Richard Lares, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/17/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/04/2019)

08/28/2019 1456 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 1455 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (dhansen, 4) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

09/04/2019 1458 ORDER denying 1457 Motion to extend coverage for lost or damaged property.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/04/2019)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 123 of 130

09/05/2019

1459

MOTION for Contempt, MOTION for Order to Show Cause ( Motion Docket Date 9/26/2019.), MOTION for Sanctions by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of T. Henry, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of D. Armstrong, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of G. Click, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of C. Brown, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Declaration of C. Crocker, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Declaration of C. Bell, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Declaration of J. Alcocer, # 8 Exhibit 8 − 1st Declaration of K. Abbott, # 9 Exhibit 9 − 1st Declaration of R. Anderson, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Declaration of Shawn Grigg, # 11 Exhibit 11 − TDCJ List of Inmates Assigned to Pack on Aug. 8, 2017, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Excerpts from Pack Unit Roster for Sep. 7, 2017, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Pack Unit Roster for Nov. 1, 2017, # 14 Exhibit 14 − Excerpts from NIH Clinical Guidelines concerning Obesity, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Summary of Non−Evacuee Inmates' BMI in 2017, # 16 Exhibit 16 − Summary of Daily Max Heat in Brenham, Huntsville, and Beeville for 2017, # 17 Exhibit 17 − Summary of Daily Max Heat in Dallas, Houston, and Palestine for 2017, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Summary of Daily Max Heat in Jacksonville, Limestone, Cleveland, and Victoria for 2017, # 19 Exhibit 19 − Pack Unit Temperature Logs from May 2018, # 20 Exhibit 20 − TDCJ Survey of Units with Air Conditioning, # 21 Exhibit 21 − TDCJ Table of Inmates Moved Off Pack in 2017 (filed under seal), # 22 Exhibit 22 − UTMB Table of Inmates Prescribe Certain Medications (filed under seal), # 23 Exhibit 23 − Housing Histories from 2017, # 24 Exhibit 24 − Summary of Heat−Sensitive Inmates Mishoused by TDCJ in 2017, # 25 Exhibit 25 − Table Showing Estimated Total Days Inmates were Mishoused by TDCJ in 2017, # 26 Exhibit 26 − Custodial Death Report of D. Ramos, # 27 Exhibit 27 − Excerpts from T. Bailey's Deposition, # 28 Exhibit 28 − Excerpts from K. Halls' Deposition, # 29 Exhibit 29 − Letter from J. Edwards to TDCJ Counsel (May 24, 2018), # 30 Exhibit 30 − Letter from J. Edwards to TDCJ Counsel (June 4, 2018), # 31 Exhibit 31 − Letter from J. Edwards to TDCJ Counsel (Aug. 13, 2018), # 32 Exhibit 32 − Excerpts from Texas General Appropriations Act for 20182019 Biennium, # 33 Exhibit 33 − Letter from D. James to TDCJ (April 8, 2019), # 34 Exhibit 34 − Letter from TDCJ to Office of the Attorney General (April 23, 2019), # 35 Exhibit 35 − Letter from TDCJ to Office of the Attorney General (April 30, 2019), # 36 Exhibit 36 − Letter from Office of the Attorney General to TDCJ (June 27, 2019), # 37 Exhibit 37 − TDCJ Class Member Locations for July 1, 2019, # 38 Exhibit 38 − Email from S. Medlock to TDCJ Counsel (July 16, 2019), # 39 Exhibit 39 − Email from TDCJ Counsel to S. Medlock (July 18, 2019), # 40 Exhibit 40 − Email from S. Medlock to TDCJ Counsel (July 19, 2019), # 41 Exhibit 41 − Email from TDCJ Counsel to S. Medlock (July 18, 2019), # 42 Exhibit 42 − Letter from S. Medlock to TDCJ Counsel (July 22, 2019), # 43 Exhibit 43 − Email from TDCJ Counsel to S. Medlock (July 29, 2019), # 44 Exhibit 44 − ACA Program for Aug. 16, 2019 Event, # 45 Exhibit 45 − ACA Website Concerning Aug. 16, 2019 Event, # 46 Exhibit 46 − Email from TDCJ Counsel to S. Medlock (Aug. 1, 2019), # 47 Exhibit 47 − Email from TDCJ Counsel to S. Medlock (Aug. 5, 2019) with attachment, # 48 Exhibit 48 − Email from TDCJ Counsel to S. Medlock (Aug. 6, 2019), # 49 Exhibit 49 − Transcript of Telephone Conference (August 7, 2019), # 50 Exhibit 50 − Text of Heat Advisory (Aug. 7, 2019), # 51 Exhibit 51 − Email from TDCJ Counsel to S. Medlock (Aug. 7, 2019), # 52 Exhibit 52 − TDCJ Table of Class Members at LeBlanc on August 7, 2019, # 53 Exhibit 53 − Text of Heat Advisory (Aug. 8, 2019), # 54 Exhibit 54 − Text of Heat Updated Advisory (Aug. 8, 2019), # 55 Exhibit 55 − Summary of Daily Max Heat in Beaumont in 2019, # 56 Exhibit 56 − Transcript of Telephone Conference (August 9, 2019), # 57 Exhibit 57 − Letter from J. Edwards to TDCJ Counsel (Aug. 12, 2019), # 58 Exhibit 58 − Email from S. Medlock to TDCJ Counsel (Aug. 16, 2019, # 59 Exhibit 59 − Declaration of B. J. Campbell, # 60 Exhibit 60 − Declaration of D. Shepherd, # 61 Exhibit 61 − Declaration of D. Pieczonka, # 62 Exhibit 62 − Declaration of J. Mozingo, # 63 Exhibit 63 − Declaration of G. Butaud, # 64 Exhibit 64 − Declaration of K. Abbott, # 65 Exhibit 65 − Declaration of K. Tuttle, # 66 Exhibit 66 − Declaration of M. Denton, # 67 Exhibit 67 − 2nd Declaration of R. Anderson, # 68 Exhibit 68 − 2nd Declaration of R. Angton, # 69 Exhibit 69 − Declaration of T. Williamson, # 70 Exhibit 70 − Declaration of S. Medlock, # 71 Exhibit 71 − Declaration of D. James, # 72 Exhibit 72 − Email from R. Williams to G. Crippen (Aug. 5, 2011), # 73 Exhibit 73 − Letter from S. Medlock to TDCJ Counsel (July 15, 2019), # 74 Exhibit 74 − Letter from S. Medlock to TDCJ Counsel (Mar. 15, 2019))(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

09/05/2019 1460 Unopposed SEALED EXHIBITS and Motion to Seal re: 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions by Jackie Brannum,

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 124 of 130

Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 TDCJ Table of Inmates Moved Off Pack in 2017 (filed under seal), # 3 UTMB Table of Inmates Prescribe Certain Medications (filed under seal)) (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

09/05/2019 1461 NOTICE of Setting as to 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 9/6/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

09/05/2019 1462 ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Leave To File Exhibits Under Seal. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

09/06/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 9/6/2019. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2019 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison. Wardens of units housing class members called to appear by telephone. Appearances:Jeanine Coggeshall. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: K. Miller)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

09/09/2019 1463 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendant TDCJ/Leah O'Leary, AAG for Transcript of motion hearing 9/06/2019 before Judge Ellison. 3−Day turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller, filed. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

09/09/2019 1464 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendant TDCJ/Leah O'Leary, AAG for Transcript of motion hearing 8/07/2019 to 8/9/2019 before Judge Ellison. 3−Day turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Bruce Slavin, filed. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

09/10/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 9/10/2019. Briefing in response to 1459 Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt, to Show Cause, and for Sanctions will proceed according to deadlines set by local rules. Appearances:Jeanine Coggeshall, Eric Hudson, Shanna Molinare. Jeffrey S Edwards, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: K. Miller)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/11/2019)

09/12/2019 1465 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendant TDCJ/Leah O'Leary, AAG for Transcript of motion hearing 9/10/19. 3−Day turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller, filed. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/12/2019)

09/12/2019 1466 MOTION for Reconsideration of 1457 MOTION to extend coverage for lost or damaged property by Richard Lares, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/3/2019. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/19/2019)

09/16/2019 1468 Letter from Lakeith Amir Sahrif re: copy of the docket sheet, filed. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 09/20/2019)

09/19/2019 1467 ORDER denying 1466 Motion for Reconsideration.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/19/2019)

09/25/2019 1469 TRANSCRIPT re: Motion Hearing held on September 6, 2019 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen Miller. Ordering Party Leah O'Leary Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/24/2019., filed. (kmiller, ) (Entered: 09/25/2019)

09/25/2019 1470 TRANSCRIPT re: Motion Hearing held on September 10, 2019 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen Miller. Ordering Party Leah O'Leary Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/24/2019., filed. (kmiller, ) (Entered: 09/25/2019)

09/26/2019 1471 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 1469 Transcript, 1470 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019 1472 RESPONSE to 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions filed by Bryan Collier, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 1, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit E

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 125 of 130

Part 2, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 3, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 4, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit F Part 1, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit F Part 2, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit F Part 3, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit F Part 4, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit F Part 5, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit F Part 6, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit F Part 7, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit F Part 8, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit R, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit T, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit U, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit V, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit W, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit X, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit Y, # 37 Exhibit Exhibit Z, # 38 Exhibit Exhibit AA, # 39 Exhibit Exhibit BB, # 40 Exhibit Exhibit CC)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/27/2019 1473 MOTION to Strike 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions by Bryan Collier, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/18/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/27/2019)

09/30/2019 1477 Letter from Linzale Greer re: request for docket sheet and complaint, filed. (scastillo, 1) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/01/2019 1476 Letter from Marvin Ray Yates re: Status of Motion, filed. (dwilkerson, 3) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

10/02/2019 1474 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time File Reply Brief by Keith Cole, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/23/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/02/2019)

10/02/2019 1475 ORDER granting 1474 Motion for Extension of Time; Motion−related deadline set re: 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions. Replies due by 10/18/2019.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

10/09/2019 1479 Letter from Richard Jaxson re: Motion for Corrective Order, filed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 10/12/2019)

10/11/2019 1478 ORDER denying 1479 Letter request for corrective order(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4) Modified on 10/12/2019 (rguerrero, 4). (Entered: 10/11/2019)

10/16/2019 1480 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief by Richard Elvin King, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/6/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019 1481 ORDER granting 1480 Motion for Extension of Time; Motion−related deadline set re: 1459 MOTION for Sanctions. Replies due by 11/1/2019.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 10/17/2019)

10/22/2019

***Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1473 MOTION to Strike : Responses due by 11/1/2019. (LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/24/2019 1482 NOTICE of Setting as to 1473 MOTION to Strike 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions . Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2019 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

10/30/2019 1483 Letter from Shannon Douthit re: Request for copy of Motion for Contempt, filed. (Prisoner notified by US Mail of the costs for copying requested documents.) (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 10/30/2019)

10/31/2019 1492 NOTICE of Change of Address by Anthony Ray Banks, filed. (LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 11/05/2019)

11/01/2019 1484 Mail Returned Undeliverable ("UTF − Discharged") as to Albert Hunter re: 1461 Notice of Setting (FORM, noticing) − Judge Ellison, filed. No updated address located. (dwilkerson, 3) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/01/2019 1485 Mail Returned Undeliverable ("RTS − Temp. Dept. BW 8/20/2019") as to William Harrison Blackwell re: 1461 Notice of Setting (FORM, noticing) − Judge Ellison, filed. No updated address located. (dwilkerson, 3) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 126 of 130

11/01/2019

1486

RESPONSE in Opposition to 1473 MOTION to Strike 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions , filed by Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Exhibit 15 − Summary of Non−Evacuee Inmates' BMI According to TDCJ's Sep. 7, 2017 Roster, # 2 Exhibit 75 − K. Tuttle's Grievance and TDCJ's Response, # 3 Exhibit 76 − National Weather Service Records for Beaumont, Texas May 15 through August 9, 2019, # 4 Exhibit 77 − Email from L. O'Leary, "Class member locations as of 7−1−2019" (July 22, 2019) with Attachment, # 5 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/01/2019 1487 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/22/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/01/2019

1488

REPLY in Support of 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions, filed by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Exhibit 15 − Summary of Non−Evacuee Inmates' BMI According to TDCJ's Sep. 7, 2017 Roster, # 2 Exhibit 75 − K. Tuttle's Grievance and TDCJ's Response, # 3 Exhibit 76 − National Weather Service Records for Beaumont, Texas May 15 through August 9, 2019, # 4 Exhibit 77 − Email from L. O'Leary, "Class member locations as of 7−1−2019" (July 22, 2019) with Attachment)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/01/2019

1489

MOTION to Compel Responses to Questions During Examination in Show Cause Hearing by Jackie Brannum, Keith Cole, Michael Denton, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/22/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts from Sep. 10, 2019 Hearing Transcript, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/01/2019 1491 NOTICE of Change of Address by James E Archer, Jr, filed. (agarcia, 7) (Entered: 11/05/2019)

11/04/2019 1490 ORDER granting 1487 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/04/2019)

11/05/2019

1493

NOTICE of Setting as to 1473 MOTION to Strike 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions , 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions. Parties notified. Motion Hearing reset for 11/6/2019 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. TIME CHANGE ONLY. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/05/2019)

11/06/2019 1494 Supplemental EXHIBITS re: 1472 Response to Motion,,,,, by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed.(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 11/06/2019)

11/06/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 11/6/2019 1473 Motion to Strike is DENIED. 1489 Motion to Compel is GRANTED. 1459 Motion for Contempt, Order to Show Cause, and Sanctions is taken under advisement. Appearances: Michael Singley, Shanna Molinare, Eric Hudson, Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: N. Forrest)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

11/07/2019 1495 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Briefing due by 11/14/2019(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/08/2019 1496 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Leah O'Leary for Transcript of Hearing, 11/06/2019, Judge Keith Ellison. 3−Day turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Nichole Forrest, filed. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/14/2019 1497 RESPONSE to 1495 Memorandum and Order , filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 11/14/2019)

11/19/2019 1498 SUPPLEMENT to 1459 MOTION for Contempt MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Sanctions by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King,

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 127 of 130

Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 78 − TDCJ's Responses to Step 1 and Step 2 Grievances of Gary Butaud)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/19/2019)

11/19/2019 1499 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Albert Hunter re: 1478 Order, filed. (sanderson, 4) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/19/2019 1500 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to William Harrison Blackwell re: 1478 Order, filed. (sanderson, 4) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

12/02/2019 1501 ORDER. Telephone Conference set for 12/5/2019 at 03:30 PM Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) (Attachments: # 1 Letter) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/02/2019)

12/05/2019 1502 RESPONSE to 1501 Order , filed by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 12/05/2019)

12/05/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 12/5/2019. Testimony on cold temperatures in Pack Unit taken from TDCJ Senior Warden Robert Herrera and Deputy Director Oscar Mendoza. Appearances:Jeanine Coggeshall. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, David Anthony James, Michael C Singley, Leah Jean O'Leary.(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

12/05/2019 1505 SECOND NOTIFICATION OF Change of Address by Rell Angton, Jr, filed. (sguevara, 4) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

12/09/2019 1503 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Leah O'Leary for Transcript of Telephone Conference, 12/05/2019, Judge Keith P. Ellison. Expedited (7 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Laura Wells, filed. (O'Leary, Leah) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

12/11/2019 1504 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part 1459 MOTION for Contempt, to Show Cause, and for Sanctions. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

12/15/2019 1506 TRANSCRIPT re: Telephonic Hearing held on December 5, 2019 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura Wells. Ordering Party Ms. Leah O'Leary Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/16/2020., filed. (lwells, ) (Entered: 12/15/2019)

12/16/2019 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 1506 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/30/2019 1508 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Steve Galloway re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 01/03/2020)

12/30/2019 1509 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Billy Joe Britton re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 01/03/2020)

12/30/2019 1513 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (ClaudiaGutierrez, 4) (Entered: 01/03/2020)

12/30/2019 1514 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Barry Newman re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (ClaudiaGutierrez, 4) (Entered: 01/03/2020)

12/30/2019 1515 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Charles A Malouff, Jr re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (ClaudiaGutierrez, 4) (Entered: 01/03/2020)

12/30/2019 1516 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ryan D Gresham re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (olindor, 4) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

12/30/2019 1517 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Ryan D Gresham re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (hlerma, 4)Discharged (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/02/2020 1510 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jeffery Dobbins re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 01/03/2020)

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 128 of 130
01/02/2020 1511 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to James E Archer, Jr re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript; no new address found., filed. (FernandoVilla, 5) (Entered: 01/03/2020)
01/02/2020 1512 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Lakeith R. Amir−Sharif re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript; Defendant was released., filed. (FernandoVilla, 5) (Entered: 01/03/2020)
01/07/2020 1518 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to George S. Clegg re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (lcorbett, 7) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
01/07/2020 1519 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Mario Martinez re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (lcorbett, 7) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
01/07/2020 1520 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clem Hollingsworth re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (lcorbett, 7) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
01/10/2020 1521 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Robert W Jurek re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (RTS; Attempted not Known)(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
01/10/2020 1522 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Jorge Jones re: 1507 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript, filed. (RTS; Attempted not Known)(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
01/15/2020 1523 Letter Motion Requesting to be Removed From the CM/ECF Notification Mailing List. by Herman Arthur Peterman, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/5/2020. (jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
01/21/2020 1524 ORDER granting 1523 Motion to be removed from the mailing list for this case.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
01/21/2020 1525 MOTION for request of trancripts by James A. Meeks, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/11/2020. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
01/23/2020 1527 MOTION for Leave to File to proceed, participate and appear as intervenor plaintiff and/or interested party−plaintiff by Iron Thunderhorse, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/13/2020. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2020)
01/28/2020 1526 ORDER denying 1525 MOTION for request of trancripts.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 01/29/2020)
01/30/2020 1528 ORDER denying 1527 Motion for Leave to proceed, participate and appear as intervenor plaintiff and/or interested party−plaintiff.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 01/30/2020)
01/31/2020 1534 MOTION − First Affidavit and Notice of Defendants Continued Retaliation, Perjury & Cover−up Towards A Class Member by Brandon Blake Coleman, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/21/2020. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
02/05/2020 1529 MOTION for miscellaneous relief by Kevin Reid Althouse, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/26/2020. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
02/07/2020 1530 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 2/14/2020 at 02:00 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
02/12/2020 1537 NOTICE on Non−Compliance RE: Unfavorable conditions at the Pack 1 Unit by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed. (thanniable, 4) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
02/12/2020 1538 NOTICE of Non−Compliance RE: Prison conditions at the Pack 1 Unit by Anthony Ortiz, filed. (thanniable, 4) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
02/14/2020 1531 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Medlock, Scott) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
02/14/2020 1532 Ex Parte SEALED EXHIBITS re: 1531 Unopposed MOTION for Approval of Class Opt−Outs by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Medlock, Scott) (Entered:

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 129 of 130

02/14/2020)

02/14/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/14/2020. Argument heard on appropriate course of action regarding letters on poor prison conditions. Proposals taken under advisement. Appearances:Jeanine Coggeshall. Jeffrey S Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock.(Court Reporter: L. Wells)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), filed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/25/2020)

02/18/2020 1533 NOTICE of attorney substitution by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Attorney Ted A. Ross added, filed. (Ross, Ted) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/18/2020 1535 ORDER denying 1534 First Affidavit and Notice of Defendants Continued Retaliation, Perjury & Cover−up Towards A Class Member.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/18/2020 1536 ORDER APPROVING REQUESTS TO OPT OUT OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; granting 1531 Motion for Approval. Robert O'Dell's opt out request is granted. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 02/19/2020)

02/24/2020 1539 MOTION for Leah Jean O'Leary to Withdraw as Attorney by Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/16/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ross, Ted) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020 1540 ORDER granting 1539 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Leah Jean O'Leary terminated.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020 1542 Notice of Non−Compliance by Anthony Ortiz, filed.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

02/24/2020 1543 Letter from Anthony Ortiz re: Grievance, filed. (gkelner, 4) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

02/27/2020 1541 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Joseph Peter Le'Dee' re: 1536 Order on Motion for Approval, filed. An updated address could not be found. (ClaudiaGutierrez, 4) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

03/19/2020 1544 MOTION/Request for Resolution and Notice of Civil Action by Shannon Mark Douthit, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/9/2020. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 03/22/2020)

04/09/2020 1545 ADVISORY by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter from TDCJ's Counsel)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/09/2020)

04/10/2020

1546

MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Production and Interrogatories by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Text messages between F. Inmon and K. Farguson (Aug. 5, 2019), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Text messages between F. Inmon and S. Howell (Aug. 5, 2019), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Text messages of K. Farguson (Aug. 6, 2019), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Text message from P. Glass to K. Farguson (Aug. 7, 2019), # 5 Exhibit 5 − Email from J. Kennard to K. Farguson, re all equip at LeBlanc needs to be replaced (Aug. 9, 2019), # 6 Exhibit 6 − Letter from J. Edwards (Aug. 12, 2019), # 7 Exhibit 7 − Email from B. Burleyson to K. Farguson, with Aug. 7 message that AC at LeBlanc broken (Sep. 9, 2019), # 8 Exhibit 8 − Excerpts from Sept. 10, 2019 Hearing Transcript, # 9 Exhibit 9 − Email with redacted LeBlanc Timeline (Sep. 11, 2019), # 10 Exhibit 10 − Excerpts from Hearing Transcript (Nov. 6, 2019), # 11 Exhibit 11 − First Requests for Production (Dec. 20, 2019), # 12 Exhibit 12 − Interrogatories (Dec. 31, 2019), # 13 Exhibit 13 − Second Requests for Production (Dec. 31, 2019), # 14 Exhibit 14 − Requests for Admission (Dec. 31, 2019), # 15 Exhibit 15 − TDCJ's Responses to First Requests for Production (Feb. 3, 2020), # 16 Exhibit 16 − TDCJ's Responses to Second Requests for Production (Feb. 10, 2020), # 17 Exhibit 17 − TDCJ's Responses to Interrogatories (Feb. 10, 2020), # 18 Exhibit 18 − TDCJ's Responses to Requests for Admission (Feb. 10, 2020), # 19 Exhibit 19 − TDCJ's Verifications in Response to Interrogatories (Feb. 14, 2020), # 20 Exhibit 20 − TDCJ's Original Privilege Log (Feb. 14, 2020), # 21 Exhibit 21 − Plaintiffs' Reformatted Version of TDCJ's Feb. 14, 2020 Privilege Log, # 22 Exhibit 22 − TDCJ's First Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories (Feb. 24,

Case: 4:14-cv-01698 As of: 04/12/2020 11:08 AM CDT 130 of 130

2020), # 23 Exhibit 23 − TDCJ's Second Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories (Mar. 6, 2020), # 24 Exhibit 24 − Bryan Collier's Supplemental Verification to Responses to Interrogatories (Mar. 9, 2020), # 25 Exhibit 25 − Oscar Medoza's Supplemental Verification to Responses to Interrogatories (Mar. 9, 2020), # 26 Exhibit 26 − Email from TDCJ's Counsel (Feb. 21, 2020), # 27 Exhibit 28 − Letter from J. Edwards (Mar. 11, 2020).pdf, # 28 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/10/2020 1547 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Exhibit 27 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/10/2020

1548

SEALED EXHIBITS re: 1547 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Exhibit 27 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, 1546 MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Production and Interrogatories by Jackie Brannum, Michael Denton, Richard Elvin King, Fred Wallace, Marvin Ray Yates, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 27 − Offense and prehearing investigation report, Bates numbered 19034, for counsel eyes only) (Edwards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2020)