IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN P. ROOKS, JOHN PAUL

)

OWENS, KENNETH EARL WILLIAMS,

:

BYNUM PAUL TRIVETT, CYNTHIA A.

)

FAIR and TAMMY M. MIXON,

.

:

individually and on behalf of

)

all inmates in the Conecuh

:

County Jail in Evergreen, Alabama, )

Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

CASE NO. 92-0316-M

vs.

:

)

TOMMY HERRING, Commissioner of

:

the Alabama Department of

)

Corrections in his official

:

capacity; CONECUH COUNTY; FREDDIE )

STALLWORTH, JEROLD DEAN, LEONARD :

MILLENDER, HUGH BARROW, and FRANK )

PATE, in their official capacities :

as Conecuh County Commissioners; )

EDWIN L. BOOKER, individually and :

in his official capacity as

)

Sheriff of Conecuh County; and

:

LEROY FERRELL, individually and )

in his official capacity as Chief :

Deputy of Conecuh County,

)

•

Defendants.

)

Rooks & U.S. v. Herring JC-AL-007-003

CONSENT ORDER

I. DEFINITIONS:

For the purposes of this Consent Order, the following

definitions shall apply:

REFERRED TOJUDGE,
For Ruling oi Appropriate Action

DATE

n
1. "Plaintiffs" and "inmates" for purposes of injunctive and declaratory relief shall refer to the class of all persons who are now, have previously or in the future will be incarcerated at the Conecuh County Jail.
2. "Plaintiff-Intervenor" refers to the United States of America.
3. "Defendants" as it relates to declaratory and injunctive relief shall refer to Conecuh County; Conecuh County Commissioners Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, and Frank Pate; Sheriff Edwin L. Booker and Chief Deputy Leroy Ferrell, their agents, successors in office, employees and all persons in concert or participation with them.
4. "State Defendants" as it relates to declaratory and injunctive relief shall refer to the Alabama Department of Corrections and Tommy Herring as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections and his successors in office.
5. "Jail" shall refer to the Conecuh County Jail. 6. "Qualified Health Care Personnel" shall refer to nurses, physicians, dentists and other professional and technical workers licensed to engage in the various fields of medical care by the State of Alabama. 7. "Health Trained Staff Member" refers to deputies and/or other employees of Conecuh County who are not licensed to engage in medical care but who have received training in limited aspects of health care. A health staff member must receive training in
-2-

withdraw opposition to that Motion and to file a Joint Stipulation asking the Court to grant the Motion.
11. In an effort to resolve this action without further litigation, the parties have agreed to the matters set forth herein. Defendants contend they have made a concerted effort to operate the Jail in a lawful and humane manner. By entering this Order, Defendants do not admit liability or wrongdoing.
IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS: 12. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this action and the parties hereto. 13. This agreement may be modified only by court order. The
parties consent to the United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings related to this Order, including entering it as a final order.
V. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS: A. RENOVATION OF THE JAIL 14. Defendants shall replace the roof of the Jail which shall
comply with all applicable building codes. Defendants shall submit approved plans for State approval within 90 days from the entry of this Order. Construction shall be completed no later than one year from the date of entry of this order.
15. Defendants shall construct a shelter of reasonable size which may be located in the outdoor exercise yard. The shelter
-4-

22. The Conecuh County Attorney will investigate alternative sentencing and with the Conecuh County Commission will make a recommendation to the Conecuh County Judiciary.
23. Any time inmate population exceeds the number of bunks, inmates shall be given a cot and adequate cover and allowed to sleep in the dayroom. All such cots and covers shall be retrieved and stored off the floor between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm.
24. State Defendants shall remove state-ready inmates from the Jail within thirty (30) days following receipt of transcript.
25. Pre-trial detainees shall be provided with a list of their charge (s) and schedule for disposition of their case as such information is provided to defendants by the applicable court system. Inmates requesting information regarding computation of time served, remaining time to serve and fines owed shall be furnished such information as it is provided to defendants. The parties recognize that such information must be furnished defendants from the judicial system. Upon a request for information, defendants shall request said information and furnish the response promptly to the requesting inmate.
C. STAFFING AND TRAINING: 26. Each shift at the Jail shall have not less than two officers. The parties recognize that dispatcher duties shall be a
-6-

o
inmate rules and regulations, rights and responsibilities of inmates, fire and emergency procedures, and key controls. 29. Any present staff who has not already received forty (40) hours of orientation and training shall do so within a year. All future staff shall be required to complete forty (40) hours of orientation and training prior to job assignment including CPR and basic first aid. Each year thereafter, staff shall be required to complete forty (40) hours of in-service training per year.
D. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: 30. To the extent not already covered in the existing policies and procedures manual, the Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement and follow a policies and procedures manual which, at a minimum, covers each substantive area of this Order. This policy and procedures manual shall be submitted to the Conecuh County Commission for approval within thirty (3 0) days of the entry of this Order. This manual shall include policies and procedures for follow-up investigation and reports after any incidents or disturbances that threaten the safety and security of the inmates. Defendants shall include a procedure for ensuring that staff read and understand the manual and updating the manual annually, if needed. 31. An inmate handbook describing inmate procedures in the jail, including disciplinary procedures, shall be provided to all incoming inmates within twenty-four (24) hours after arrival at the
-8-

jail. The inmate handbook shall notify inmates of materials in the law library and shall provide information on bond release as set forth in Appendix "B" attached hereto. Inmates who are not able to read shall be told the substance of the policies and procedures as set out in said handbook.
E. FIRE SAFETY: 32. The Sheriff and his staff shall draft and the Commission shall approve policies and procedures which provide for inmate safety and comply with all applicable fire codes. The policies and procedures shall establish an institutional fire protection plan, describe fire prevention methods, identify location of fire fighting equipment, outline a plan for evacuations during fire emergencies and provide for training of staff in fire safety and emergency evacuation. The policies and procedures shall be approved by local or state fire officials qualified to perform fire inspections. 33. The fire protection plan shall include a provision for the regular monitoring and maintenance of fire control equipment and procedures to comply with state and local fire and safety codes. 34. No inmate shall be locked in any cell or living area secured with chains or padlocks. All doors shall be equipped with locks and emergency release mechanisms as required by the state fire marshall and maintained in working order. Keys shall be marked so they can be identified by touch only if necessary.
-9-

o
35. Defendants shall provide inmates with a durable, nonflammable container in which to store personal items the inmates are allowed to keep in their cells.
36. Defendants shall bring the jail into compliance with the Alabama Fire Code and obtain documentation from the Fire Marshal that the jail is in compliance.
F. HEATING, COOLING, VENTILATION AND LIGHTING: 37. The roof ventilation system shall be maintained in working order to provide adequate ventilation in the jail. Temperatures shall be maintained at a reasonable temperature twelve months a year. Fans will be furnished on request. Ventilation shall be maintained at least at ten (10) cubic feet of fresh outdoor air per minute per person. 38. All light fixtures in the cell areas shall be fluorescent lighting and said light fixtures shall be maintained in such a manner as to provide adequate lighting in the cell areas. Lighting shall be maintained at least at twenty (20) foot candles in living areas. Shower curtains shall be of white opaque materials and installed at 4-1/2 feet above the floor.
G. SANITATION, MAINTENANCE AND PEST CONTROL: 39. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, for effective sanitation, maintenance and pest control programs at the jail including procedures for ensuring compliance with all
-10-

o
applicable health, safety and sanitation laws and the requirements set out in this Order.
40. Hot and cold water in the showers and sinks shall be available to inmates for bathing and drinking. Hot water temperatures should be approximately 110 degrees fahrenheit and never exceed 120 degrees fahrenheit.
41. The jail's drinking water supply shall be certified by appropriate health officials to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
42. To provide effective sanitation, maintenance and pest control practices, staff shall conduct weekly inspections of the jail to be recorded in writing. One officer shall be assigned to conduct such inspections which shall include confirmation that all areas are clean and orderly, that lighting, heating, cooling and ventilation equipment function properly, and that all equipment and fixtures perform properly and the facilities are maintained in good repair. Any deficiencies shall be noted and steps taken to correct same.
43. All holes and other damage to walls, ceilings and floors and all broken or leaking plumbing throughout the jail have or shall be repaired and defendants shall take reasonable steps to maintain said items in working order.
44. Damage to the jail by inmates, including walls, ceilings, floors, plumbing, electrical appliances, etc. shall be dealt with in accordance with disciplinary procedures to be written and implemented by the Sheriff.
-11-

u
45. Defendants shall provide for regular licensed pest control services. Defendants shall clean, fumigate and paint the jail as needed but not less than twice a year. At least twice per year, all ventilation screens shall be thoroughly cleaned to permit maximum air flow.
46. Defendants shall include in the policies and procedure a written sanitation plan for all areas of the Jail. The sanitation plan shall require a cleaning schedule for the area, instructions for cleaning which indicate areas to be cleaned, instructions for acquisition of cleaning supplies and equipment and a review by a staff member of the areas cleaned to ensure thorough cleaning.
47. Inmates shall be provided with cleaning supplies including a brush for use on the toilet only, a brush for use on the shower and sink only, mop, bucket, clean hot water and detergent. Inmates shall be required to clean the entire cell and day room areas daily. Defendants shall at least once a month use commercial cleaning products to remove old stains and scale and shower film, and a bleach solution to eliminate bacteria in each cell area. If this cleaning is done by inmates, it shall only be done under direct staff supervision and inmates shall be supplied with appropriate protective clothing and gear.
48. Defendants shall furnish each inmate with a clean mattress and one mattress cover, one sheet, one blanket by 10:00 pm on the first day of the inmate's incarceration at the jail. A clean wash cloth, towel and clean sheet shall be furnished twice
-12-

o
per week. Mattresses, blankets and covers shall be cleaned and sanitized once a week, and if needed, repaired between users.
49. All eating and drinking utensils shall be gathered and thoroughly cleaned after every meal.
H. HYGIENE: 50. Defendants shall provide inmates with an adequate supply of soap, shampoo, toothbrush, toothpaste, toilet paper, combs, barbering and shaving equipment free of charge. Inmates may, if they wish, provide their own hygiene articles. Clean clothing exchange shall be available to all inmates at least twice a week. Inmates shall be allowed to have personal clothing laundered as necessary.
I. FOOD SERVICE: 51. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, for the Jail food service program that include at a minimum the requirements set out in this section. 52. All inmates and staff assigned to food services shall be examined by medical personnel to ensure they are free from diseases transmittable through food service. This examination shall be completed before assignment to food services and annually thereafter. 53. Food handlers shall wear clean clothing, gloves and hair nets or caps. Food handlers shall be free from open and infected
-13-

( I
not use the outdoor exercise area as storage space and shall keep the outdoor exercise area free of debris and trash.
59. Inmates in general population shall be provided access to a dayroom area outside their cells for at least twelve hours per day. Inmates shall be provided access to television cable service in the cell areas.
60. At their own expense, inmates may receive by mail direct from the publisher, and keep for a limited period of time, a reasonable number of periodicals and books, so long as such materials do not create a hazard.
61. Inmates shall be permitted to keep radios in the cell areas, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed for safety, security and discipline purposes. Such radios must be battery powered and must be equipped with ear plugs or headphones so as not to disturb other inmates.
K. RELIGIOUS SERVICES: 62. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, providing inmates with opportunities to participate in religious services at the jail and to speak with religious counselors, not at the defendants' expense.
L. MEDICAL CARE: 63. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, with the advice and approval of a licensed
-15-

o
physician, which shall be approved by the Commission, which provide for the delivery of health care services to inmates including medical, dental and mental health services. Written policies and procedures shall cover health intake screening, medical problems and emergency care. Inmates shall be advised in the Inmate Handbook on how to receive health care.
64. Health intake screening shall be performed by a qualified health care personnel or health trained staff member on all inmates upon arrival at the jail or as soon thereafter as the inmate is capable of responding to health screen questions. Additions or changes to the form shall be approved by a licensed physician. At least once per year a licensed physician shall review and update the health intake screening form. These findings are to be recorded on a health screening form approved by a licensed physician.
65. The health screening process shall include the following procedures:
a. Questioning inmate regarding current illnesses, conditions and health problems, including serious dental problems, mental health problems, tuberculosis, venereal disease and other infections and communicable diseases, medications taken and special health requirements, use of alcohol or drugs, including type of prescription drugs or over the counter drugs used, mode of use, amounts used, frequency used, date or time of last use, and history of problems that
-16-

u
have occurred after ceasing use; past and present treatment or hospitalization for mental disturbance or suicide;
b. Observation of behavior, including state of consciousness, mental status, appearance, conduct, tremors and sweating; body deformities and ease of movement; condition of skin including trauma markings, bruises, lesions, jaundice, rashes, infestations and needle marks or other indications of drug abuse; and
c. Disposition of inmate, such as immediate referral to appropriate health authority, placement in general population and later referral to the appropriate health authority or placement in general population. 66. Each completed health screening form shall be reviewed by qualified health care personnel on a bi-weekly basis or immediately if it appears from the health intake screening that there is a danger either to the inmate or to the Jail population. Any inmate who in the opinion of qualified health care personnel, after review of the health screening form, requires immediate examination or treatment shall receive such examination or treatment as directed by qualified health care personnel. 67. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, requiring that inmates who indicate or exhibit signs that they are suffering from serious mental illness, including suicidal tendencies, shall be referred to the proper mental health authority for treatment.
-17-

68. All jail officers shall be trained to conduct health intake screening. All jail officers shall receive training in the recognition and handling of the mentally ill, including recognition of signs and symptoms of chemical dependency and suicide.
69. Each inmate held in jail more than fourteen (14) days shall be given a physical examination by a person trained to conduct such exams, unless already provided.
70. Should health care be delivered in the jail, Defendants shall supply adequate space, equipment, supplies and materials, the adequacy of which shall be determined by qualified health care personnel. Space shall be provided where inmates can be examined and treated in private.
71. Sick call shall be conducted by a qualified health care provider at least two times per week. If health care personnel recommend that an inmate needs further medical treatment or review, defendants shall arrange for such treatment and shall transport the inmate to obtain such treatment. On non-sick call days any request for serious dental or medical treatment will be reviewed by a health care trained staff member and that member will review the request with a qualified health care provider.
72. Emergency care shall include arrangements for emergency evacuation of inmates from the jail, use of emergency medical vehicles, use of one or more designated hospital emergency departments, and security procedures for the immediate transfer of inmates when it is necessary. In the event of emergency room treatment, out-patient care or treatment in a doctor's office or
-18-

o
hospital, the deputy or jailer taking the inmate to the doctor or dentist shall request written instructions from the health care provider to be given to the jail's health care personnel and to be placed in the inmate's medical file.
73. Defendants shall provide dental care for serious dental problems. Such care or treatment shall not be limited to extractions.
74. A first aid kit approved by qualified health care personnel shall be available in the jail.
75. Inmate medications shall be subject on intake to verification that the contents of the medicines are as indicated on the label of the container by use of a Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) or other manual. Defendants must develop a system to store individual medications that includes a master log of all inmate medications. Defendants must develop a written procedure for medication delivery system that includes a medication administration record system that allows appropriate staff to document the dispersal and receipt of each dose of medication with the inmate's signature (with use of a refusal form when medications are refused).
76. Drugs shall be kept in a locked place. 77. Medications shall be distributed to inmates by staff members. Under no circumstances shall medication be distributed by other inmates or trustees. All medication distributed to inmates shall be taken in the presence of the staff member distributing the medication.
-19-

:. 5
78. A medical file for each inmate shall be retained and .shall include the health intake screening form, any physical or mental examination forms, medication records, sick call requests, out-patient medical visits, emergency room referrals, treatment and directions for any follow-up. Medical records shall be kept in a locked place.
79. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, which provide that all treatment prescribed or ordered by physicians or other qualified health care personnel, including follow-up examinations, are followed.
80. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, providing that non-law enforcement restraints, such as four-point restraints, shall be used only for medical and psychiatric purposes as ordered by a licensed physician. In all cases where such nonlaw enforcement restraints are used, the designated physician shall issue orders setting forth when, where, how long and in what manner restraints may be used. When used, such non-law enforcement restraints shall be loose enough to allow full blood flow.
81. In all cases of inmates confined to the Jail for more than fourteen (14) days, the Defendants shall administer PPD test for TB with results forwarded to qualified health care personnel designated by defendants. If the test is positive, the inmate shall be immediately scheduled for a chest x-ray, with appropriate
-20-

o
the status of inmates who have indicated, either verbally or through behavioral indicators, suicidal intentions.
88. Said policies and procedures shall provide that jail administrators shall be notified of suicides or attempted suicides. Additionally, notification shall be provided to known family members of such inmates and appropriate authorities.
89. Defendants shall include in the policies and procedures a requirement that an administrative review procedure take place if a suicide or suicide attempt does occur.
2. Intoxication: 90. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission and by qualified and licensed physician or other qualified person, outlining steps for dealing with inmates under the influence of alcohol or drugs or undergoing withdrawal. Inmates experiencing severe, life-threatening intoxication, overdose or withdrawal shall be transferred to an emergency care facility. 91. Any inmate who is thought to be a risk of injury to himself or others shall be placed in a segregation cell to minimize the risks of injury and shall be kept segregated from other inmates. 92. Intoxicated persons shall be checked every fifteen (15) minutes.
-22-

3. Assault: 93. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, for responding to any allegation of an assault of an inmate, including rape, and reviewing each incident to correct problems with practices, policies or procedures that contributed to the occurrence of the assault. 94. Policies and procedures on assaults and assaults involving rape shall include referral to a community facility for treatment and gathering of evidence. If these functions are performed in-house the policies and procedures shall include a requirement that a history be taken, a physician make an examination to document the extent of any physical injury and to determine if referral to a medical facility is indicated; with the victim's consent the examination shall also include the collection of evidence, prophylactic treatment of venereal disease to be offered to the victim; following the physical exam, crisis intervention counseling and follow-up care shall be offered the victim and the victim and assailant should be separated from each other in housing assignment.
N. SECURITY AND CONTROL: 95. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, for the security and control of the jail which shall include inmate classification, physical plant inspections and searches, inmate
-23-

counts, weapons and chemical agents control, contraband, keycontrol, tool and equipment control, cell equipment control, emergency procedure, and inmate programs and activities.
96. Said policies and procedures shall include procedures for responding to and documenting allegations of assaults or use of excessive force and reviewing each incident to correct problems with practices, policies or procedures that contributed to the occurrence of the assault.
97. Jail staff shall conduct inspections of the jail not less than every thirty (30) minutes and said inspections shall include direct visual inspection of every cell and day room area. To document adequate-and verifiable safety and security inspections, Defendants shall relocate the watchclocks in the catwalk area directly outside the eight man cells.
98. An audio system shall be provided to enable inmates in the cell areas to contact jail staff. At no time shall Jail staff disable the monitoring system or turn down the volume of the system so as to render the system ineffective.
99. No inmate shall be given authority over other inmates or institutional practices. No inmate shall carry keys.
100. The policy and procedures on inmate searches shall specify approved methods for use by officers to search inmates, inmates' quarters and other areas of the facility. Methods shall be designated for a frisk search (a search during which an inmate is not required to remove his clothing, a strip search (a search during which an inmate is required to remove his clothing), a body
-24-

cavity search (a visual, manual or instrument inspection of an inmate's anal cavity) , and a cell search (an inspection of a room) .
101. Searches shall be conducted in a manner which avoids unnecessary force, embarrassment or indignity to the inmates.
102. Body cavity searches shall be done only with reasonable cause and when authorized by the Chief Deputy, Sheriff or Sergeant. This search shall be conducted only by medically trained personnel or a health trained staff member.
103. Strip searches and body cavity searches shall be conducted in a private, sanitary location. When body cavity or strip searches are conducted by a person of gender different from the inmate, at least one deputy or medical personnel of the same gender as the inmate shall be present. Strip searches shall be conducted by officers of the same gender as the inmate being searched.
104. Body cavity searches shall be fully documented. X-rays or instrument intrusions shall be used for medical reasons only as authorized by qualified health care personnel.
105. Work release inmates, at a minimum, shall be frisk searched each time they return to the jail in a thorough and professional manner.
106. After cell searches, cells shall be left the way they were found. Inmate personal property shall be respected and not willfully discarded, broken or misplaced.
107. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission,
-25-

11
on the use of force and security equipment by Jail staff in the lawful performance of their duties. When any type of force is used, a written report, prepared by the officer who employed the force shall be completed before the end of that shift and include an accounting of events leading to the use of force, an accurate and precise description of the incident and reason for employing force, a description of the weapon if any and the manner used, a description of the injuries suffered if any and the treatment received, and a list of all participants and witnesses to the incident.
108. Where chemical agents are used or when an injury is alleged, inmates shall be examined by qualified health care personnel immediately. In no instance shall chemical agents be used on inmates who are behind locked doors and pose no immediate threat of bodily injury to officers, inmates or themselves.
109. Defendants shall implement a system which prohibits Jail staff, or anyone else, from bringing weapons, including service weapons, into any part of the Jail other than the main office area. Upon arrival with new prisoners, the jail will go on lock down status. The officers shall then proceed directly to the front office area to secure any weapons in a locked cabinet.
O. CLASSIFICATION: 110. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, implementing a classification policy which identifies and addresses
-26-

the risks and needs presented by inmates upon intake and during their incarceration. The classification policy shall include the use of an intake screening form for identifying potential threats or risks posed by a particular inmate. The classification policy shall include a provision for transferring inmates to other correctional facilities or a medical facility as needed to provide for the safety of the inmate or other inmates. Trustees shall not perform booking activities.
111. Priority shall be given to separating those inmates with violent charges or convictions, violent behavior or violent tendencies from the rest of the population.
112. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, for intake and booking procedure that includes a procedure for staff to search and process inmates before they are admitted into any portion of the general population area of the jail. Intake pat down searches shall be conducted in the jailer's office.
113. Juveniles shall not be housed at the jail. Persons under eighteen (18) years of age who are charged or convicted as adults, shall be separated from other inmates, when in the assessment of the Sheriff, their age exposes them to risk of harm.
P. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES: 114. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, which specify acts prohibited within the facility and penalties
-27-

that may be imposed for various degrees of violations. These rules shall be provided to all inmates upon admission.
115. Under no circumstances shall the Jail penalties include an increase in Jail time. However, nothing contained herein shall prevent the Defendants from pursuing charges through the judicial system against any inmate for violations of law committed while in the custody of the Conecuh County Sheriff's Department.
116. Proposed rules for disciplinary procedures shall be provided to all counsel who shall have ten days to file comments with defendants.
117. Disciplinary reports shall be prepared when rule violations occur. Disciplinary reports shall include but are not limited to specific rules violated, explanation of the event including names of people involved, what transpired, time and location of incident, witnesses, disposition of physical evidence, any immediate action taken and date and time of report and signature of person making report.
118. When alleged rule violation occurs an investigation shall begin within forty-eight (48) hours of the time the violation is reported.
119. Any pre-hearing detention shall be reviewed by the Sheriff, Chief Deputy or Sergeant within twenty-four (24) hours and every seven days thereafter. Inmates shall not be punished or segregated before a hearing except in a riot or situation where the life, health or property of an inmate or other person is endangered.
-28-

120. Inmates charged with rule violations shall be given a written copy of the alleged violation within twenty-four (24) hours of notice of the violation and a hearing shall be scheduled within seventy-two (72) hours after notice, excluding weekends and holidays.
121. Disciplinary hearings shall be conducted by the Sheriff, Chief Deputy or Sergeant. In no instance shall the hearing be conducted by the person complained of. Inmates shall be given an opportunity to make a statement and present documentary evidence and witnesses at the disciplinary hearing. Witnesses may be excluded from being physically present at the hearing if their presence severely jeopardizes the life or safety of themselves or other persons or the security of the jail. In such instances, the inmate shall be provided with the reason for such denial.
122. Upon request of an inmate, a staff member may be designated to assist the inmate with his representation at the hearing.
123. There shall be a written statement by the fact finder, including references to the evidence relied on, the reasons for punishment, the length of punishment, and the names of witnesses testifying both for the jail and for the accused. The decision shall be based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing. Such statements shall be filed in the folder of the accused. The hearing may be tape recorded.
124. Group punishment shall not be allowed.
-29-

o
125. The duration of segregation shall not exceed the length of time needed for legitimate classification reasons.
Q. INMATE COMMUNICATIONS, MAIL, VISITS, TELEPHONE: 126. Inmate policies -and procedures shall set forth information regarding inmate communications by mail, visits and telephone. The rules shall clearly set out those items which an inmate is allowed to send or receive through mail or visits. 127. Visitation with inmates shall be allowed two (2) days per week from 2:00 pm through 4:00 pm. (one of the two days should be on Saturday or Sunday). Special visits due to visitors traveling long distances may be requested and granted upon approval by the Sheriff, Chief Deputy or Sergeant. No more than two persons shall be allowed to visit with any one inmate at any given time. 128. In the discretion of the Sheriff, inmates who are not deemed to be a security risk may be allowed to visit with family in the day room area or outdoor exercise area. 129. Children under eighteen (18) shall be allowed to visit members of their immediate family upon special request. Arrangements for visitation shall be made and approved by the Sheriff, Chief Deputy or Sergeant. All children under eighteen (18) must be accompanied by an adult. 130. Visits by persons providing services such as clergy, physicians, mental health or drug counselors, probation officers, attorneys and legal assistants shall not count against general visitation opportunities. Visits by such persons shall be allowed
-30-

o
at any reasonable time except meal time between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for reasonable periods of time. In emergency cases or cases where there is an urgent need for the inmate to obtain such services, such people shall be allowed to visit at other times by arrangement with the Sheriff, Chief Deputy or Sergeant.
131. In order to maintain community ties, upon request, indigent inmates shall receive postage and stationery sufficient to send at least two (2) letters per week. All other inmates shall be provided the opportunity to purchase such supplies.
132. Mail addressed to an inmate who has been transferred or released shall be forwarded within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt to the address provided.
133. General correspondence and packages may be opened and inspected without reading the contents to prevent transmission of contraband. Inspection and distribution of general mail shall be by a staff member.
134. Where items received by an inmate are not allowed, the inmate shall be notified and said items will be returned to the sender, with postage to be paid by the sender or inmate. Any illegal items will be turned over to law enforcement authorities. When removal of an item from incoming mail is deemed necessary, a written record shall be made of such action and shall include the inmate's name, a description of the item, a description of the action taken, reason for such actions, the disposition of the item involved and the signature of the officer.
-31-

135. Inmates shall be provided reasonable and equitable access to a telephone on a daily basis both during and after business hours.
136. If an inmate receives an incoming call of an emergencynature, the name and number of the calling party will be taken and the inmate allowed to place a call pertaining to the emergency.
137. Defendants shall provide inmates access to a telephone that allows receipt of collect calls by rotary phones.
R. ACCESS TO COURTS: 138. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, allowing inmates access to courts by providing inmates with access to a law library, privileged communications with courts, attorneys or their representatives and public officials; appropriate legal supplies and services and protection from retaliation from exercising the foregoing rights. A copy of the Court calendar and Grand Jury Schedule will be kept in the law library. 139. An area where an inmate may discuss legal matters privately with his/her attorney shall be provided. Officers may visually observe such conversations but shall not listen to or record such conversations. 140. Outgoing mail to courts or attorneys shall be sent sealed. Incoming mail from courts or attorneys may be opened only in the presence of the inmate to whom they are addressed and then
-32-

o
only to search for contraband. Under no circumstances shall the contents be read or copied.
141. Defendants shall provide inmates access to uncensored telephone service for discussions with attorneys or legal staff.
142. Inmates shall be provided access to supplies and equipment to enable inmates to prepare legal documents including pens, papers, envelopes, stamps, carbon paper or access to a copying machine and notary services. Inmates shall be provided with sufficient supplies and equipment to satisfy court procedural requirements and to permit an inmate to retain a single copy of documents.
143. Inmates shall be given access to a law library Monday thru Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. The law library shall contain the materials listed in Appendix C.
144. Jail staff shall not interfere with or prohibit inmates giving another inmate legal advice or assisting with the preparation of legal documents. No inmate shall be permitted to ask for or receive payment for such assistance.
S. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: 145. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, implementing a grievance procedure by which inmates may seek formal review of a complaint. The grievance procedure shall include provisions requiring a written signed response within forty-eight (4 8) hours of complaint, one level of appeal, and a requirement
-33-

•I. > 1
that grievance forms be made available upon request; prohibition against retaliation for filing grievances; prohibition against staff questioning such requests for grievances; procedures for expediting emergency complaints; and procedures for allowing a direct grievance directed to the Sheriff where the inmate fears possible adverse affects if the nature of the complaint is otherwise known at the jail.
146. Grievances may relate to any aspect of this Order or any other alleged condition or abuse at the Jail, including complaints about jail staff. All inmates shall be advised of their right to file grievances. Grievance forms shall be obtainable from any jail staff member.
T. TRUSTEE SYSTEM: 147. The Sheriff and his staff shall write and implement policies and procedures, which shall be approved by the Commission, setting forth how inmates are chosen to be trustees. All inmates who wish to be considered for a trustee position shall be considered. The procedure for applying for trustee shall set forth in the inmate handbook.
U. NON-DISCRIMINATION: 148. Defendants will not discriminate against any inmate on the basis of gender, race, religion, age or handicap and all inmates shall be afforded equal opportunity to participate in programs and receive services.
-34-

f'5'3V-

»-\v:

VI. DAMAGES: 149. Defendants shall pay the following individual plaintiffs, Cynthia Fair, Tammy Mixon and Kevin Rooks, who are seeking monetary damages, the amount agreed to by counsel for defendants and plaintiffs within ten days of the entry of this order. Counsel for plaintiffs represents that said plaintiffs have authorized counsel to accept the agreed upon sum on behalf of said plaintiffs. Further, said plaintiffs will sign a general release dismissing and releasing all claims of those three individual plaintiffs against defendants in consideration for the agreed upon sum.

VII. COMPLIANCE: 150. Defendants shall implement of all provisions of this Order within ninety (90) days, except where otherwise noted. 151. Defendants shall make monthly reports on their efforts to comply with this Order for 120 days following entry of this order and quarterly thereafter until such time as all provisions have been implemented. 152. Should any provision of this Order fail to be implemented as set forth herein, defendants shall notify the Court immediately of the reason for same. 153. Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor shall monitor compliance. All counsel shall receive and have access to copies of all documents which relate to the implementation of this Order. All counsel shall have access to all records and recordings which relate to the implementation of this Order. Upon reasonable notice
-35-

o

to the Conecuh County Attorney, counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor and Plaintiffs shall have the right to conduct private inteirviews with inmates outside the presence of opposing counsel and Defendants and shall have access to all staff and facilities as necessary to address issues addressed by this Order. County attorney may be present at any meeting between counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor or counsel for plaintiffs and staff members. Plaintiff-Intervenor may use experts to assess changes made to the jail and practices and policies implemented to comply with the terms of this order and such experts shall have access to the jail upon reasonable notice to the Conecuh County Attorney. PlaintiffIntervenor shall "compensate its experts retained to monitor compliance with the Order, unless Defendants are held in contemptfor failure to abide by its terms.

VIII.

ATTORNEYS' FEES:

154. The parties agree that defendants shall pay counsel for

plaintiffs the sum set out in Appendix D in the manner described

therein which represents all costs, expenses and attorneys' fees

due counsel for plaintiffs.

IX. NOTICE: 155. Defendants shall explain the terms of this Order to its employe and their agents, employees, representatives and successors, including jail staff and Sheriff's deputies, in order that said persons may understand the requirements of this Order and the
-36-

> i j
necessity for compliance therewith. All jail staff members shall sign a statement indicating they have read and understand this Order and defendants shall retain a copy of said statement. Defendants shall require strict compliance with this Order by their employees and agents.
156. Defendants shall provide continuous notice of this Order's terms to all members of the Plaintiff class by posting this Order after the signing of this Order- for sixty (60) days in all living areas of the Jail. Continuous notice shall be provided thereafter by posting a summarized version in each cell and community area with a notation that a full copy will be made available upon request. In addition to the general posting of the Order, the inmate handbook described herein shall advise inmates of the fact that the Jail is being operated under the terms and conditions of an Order entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, and that upon request, any inmate will be afforded a copy of the complete Order.
This document may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, binding all parties to the agreement.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Souther^ Cenc^r for H u ^ n Rights 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 3 0303 404 688-1202
-37-

I •?
\ilLA,
Henry Brewster Stein & Brewster Post Office Box 1051 Mobile, AL 36633-1051 205 433-2002
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR: Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice
Mark Masling Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Post Office Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035 202 514-6252 Edward J. Vulevich, Jr. United States Attorney
Eugene/A. Seidel Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorneys Office 169 Dauphin Street, Suite 200 Mobile, AL 36602 205 441-5845
COUNSEL FOR ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
-38-

Helen JohneaiL Alford/ H. William Wasden Pierce, Carr & Alford, P.C. Post Office Box 16046 Mobile, AL 36616 205 344-5151
COUNSEL FOR ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS:

Andrew W . ' R e d d " >—~~ Ellen Leonard Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 50 North Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 3613 0 205 242-9400

is VC- It is hereby Ordered, this

day of

1994.

UNITED STATES MA'

U5.DISTBICTC0UBT SOU.DIST.ALA. HLEDTHISTHE j ) ,

# DAY

OF^£

.Ml i^-i^i'Z:

~~: r. .•>; i t B .•: 51

-39-

DEBORAri i . l/wi.N:, CLZZ-.

APPENDIX A

CONECUH COUNTY JAIL, THIRD FLOOR COUNTY COURTHOUSE EVERGREEN, ALABAMA
This Is not a scale drawing, but rather It Is Intended to give an approximate layout of the jail and the location of the cells.

Elevator D

Sheriff

Chief Deputy Sergeant

WN

WN

State Side

8

"Dayroom"

Man

WN

WN

FE

I. I

8

Women's

Man

Cell1

Kitchen BR

Front office

Pipe Chaie~

D Public entrance

Freezers w
Pipe Chase

8

8

Man

Man

R
County Side "Dayroom"

Jailer

WN
Metal Cover

WN
Metal Cover

WN
"t
Metal Cover

WN
Metal Cover

KEY

b

bunk

T

BR bathroom R

D door

S

FE fire exit

toilet

s

sink

refrigerator w wate fountain

shower

v//d washer/dryer

WN window

o
APPENDIX B
RELEASE ON BOND Your bond has been set before you are processed into the jail.
The amount of your bond was determined by either the arresting officer or a judge of the Court. YOUR BOND IS NOT SET BY NOR CAN IT BE CHANGED BY ANY OFFICER OF THIS JAIL. If any change is made in the amount of bond, it must be done by the Court.
There are several methods of being released on bond. One, is to obtain the services of a professional bondsman. The names and numbers of the various bondsman will be posted in each living area. Two, is that you get at least two property owners who have property valued at least as much as the bond amount, and that the property in question is not the signers homestead. Three, is that you may post a cash bond. Remember, all bonds are subject to approval by the Sheriff of Conecuh County.
If your bond was not set before you were brought to the jail we will contact the court and advise them of the situation. Usually the court will set a bond in no longer than three days.

APPENDIX C

BASIC HOLDINGS FOR ALABAMA JAIL LIBRARY

A. LEGAL RESEARCH, WRITING and REFERENCE MATERIALS

1. Law dictionary

10. Criminal law and procedure text-

2. Legal aid and legal defender

book

directory

11. Civil procedure textbook

3. Legal manual for prisoners 12. Constitutional law textbook,

4. Textbook on the law of

general

prisoners' rights

13. Constitutional law textbook on

5. Freedom of Information Act

prisoner rights

Guide

14. Evidence textbook

6. Legal writing manual

15. Criminal forms, federal and

7. Legal research manual

state

8. Appellate advocacy rr.anual

16. Civil forms, federal and state

9. Criminal Drocedure manual

17. Plea bargaining and guilty pleas

manual

B. FEDERAL MATERIALS

1. Either:

a. United States Code Annotated. West.

or

b. United States Code Service• Lawyers Co-op.

2. One of the following: a. United States Reports. U.S. Government Printing Office. b. Supreme Court Reporter. West. C. United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers Edition. Lawyers Co-op.

3. Federal Reporter. 2d and 3d Series. West. 4. Federal Supplement. West. 5. Shepard's United States Citations. Shepard's/McGraw-Hill. 6. Shepard's Federal Citations. Shepard's/McGraw-Hill. 7. Rules of local federal district court
Vest's Federal Practice Digest. 4th. West.

C. STATE MATERIALS FOR ALABAMA
1. Code of Alabama. Michie. 1975. 2. Alabama Criminal Code. Michie. 3. Alabama Reports"! West. 4. Alabama Appellate Reports. West. 5. jVl»v.ama Reporter. West. 6. Alabama. Rules of Court. West. 7. Alabama Rules Annotated. Michie. 8. Alabama Digest. West. 9. Shepard's Alabama Citations. Shepard's/McGraw - Hill. 10. Alabama Criminal Trial Practice. Harrison Co. 11. Alabama Criminal Trial Practice Forms. Harrison Co.

APPENDIX D Defendants will pay to Nancy Ortega and Henry Brewster the total sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($140,000.00) DOLLARS as attorney fees and expenses, made payable to Southern Cednter for Human Rights, in connection with the representation of plaintiffs in this matter. Said sum is inclusive and represents all sums to be paid by defendants as attorney fees or reimbursement of expenses in connection with the representation of plaintiffs in this litigation. Said sum is to be paid as follows:
(1) Sixty Thousand and No/100 ($60,000.00) Dollars to be paid to Nancy Ortega and Henry Brewster upon the entry of this Consent Order;
(2) Four annual payments of TWENTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($20,000), plus interest, to be paid to Nancy Ortega and Henry Brewster, with the first payment being due and payable one year from the date of entry of the Consent Order in this matter and continuing thereafter until paid in full.
(3) The interest rate shall be set according to 28 U.S.C. §1961, as amended in 1982, which provides that the applicable interest rate shall be equal to the coupon issue yield equivalent (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury) of the average accepted auction price for
-2-

the last auction of fifty-two week United States Treasury bills settled immediately prior to the date of judgment. The rate shall be obtained from the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts who is required under 28 U.S.C. §1961 to distribute notice of that rate and any changes in it to all Federal judges.
-3-

 
 In the United States District Court For the Southern District of Alabama
Southern Division

Kevin P. Rooks, et al Plaintiffs

v.

Civil Action No. 92-0316-M

Thommy Herring* et al Defendants

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS Comes now the United States Department of Justice* Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division by and through counsel* the Honorable Andrew Barrick* Plaintiffs* Intervenors* for inspection and compliance* Honorable Frederick H. Stevens* Conecuh County Attorney* representing CONECUH COUNTY, FREDDIE STALLWORTH, JEROLD DEAN, LEONARD MILLENDER, HUGH BARROW, and FRANK PATE, in their official capacities as Conecuh County Commissioners! EDWIN L. BOOKER* individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Conecuh County, and LARRY FARRELL, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Deputy of Conecuh County, Defendants, Honorable Ellen Leonard, representing Alabama Department of Corrections, Thommy Herring* Commissioner, defendant, and Henry Brewst*r and Robert Toone representing plaintiffs KEVIN P. ROOKS* JOHN PAUL OWENS, KENNETH EARL WILLIAMS, CURTIS SEXTON, individually and on behalf of all inmates in the Conecuh County Jail in Evergreen* Alabama, praying of this Honorable Court an Order to Dismiss in captioned cause, and in support the following is offeredi The Conecuh County Jail was inspected on June £*, 1996, by th» United States Department of Justice representative who found the Jail in full compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree with four exceptions the completion of

£0

WWOD 00 Hn03N0D

98: SB T66I/E0/IG

which were in progress on the Cay of the inspection and
three of which have been completed since the inspection on
J u n e 6» 1996, and the fourth of which, training to the point
o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n * i» an ever ongoing factor d u e to jail
personnel turnover.
The four and Conecuh's progress ere:
1. F i n a n c e the training of those jail personnel who
are not c e r t i f i e d to the point of c e r t i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n the
next 6 months.
Due to turn over in jail personnel training is an ongoing factor to which Conecuh is dedicated and committed.
2 . Furnish two w a l k i e talkie body r a d i o s to be used by
the two jail employees on duty for safety communications.
The two walkie talkie radios were on hand in the jail on the day of the inspection but the employees were not using them. Sheriff hall has issued a stern order that they must be used.
3. Finance and install hard wire smoke alarm system
for automatic notice of excessive smoke to Evergreen Fire
Department.
This is part of the contract for a completely new telephone system for the jail the phone contractors were working in the jail on the day of the inspection. The Contract has since been completed. The hard wire warning system is in p l a c e .
U. F i n a n c e and install a seven day c r a n k i n g clock for
the emergency electrical generator.
This cranking clock has been purchased and is on hand as of June 13. 1996, and will be installed in a few days.
Conecuh County has filed with this Honorable Court its
FINAL COMPLIANCE REPORT showing its completion of the
provisions of the CONSENT ORDER as of June 13, 1996.

t>0 3DVd

WWOO QD H(103N0D

ZQQL3L9PZEI 98=20 I66I/E0/T0

Conecuh County has acted in good faith to comply with the provisions of the Consent Decree in captioned cause and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree. Therefore the jail now fully meets all constitutional requirements implicated by the terms of the settlement.
All parties in this case enter into this joint motion requesting this Honorable Court to dismiss this cause. Conecuh will fully perform its obligation to pay counsel for plaintiffs due costs, expenses* and attorneys' fees as set forth in paragraph IS'* and Appendix D of the Consent Order. The parties request that this Court retain jurisdiction to enforce this specific provision of the Consent Order.

The United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Conecuh County* Alabama, Alabama Department of Corrections and Plaintiffs and Class Members by and through above named counsel enter into this Joint Motion asking this Honorable Court to Dismiss this cause.

Edward J. Vulevich United States Attorney

Respectfully submitted,
Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General

Eugene A. Seidel Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of
Alabama

Andrew Barrick Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 50035

Frederick H. Stevens Conecuh County Attorney 9 Court Square North Evergreen, AL 3&<t01 STEVF 1883

SB

•WWOD 00 HDOBNOD

90:20 I66T/E0/T0

Offices of Conecuh County Courthouse
Conecuh County Evergreen, Alabama 36401
FAXTRANSMITTAL
Thcnt SmmbtsG34) 57MW5

M

l-

Tranamittal Cover Sh««t

c^-C^55H

Nomber of Pates (iadudint thix cover tbeet)

18

NWOO 0 3 HCD3N00

600i3i9t>£:£I 90:20 I66I/E0/T0

-4

WWOO 03 HIXGNCD 28

90:2B I66I/£0/Te

Rooks & U.S. v. Herring JC-AL-007-004

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN P. ROOKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. TOMMY HERRING, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION 92-0316-M
Rooks & U.S. v. Herring
IIIIIIIRIIIH JC-AL-007-005
ORDER

On July 11, 1996, counsel for all parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 187). In telephone conferences held on June 25 and 27, 1996 (Docs. 185 and 186) and in the Joint Motion to Dismiss, counsel state that all of the terms of the Consent Decree dated September 27, 1994 (Doc. 140) have been substantially complied with and request the Court to dismiss this action; however, the parties also request the Court to retain jurisdiction over the payment of attorneys' fees as set out in paragraph 154 (page 36) and Appendix D of the Consent Decree.
After consideration, the Court finds that Defendants have complied with all of the terms of the Consent Decree with the exception of the payment of attorneys' fees and GRANTS the Joint Motion to Dismiss. The Court retains jurisdiction solely for the

ft'

purpose of ensuring, if necessary, Defendants' compliance with paragraph 154 of the Consent Decree pertaining to the payment of attorneys' fees, the last payment of which is to be paid not later than September 27, 1998. The parties are ORDERED to notify the Court immediately as soon as the entire fee has been paid.
Except as herein set out, this action is DISMISSED. DONE this 24th day of July, 1996.
BERT W. MILLI1 UNITED STATES foJttJlSTRATE JUDGE

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAlSAj £!

SOUTHERN DIVISION

V -- i if

KEVIN P. ROOKS, et al.. Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
vs. TOMMY HERRING, et al..
Defendants.

Civil Action 92-0316-M
Rooks & U.S. v. Herring
• * ! • • • • • • • • H I ! » • • • »•••• W B I
JC-AL-007-006

On January 18, 1995, the Court heard from counsel for the parties on the proposed settlement of this action as set out in the Consent Order which was preliminarily approved on September 27, 1995 (Doc. 140) and on the objections which had been filed to the proposed settlement. After consideration of the Consent Order submitted by all parties, all objections to the Consent Order (Red File Folder; Doc. 154), the parties' responses to those objections (Docs. 151-153, 155, 158), all other relevant pleadings, and oral arguments presented at the hearing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Consent Order is approved.
This action was brought by inmates at the Conecuh County Jail ("Jail") in Evergreen, Alabama, alleging that the conditions at the Jail were unconstitutional. It was certified by the Court as a class action (Doc. 82) and, subsequently, the United States intervened pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997, et seg. (Docs. 109, 110, 1 3 4 ) .

The inmate Plaintiffs sought damages and all Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class members, sought injunctive relief against Conecuh County officials to redress the allegedly unconstitutional conditions.
After extensive discovery and several settlement conferences conducted by the undersigned Judge, the parties reported to the Court that a settlement agreement had been consented to by all parties (Doc. 131). At the request and with the consent of the parties, this ..action was referred to the undersigned Judge for all further proceedings and entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(c) (Doc. 139) and, on September 27, 1994, the proposed Consent Order setting forth the settlement agreement was preliminarily approved (Doc. 140). By agreement of the parties and with the approval of the Court, the class was expanded to include all inmates who have been, are currently, or will be incarcerated in the Conecuh County Jail.
A procedure for providing notice to all necessary persons and for giving those persons the opportunity to comment on or object to the proposed settlement agreement was approved and ordered implemented (Docs. 144-147), and objections and/or
i
comments to the Consent Order were received from the following persons: Tommy Chapman, Conecuh County District Attorney; Ranee English, Repton city councilman; John Perdue, Jr., an inmate currently confined in the Jail on'his own behalf and on behalf of five other inmates; and Levon McCreary (Red File Folder; Doc. 154).
- 2 -'
Tirr

The Consent Order settles the two different complaints filed in this action, namely, a class action complaint also containing individual claims, and a complaint by the United States. Somewhat different standards govern approval of class action and non-class action settlements. To approve a non-class action settlement the court must conclude that the parties have validly consented; that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable; that the settlement agreement will not violate the Constitution, any statute or public policy; that it is consistent with Congressional objectives; and that it will not be unreasonable or legally impermissible to third parties. United States v. City of Miami, 614 F.2d 1322 (5th Cir. 1980), rehearing granted, aff'd in part and rev, in part. 664 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1981) (affirming settlement of civil rights employment discrimination suit). See also In Re Smith. 926 F.2d 1027 (11th Cir. 1991) (mandamus writ granted directing district court to enter settlement agreement under Education of the Handicapped Act, since settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable, and was not product of collusion between parties); Durrett v. Housing Authority of Providence, 896 F.2d 600, 604 (1st Cir. 1990) (reversing district court refusal to approve consent decree settling civil rights fair housing action, court found parties validly consented to agreement, reasonable notice was given to possible objectors, agreement was fair, adequate and reasonable, and not illegal or unconstitutional).
- 3-
TT

Court approval of class action settlement agreements is conditioned on a finding that the agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and not a product of fraud or collusion between the parties. Piambino v. Baileyf 757 F.2d 1112, 1139 (11th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 476 U.S. 1169 (1986); Bennett v. Behring Corp.. 737 F.2d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1984).
The Court finds that the settlement agreement set out in the Consent Order satisfies all of the requisite standards. All parties "have validly consented to th<2 agreement.. Notice of the terms of the agreement was published appropriately, and did generate several comments upon or objections to the agreement, which for the reasons set forth below are overruled. The agreement does not violate the Constitution, any statutes, or public policy. In fact, the agreement is drafted to secure the Constitutional rights of inmates of the Jail. The agreement is consistent with Congressional objectives as expressed in the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997, et seer., which incorporates a Congressional preference for settlement of actions such as this. The agreement does not unreasonably or illegally affect any third persons. The agreement is not the product of fraud or collusion; it is a resolution forged by experienced and qualified counsel after vigorous and seriously contested litigation.
The Court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable. The agreement addresses conditions of confinement relating to all substantial constitutional concerns,
- 4-

including conditions in the following areas: physical structure, population and classification, staffing, staff training, policies and procedures, fire safety, living environment, food, exercise, medical care, security and control, suicide and intoxication management, access to the courts, grievance and discipline procedures, and mail and visitation rights. The Court has reviewed the settlement agreement and is satisfied that it is fair, adequate and reasonable.
The Court overrules the objections to the.settlement agreement for the following reasons. The objections of John Perdue Jr., for himself and five other Jail inmates, relate to conditions of confinement which are addressed by the proposed settlement agreement. The Consent Order will provide a sufficient mechanism for redressing these inmates' concerns. Mr. Levon McCreary filed a comment upon, but not an objection to, the agreement. Mr. Tommy Chapman, Conecuh County District Attorney, lacks standing to object to the agreement because he has no legally cognizable interest in the litigation or in conditions of confinement in the Jail. See Newman v. Graddick. 740 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1984) (consent decree approved over objection of Alabama Attorney General); Harris v. Reeves, 94 6 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1991), cert, denied. 112 S.Ct. 1516 (1992) (consent decree approved over objection of Philadelphia District Attorney); Harris v. Pernsely, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 947 (1987) (denying District Attorney's motion to intervene in jail litigation). Moreover, for the reasons
- 5-

stated by the parties in response to the District Attorney's objections, those objections are legally and factually unpersuasive. Mr. Ranee English, a Repton city councilman, lacks standing to object to the agreement, for the same reasons Mr. Chapman lacks standing. Moreover, his objections lack sufficient specificity to be entertained by the Court.
As stated by the Court at the hearing on January 18, 1995, and in its earlier ruling of October 6, 1994 (Doc. 143), the Consent Order became effective when >it was preliminarily approved and signed by the Court on September 27, 1994. Therefore, Defendants' obligations under the settlement agreement, except those concerning the required status reports as more fully set out below, run from that date.
Finally, as required by paragraph 151 of the Consent Order, Defendants must submit to the Court and to all parties four monthly status reports and quarterly reports thereafter. The four monthly reports shall be due.on February 15, 1995, and on the 15th day of the next three months, and the first quarterly report shall be due on August 15, 1995. The report shall contain sufficient information to allow the Court and the parties to understand and evaluate Defendants7 progress in implementing all aspects of the Consent Order.
An oral status report was given by Ms. Alford at the hearing indicating that the installation of the new roof was almost complete and that a rough draft of the required written procedures was complete and would be submitted to Mr. Masling for
-6-

review and comment. Ms. Alford will also contact Mr. Stevens, Conecuh County Attorney, about filing a formal appearance in this action so that he can coordinate and submit the required status reports for the Defendants.
DONE this 24th day of January, 1995.
BERT W. MILLING, UNITED STATES MAfe*^TI?ATE JUDGE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOU. DIST. ALA. FILED THIS THE

*

DEBORAHS^HUNT, CLERK

BY

&^

DEPUTY CLERK

- 7 -

 
 Rooks v. Thigpen
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division December 10, 1993, Decided ; December 10, 1993, Filed CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-0316-AH-M

Reporter: 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17683

KEVIN P. ROOKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MORRIS THIGPEN, Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a member of the

et al., Defendants.

class, be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Prior History: [*1] Adopting Magistrate's Document of DONE this 10th day of Dec., 1993.

November 10, 1993, Reported at: 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

17794.

Richard W. Vollmer, Jr.

Judges: Vollmer, Jr.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Opinion by: RICHARD W. VOLLMER, JR.

JUDGMENT

Opinion
ORDER
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that defendants Conecuh County, Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, and Leroy Ferrell's Motion For Sanctions (Doc. 89) be and is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff Curtis

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants Conecuh County, Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, and Leroy Ferrell's Motion For Sanctions (Doc. 89) be and is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff Curtis Sexton's claims, [*2] as an individual and as a member of the class, be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No costs are to be taxed.
DONE this 10th day of Dec., 1993.
Richard W. Vollmer, Jr.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Rooks & U.S. v. Herring

JC-AL-007-001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN P. ROOKS, JOHN PAUL OWENS, )

KENNETH EARL WILLIAMS, CURTIS

)

SEXTON, individually and on

)

behalf of all inmates in the

)

Conecuh County Jail in

)

Evergreen, Alabama,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

) Civil Action No. Q Q -Qi3) (,&H~,

MORRIS THIGPEN, Commissioner

)

of the Alabama Department of

)

Corrections in his official

)

capacity; CONECUH COUNTY;

)

FREDDIE STALLWORTH, JEROLD DEAN, )

LEONARD MILLENDER, HUGH BARROW, )

and FRANK PATE, in their official )

capacities as Conecuh County

)

Commissioners; EDWIN L. BOOKER, )

individually and in his official )

capacity as Sheriff of Conecuh

)

County; and LARRY FARRELL,

)

individually and in his official )

capacity as Chief Deputy of

)

Conecuh County,

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of all inmates who have been, are now or in the future will be imprisoned in the Conecuh County Jail in Evergreen, Alabama (hereinafter "Jail"). Plaintiffs challenge the inhumane conditions of confinement and treatment that they suffer at the Jail as a result of a total lack of exercise, fresh air, or

5. The Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief by 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202.
III. VENUE
6. The Southern District of Alabama is an appropriate venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(l)/ because defendants Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker and Larry Farrell in their official capacity reside in this district. See also 28 U.S.C. Section 1392(a). It is also an appropriate venue because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claimCs] occurred" in this district. 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).
IV. PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Kevin P. Rooks was housed in the Jail for two (2) months from the first week of February, 1992 to the first week of April 1992 while serving a ninety (90) day sentence. Rooks was housed on both the "County side" and the "State side" of the Jail.
8. Plaintiff John Paul Owens began serving a one (1) year sentence at the Jail on August 28, 1991 living in both eight-man cells on the "County side" at different times.
9. Plaintiff Kenneth Earl Williams has been at the Jail since October 24, 1991 on a disorderly conduct charge waiting for the Grand Jury to meet in June, 1992. Williams is housed on the

15. Defendants Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow and Frank Pate are sued in their official capacities as members of the Conecuh County Commission. The Commission exercises authority over the sheriff and the Jail, and is obligated under Alabama law to properly maintain and fund the Jail. See Alabama Code Sections 11-12-14, 11-12-15(a)(1), 11-149, 11-14-10, 11-14-20, 11-14-22, 11-16-28, 14-6-20, 14-6-41(b), 14-6-81, 14-6-92, and 14-6-93, 14-6-96, 14-6-105 (1975).
16. Defendant Edwin L. Booker is sued individually and in his official capacity as sheriff of Conecuh County, Alabama. As sheriff, Booker oversees the general operation of the Jail. He is also charged by Alabama law with the duty of properly maintaining the Jail and caring for its prisoners. See Alabama Code Sections 11-41-21, 11-16-29, 14-6-1, 14-6-17, 14-6-19, 14-640, 14-6-94, 14-6-95, 14-6-96, 14-6-97, 14-6-105 (1975).
17. Defendant Larry Farrell is sued individually and in his official capacity as Chief Deputy and head jailer of the Conecuh County Jail. As head jailer, Farrell directly supervises and controls the Jail. He is also charged by Alabama law with the duty of properly maintaining the Jail and caring for its prisoners. See Alabama Code Sections 14-6-8, 14-6-19, 14-6-21, 14-6-40, (1975).
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
18. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons who have been, now are or in the future

23. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
24. The Jail is located on the upper floor of the county courthouse in Evergreen, Alabama.
2 25. The Jail consists of four eight-persons cells, two on the "State side" and two on the "County side;" one four-person cell in which women are confined; a "Lock-up" cell for four men and a trustee cell for four men. One side of the Jail is the "State side" for inmates from or on the way to State prison. The other side is the "County side" for inmates awaiting trial or serving sentences confined to the County Jail. Each "side" consists of two eight-man cells and a day room. A cell is approximately thirteen feet (13") by nine feet (9'). 26. The Jail was constructed in 1956 to house approximately forty-five (45) inmates; however, the number of inmates which the Jail can confine safely and humanely in accordance with constitutional standards is substantially less that its 1956 design capacity. 27. The Jail is used to house both men and women. The Jail
2 Attached is a floor plan of the Jail, taken in part from
an Alabama Fire Marshal inspection report. The diagram is not drawn to scale but is an approximation of the Jail layout and allocation of space in the Jail. See (Complaint, Attachment 1 ) .

sheriff and County Commission to improve the conditions of confinement for county inmates who have legally and rightfully been placed under the control of these defendants. State prisoners also occupy already-overcrowded bed space and living space, which could otherwise be allocated to county prisoners who are properly incarcerated in the Jail. Finally, confinement of State prison inmates at the Jail, particularly for long periods of time, makes it difficult to properly classify and segregate such inmates according to the seriousness of their charge, security risk or their needs.
31. The Jail houses inmates with special needs, including inmates who are physically or mentally ill, suicidal, intoxicated, and chemically dependent. There is no medical cell nor any cell available for use as a medical cell. There is no cell designed to be resistent to inmates who are at risk of harming themselves. To the contrary, all the cells provide ample means by which a suicidal inmate could injure or kill himself or others. There is no policy or training for suicide-risk identification, observation or management despite at least one known suicide attempt.
32. Persons detained or incarcerated at the Jail spend anywhere from several hours to over a year confined at the Jail. A substantial number of the Jail's present inmates have been incarcerated at the Jail for periods greater than six months. A significant number of prisoners are transferred between the Evergreen County Jail and the other jails or are released from

impossible, and causing inmates who try to read or write to suffer headaches and severe eyestrain. The light from the ceiling does not reach inmates in the bottom bunk leaving them virtually in the dark.
44. Inmates and others in the Jail confront a variety of grave fire hazards. In the event of a serious fire, it is likely that many of the prisoners would lose their lives. The electrical system in the Jail is in disrepair and threatens the safety of inmates. There are hanging, exposed wires throughout the Jail. Water drips from electrical wiring in at least one cell. Plastic bags and boxes are used to store inmates' belongings and cell floors and walls are covered with flammable materials because of a lack of storage space. Water leaks through the Jail roof when it rains and the holes in the plumbing leak water on the Jail floor.
45. There are no policies or procedures for a fire or other emergencies. There is only one jailer on duty in the Jail from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. There is no two-way communication system or other effective means by which inmates can notify the staff of a fire. Neither Jail staff nor prisoners or trustees have been instructed on procedures to follow in the event of a fire. Because each cell door must be individually unlocked by hand, the lone jailer would not have time to safely evacuate the prisoners if a fire occurred. The lock-up cell is also secured by a chain and padlock. The cell doors are too narrow and swing in a direction against exit, hazards that wou-ld further obstruct an
13

operates in the winter runs constantly, the temperature cannot be controlled. Each inmate is given only one thin, often dirty, blanket. Jail officials refuse to allow inmates extra blankets in the cold weather. Innates have suffered extreme discomfort and adverse health effects from such exposure. Several inmates have caught colds and the flu, which is quickly spread to other prisoners in the overcrowded Jail.
48. The Jail has been infested and inmates have suffered from an outbreak of crabs and bites from other pests.
49. Plumbing in the Jail is sparse, unsanitary, and in terrible disrepair. Each side contains only one shower, which must be shared by as many as sixteen (16) or more inmates. The toilet in the County side day room has a hole that leaks water onto the floor. The one attempt to repair the leak was unsuccessful. The showers are painted metal. The paint has nearly worn away exposing rusty walls and floors. The poor conditions of the showers has been noted since at least 1990 by the DOC inspector as needing attention.
50. The cell toilet sits inches away from and at the same level as the bottom bunks, an arrangement which is unsanitary and allows inmates no privacy. Because of the cells' cramped arrangements, prisoners in the beds farthest from the cell doors have the choice of sleeping with their faces inches away from either the toilet on one side, or a fellow inmate's feet on the other. Persons in these beds are sometimes awakened by the sound and stench of another prisoner defecating right beside them.
15

request to remove the weapon and inmate. 60. Inmates at the jail are endangered on a daily basis as
a result of the delegation of many jailer functions to inmatetrustees .
61. Jailers rely heavily on trustees to deliver food and medication to inmates, to respond to prisoners' calls for assistance, to process other inmates on intake and to perform various other tasks that require entrance into the cell areas and allow the inmate-trustees authority over other inmates.
62. No criteria, policy or procedure exists for selecting inmates for trustee status; rather, Jail officials select trustees at whim. Both pretrial and sentenced inmates have been trustees. Both violent and non-violent offenders have been trustees. The only limitation on trustee status is that inmates who are female are excluded from trustee status. Defendants deny females trustee status solely on the basis of their gender. Trustees receive greater privileges than other inmates, including contact visits, more living space, and freedom to move about the Jail or Courthouse or surrounding area.
63. The safety and security of inmates at the Jail are endangered on a daily basis as a result of the absence of any system for classifying inmates or proper facilities for separating and housing inmates.
64. The defendants do not classify inmates admitted to the Jail. Thus, they neither identify any special needs the inmates have, nor identify or separate prisoners who pose a risk, to
19

methods by which inmates may attempt suicide, including: a variety of fixtures from which an inmate can hang himself with ropes made from a ready supply of items; electrical wiring and water by which they can electrocute themselves; and high areas from which they can throw themselves to the cement floor. Failure of staff or designated trustees to watch and make sure that inmates take prescribed medication also allows inmates to stockpile medication which can be used for overdoses. A whole variety of homemade weapons floating around the Jail also provide a convenient means for suicidal inmates to inflict harm on themselves.
67. The Jail has no area for booking incoming inmates. Inmates are processed in the main hall. No room is available for strip searches or body-cavity searches. The latest inspection by the DOC reveals that the locking mechanisms at the Jail are still on the decline, even though this same deficiency was noted in March of 1991 and October of 1990.
68. Prisoners entering the Jail are not subjected to adequate health screening. No policy or procedure exists for assessing the special health needs and problems of newly admitted inmates. The Jail staff are not trained to assess these needs or problems. Prisoners with staph infections, lice, crabs, and other communicable diseases have been housed in the general population. Mentally ill inmates have been housed in the general population. Prisoners undergoing withdrawal from addictive chemical substances are housed in the general population. Jail
21

plaintiffs of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION
79. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all of the above factual allegations to support the following claims.
Count I 80. The conditions of confinement at the Jail and defendants' deliberate indifference to those conditions and their policies and practices in administering and overseeing the Jail, considered both discretely and in their totality, constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Count II
81. The conditions of confinement at the Jail and defendants' deliberate indifference to those conditions and defendants' policies and practices in administering and overseeing the Jail, considered both discretely and in their totality, constitute a denial of due process in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
25

Count VI
85. Defendants' practice of punishing inmates at the Jail for disciplinary infractions without providing them notice of the charges, a hearing, or other procedural protections, violates plaintiffs' rights to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Count VII
86. Defendants' refusal to protect inmates from assault and otherwise keep them physically safe and secure violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth Amendment and the due process under the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Count VIII
87. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the inmates' serious medical needs violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Count IX
88. DOC defendants have refused to "require that the building and grounds" of the Jail "be kept in the best sanitary condition," in violation of plaintiffs' rights under Alabama Code
27

violation of Alabama Code Section 14-6-93 (1975).
Count XIV
94. Defendants have refused to keep the Jail "in a clean and sanitary condition" and to "exercise every precaution to prevent the spread of disease among the inmates," in violation of Alabama Code Section 14-6-95 (1975).
Count XV
95. Defendants have refused to "see that the food for the inmates of the [J]ail ... is nutritious, clean, wholesome, and of sufficient quantity and variety" or "to have all kitchens where food is prepared for the inmates adequately screen against flies," in violation of Alabama Code Section 14-6-97 (1975).
Count XVI
96. Defendants have refused to ensure that the Jail is "fire-proof, properly ventilated, sufficiently lighted by day and night, adequately heated and containCsl adequate sanitary plumbing and sewerage connections," in violation of Alabama Code Section 14-6-103 (1975).
Count XVII
97. Defendant has refused to require the Conecuh County Commission to correct deficiencies in the Jail's drinking water, food, clothing, bedding, ventilation, air space, heating and
29

CONECUH COUNTY JAIL/THIRD FLOOR COUNTY COURTHOUSE EVERGREEN, ALABAMA

Sheriff Warden
Front office D
I
D public entrance
KEY b bunk BR bathroom D door FE fire exit T toilet s sink S shower w/d washer/dryer WN window

WN D

WN

WN

WN

-D-

-D-

State Side

8

11 Day room"

Man

8 Man
4 Man

Freezers

T/s

T/s

8

County Side

Man

Man

"Dayroom"

-D-

-D-

D

D

_JU

T—r

Metal Cover

Metal Metal Metal Cover Cover Cover

FE
Kitchen D
BR D
D Jailer w/d

4 Man 4 Man Lock-up Trusty

D-

D-

D JL_

A'x .JI1MENT 1

IN THE UNITED STATES0DISTRICT COURT » FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION .... . ,

KEVIN P. ROOKS, et al. , and on

')

behalf of all inmates in the

)

Conecuh County Jail in Evergreen, )

Alabama,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

)

MORRIS THIGPEN, Commissioner of )

the Alabama Department of

)

Corrections et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 92-0316-BH-M

MOTION TO AMEND
Plaintiffs move to amend their complaint by adding the named
plaintiffs: Tammy M. Mixon and Cynthia A. Fair, as more fully
stated in the attached amended complaint, saying:
The addition of the named plaintiffs will not delay the
action inasmuch as the action was just filed and no discovery has
been promulgated.
The addition of these plaintiffs will assist in the repre-
sentation of the putative class in that they are better able to
represent claims for which the named plaintiff class representa-
tives may lack standing.
Respectfully submitted this ^ Q day of ^ \ VAAi(L 1992.
NANCY E. ORTEGA Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440

STEIN and BREWSTER 405 Van Antwerp Bldg. Post Office Box 1051 Mobile, AL 36633-1051 Telephone: (205) 433-2002 Facsimile Copier: (205) 432-7756

By= Henry Bre^/ster BREWH0147
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
30 I do hereby certify that on this 3 0 day of
1992 a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following coun-
sel of record:
Harry A. Lyles, Esq. Andrew W. Redd, Esq. Ellen Leonard, Esq. Alabama Dept. of Corrections Legal Division Gordon Persons Bldg. 50 North Ripley St. Montgomery, AL 36130
Helen Alford, Esq. Pierce, Carr & Alford Post Office Box 16046 Mobile, AL 36616
Paul M. Harden, Esq. Harden & Bishop 417 Rural Street Evergreen, AL 36401
by depositing same in the United States Mailk postage prepaid.

92240007.MOT

Attorned for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ''COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

-

KEVIN P. ROOKS, JOHN PAUL OWENS, )

KENNETH EARL WILLIAMS, CURTIS

)

SEXTON, TAMMY M. MIXON and

)

CYNTHIA A. FAIR, individually

)

and on behalf- of all inmates in )

the Conecuh County Jail in

)

Evergreen, Alabama,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MORRIS THIGPEN, Commissioner

)

of the Alabama Department of

)

Corrections in his official

)

capacity; CONECUH COUNTY;

)

FREDDIE STALLWORTH, JEROLD DEAN, )

LEONARD MILLENDER, HUGH BARROW, )

and FRANK PATE, in their official )

capacities as Conecuh County

)

Commissioners; EDWIN L. BOOKER, )

individually and in his official )

capacity as Sheriff of Conecuh

)

County; and LARRY FARRELL,

)

individually and in his official )

capacity as Chief Deputy of

)

Conecuh County,

)

)

Defendants.

)

•
Civil Action No. 91-0316-BH-M

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs amend their complaint by adding the following claims and plaintiffs.

IV. Parties

10.a Tammy M. Mixon was housed in the jail from June 20, 1991 through July 2, 1991 on a bad check charge and from October 10 through October 30, 1991, on a contempt of child custody

order. At all relevant times she was pregnant. She was housed in the four-bunk women's cell.
10.b Cynthia A. Fair was housed in the jail for approximatley two weeks at the end of 1990, for approximately two weeks in July of 1991, from October 24, 1991 to January 31, 1992, and from June 23-28, 1992. She was housed in the four-bunk women's cell. Her incarceration is capable of repetition.
VI. Factual Allegations
78.a During their incarceration plaintiffs Tammy M. Mixon and Cynthia A. Fair were not allowed out of their cell at any time, and, therefore, were unable to exercise or breathe fresh air. They were denied the right to be a trustee solely on the basis of their gender. On many occasions a jailer and trustees, with knowledge of the defendants, spied on Mixon, Fair and the other females through holes in the cell wall, holes into their shower stall, and holes into the commode. Trustees and male inmates, with the knowledge of the defendants, exposed themselves to the plaintiffs and other female inmates and made numerous sexual and obscene remarks and innuendos. Mixon, Fair and the other female inmates also suffered from all the other conditions of the jail alleged above, including denial of necessary toiletries, medical care, sanitary and healthful food and lack of segregation of inmates based upon communicable diseases and violent behavior.

defendants
@a:
constitute outrageous conduct and Tammy M. Mixon and Cynthia A.
Fair have been caused to suffer-humiliation, mental suffering,
and physical suffering on account of the defendants' outrageous
conduct and constitutional violations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

8. Award Tamrny M. Mixon and Cynthia A. Fair such actual

and punitive damages arising out of defendants' outrageous conduct and constitutional violations.

3 0 -L- Respectfully submitted this

day of

, 1992.

STEIN and BREWSTER 405 Van Antwerp Bldg. Post Office Box 1051 Mobile, AL 36633-1051 ~elephone: ( 205) 433-2002 Facsimile Copier: (205) 432-7756

By : Henry Brebster
Nancy E. Ortega SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2122 Telephone: (404! 688-1202 Facsimile Copier: (404) 688-9440
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICA!I.'E OF SERVICE

J
I do hereby certify that on this

day of

1992 a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following coun-

sel o f record:

Harry A. Lylas, Esq.
Andrew W. Redd, Esq.
Ellen Leonard, Esq. Alabama Dept. of Corrections
Legal Division Gordon Persons Bldg.
5 0 North Ripley St.
Montgomery, AL 36130

Helen Alford, Esq.
Pierce, Carr & Alford Post Office Box 16046
~ o b i l e ,AL 36616

Paul M. Harden, Esq. Harden & Bishop 417 Rural Street Evergreen, AL 36401

by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid.

92240008. AMD

 
 U.S. Departmen, ' Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Anomey General

Wishington. D.C. 20035

NOV 3 0 1993
Rooks & U.S. v. Herring

Conecuh county Commissioners

U H I 111111111111111 IIIII1111 111 III 1

Jackson Street, Courthouse Square Evergreen, Alabama 36401

JC-AL-007-002

Re: Notice of Intention to Intervene in Rooks v . Thicroen. C i v i l No. 92-0316-AH-M.

Dear Mr. Dean:

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1997 et seq., we are writing to advise you that the United States intends to intervene as a party plaintiff in Rooks v. Thicroen. Civil No. 92-0316-AH-M ("Rooks").

Based on our review of the facts of Rooks, we have reasonable cause to believe that the defendants in that matter are responsible for the deprivation of inmates' constitutional rights pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to those rights. Set forth below are (i) the alleged conditions which deprive inmates of their constitutional rights, (ii) the supporting facts giving rise to the alleged conditions, and (iii) the minimum measures we believe may remedy the alleged conditions.

We understand that the Conecuh County Jail confines both

pretrial detainees and post-conviction inmates. In general,

inmates may not be subjected to conditions that are incompatible

with evolving standards of decency or deprived of their basic

human needs while incarcerated. See Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S.

97 (1976). With respect to the pretrial detainees, the

Fourteenth Amendment prohibits punishment of these persons and

restrictive conditions or practices that are not reasonably

related to the legitimate governmental objectives of safety,

order and security. Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520 (1979). For

those convicted of a crime, the standard to be applied is the

Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment. Wilson v. Seiter.

U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2321

(1991); Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337 (1981). When convicted

- 3-
training. The medication distribution system is inadequate. Medication is distributed by individuals who lack appropriate training. Proper procedures for keeping track of medications and
their distribution are virtually non-existent. There is
inadequate dental care.
The facility lacks adequate written policies and procedures with respect to medical care. Particularly dangerous is the absence of written policies for handling inmates admitted while intoxicated, and female inmates who are pregnant. The existing policy for disease control is inadequate. The jail fails to screen inmates for communicable diseases. There is no housing of inmates based on physical or mental illness, suicidal impulses, intoxication, or chemical dependency.
2. Mental health care. There are no written policies and procedures regarding provisions of mental health services to inmates. Additionally, there currently is no mental health professional available to examine inmates or for consultation to assist in inmate assessments and treatment.
3. Inadequate suicide prevention practices. The facility fails to provide adequate procedures for suicide prevention. Significantly, there is no written suicide prevention policy, and staff receive no training in the subject. Further, inmates at risk for suicide are not placed in an appropriate cell, i.e.. one that allows for adequate observation and possesses physical features that would hinder suicide. There are also features in other cells that present suicide risks, e.g.. overhanging metal rods.
III. Deficient Environmental Health and Safety.
1. General sanitation and personal hygiene. The facility is unsanitary. Numerous mattresses are torn, cracked and dirty. Toilets, showers and sinks are not adequately cleaned. Cells are dirty, and all surfaces are covered with accumulated dust, mildew, rust and peeling paint. The jail fails to provide inmates with materials to maintain personal hygiene, such as toothbrushes, toothpaste, razors, towels, clean sheets, sufficient feminine hygiene products, and materials with which to clean their cells.
2. Infestation. The jail is infested with insects and vermin.
3. Lighting. Lighting levels are inadequate. Each cell is lit by only one light bulb, making reading and writing extremely difficult. Inmates in the bottom bunks are almost in the dark. The low levels of light would result in significant eye strain if inmates tried to read.

- 4-
4. Ventilation. There is no source of fresh air and cells are unventilated.
5. Plumbing. Many toilets fail to function properly. Hot water is not always available for showers or washing.
6. Potable water. The jail lacks sufficient potable water for inmates to drink.
7. Fire safety. The jail fails to protect inmates from harm due to fires. There are combustible materials throughout the facility. The jail's electrical system is faulty, and subject to electrical shorts. There are no policies or procedures to address fires or other emergencies. There is no two-way communication system by which inmates can inform staff of a fire or other emergency. Because each cell must be unlocked by hand, there would be insufficient time to evacuate in an emergency. There are no manual fire alarms or emergency lights. There is only one exit from living areas of the jail.
8. Emergency preparedness. Numerous deficiencies exist with respect to emergency preparedness. There are no emergency evacuation plans posted in the housing units, and inmates are not instructed what to do in case of an emergency. Further, there is no fenced or secure discharge area for inmates, and at night there is at most only one guard on duty.
9. There are times — usually weekends — when the facility is so crowded that inmates must sleep on the floor.
IV. The Jail's Failure to Provide Adequate Exercise/Out-of-Cell Time.
The facility fails to provide inmates adequate exercise or out-of-cell time. Most inmates are essentially confined to their housing areas 24 hours a day. Some inmates are confined to their cells 24 hours a day. Exercise is necessary to maintain health and to reduce the potential for violence within the jail.
V. The Jail's Failure to Provide Adequate Access to Counsel.
Inmates have little or no access to a law library or legal materials.
MINIMUM REMEDIAL MEASURES
To rectify these deficiencies at the jail and to ensure that constitutional conditions are achieved, we believe that the following minimum remedial measures must be implemented:

- 5-
I. Security and Supervision.
1. Staffing and supervision. The jail must provide additional staff and/or monitoring of inmates sufficient to ensure inmates' safety and security.
2. Staff training. All staff must receive adequate training in small jail operations to ensure the safe and secure operation of the jail.
3. Policies and procedures. A policies and procedures manual for operation of the jail must be developed and implemented to encompass, inter alia, the various functions of the jail, responsibilities of staff, use of force and restraint devices by staff, and adequate emergency response procedures.
4. Classification. The jail must separate persons convicted of serious crimes, and violent or aggressive persons, from others.
II. Medical and Mental Health Care and Suicide Prevention.
1. Medical care. To ensure provision of adequate medical care to inmates, the facility must: ensure appropriate management of intoxicated inmates; establish a sick call procedure that ensures requests for treatment are reviewed in a timely manner by a person trained to evaluate such requests and that the granting or denial of treatment is documented in writing; ensure that medical care is provided in a timely manner by a qualified medical professional; provide appropriate training to staff on administering medications and their potential side-effects; and provide TB screening for all inmates incarcerated seven days or more and provide screening for other communicable diseases. The jail must develop and implement adequate, written policies and procedures governing access to and delivery of medical care. The jail must develop a housing system to ensure segregation of inmates who are suicidal, chemically dependant, intoxicated, or physically or mentally ill.
2. Mental health care. The jail must provide mental health screening and treatment of serious mental conditions, and develop and implement appropriate written policies and procedures.
3. Suicide prevention. Staff must be trained in identification and monitoring of inmates at risk of suicide. Successful suicides and serious suicide attempts must be investigated to determine how and why they occurred. Finally, appropriate written policies and procedures regarding these matters must be developed and implemented. Additionally, the facility must provide an adequate ''observation cell," and eliminate risks posed by physical features conducive to suicide, such as shower stalls.

•" 6 *~
III. Environmental Health and Safety.
1. General sanitation. The jail must be cleaned and maintained in a sanitary manner. Inmates must be provided appropriate items to maintain personal hygiene and materials with which to clean their units.
2. Infestation. The jail must provide adequate extermination of insects and vermin.
3. Lighting. The jail must provide adequate lighting in inmate living areas.
4. Ventilation. The jail must provide adequate ventilation in inmate areas.
5. Plumbing. Inmates must have hot and cold running water in sinks and showers, toilet leaks must be timely repaired, and plumbing sufficient to meet the needs of the jail population must be provided.
6. Potable water. The jail must provide inmates with adequate amounts of potable drinking water in appropriate containers at all times.
7. Fire safety and emergency procedures. To provide adequate fire safety, the jail needs to: post evacuation plans in the housing units and ensure staff and inmates are educated regarding egress procedures in case of fire emergency; provide a secure evacuation area for inmates; ensure smoke detectors are functional; regularly conduct fire drills; ensure emergency lighting is functional; conduct documented internal fire safety inspections; and provide mattresses to inmates that are fire safe.
8. Overcrowding. Inmates without bunks due to short term excess capacity must be provided with adequate alternative sleeping arrangements, and may not be required to sleep on the floor.
IV. Exercise/Out-of-Cell Time.
Inmates must be afforded at least one hour of exercise outside the housing unit a minimum of five times per week.

mm *7 —
V. Access to Counsel.
The facility must provide inmates with reasonable access to a law library.
Sincerely,
^ James P. Turner Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: Mr. Edwin L. Booker Sheriff Conecuh County Jackson Street, Courthouse Square Evergreen, Alabama 36401
Mr. Larry Farrell Chief Deputy Conecuh County Jackson Street, Courthouse Square Evergreen, Alabama 36401
Edward J. Vulevich, Esquire United States Attorney Southern District of Alabama

 
 Stephen B. Bright Director

SOUTHERN CENTER for HUMAN RIGHTS
83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2122
404/688-1202 F a x 688-9440
CONFIDENTIAL

_, . c ^ a r I " J : 2 Chair, Board of Trustees
Harvard Law School

October 6, 1993

Chief of Special Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 664000 Washington, D.C. 20035

Rooks & U.S. v. Herring
II11I IIII I I IIIII 111II) Hill II II II
JC-AL-007-007

re:

Rooks v. Thigpen, CA No. 92-0316AH-M

Dear Mr. Peabody:

As we discussed on the phone today, I am requesting assistance from your division with this case involving the Conecuh County Jail in Evergreen, Alabama. The Rooks case challenges the conditions, practices and policies at the Conecuh County Jail. The suit has been filed in the Southern District of Alabama in federal court and has been assigned to Judge Alex Howard. The case has not been set for trial but we do have a discovery cut-off of December 30, 1993. Let me briefly outline the problems in the jail and what assistance we would like to have from your office.

Description of the jail: Attached is the complaint and its amendments along with a report completed by the National Institute of Corrections on the jail that set out in detail the problems in the jail. The facility has 45 beds. The number of inmates housed there goes above that number from time to time. The facility itself is in very poor condition, with a roof that has been leaking for several years causing fire safety and health problems. The jail has two sides neither of which is visible from the jailer's office. The few staff members the jail has, do not patrol the jail and are untrained. There have been shifts when no guards have been on duty. No searches are conducted of inmates or visitors to the jail. Weapons, drugs and alcohol flow freely into the jail. One of our clients remarked that is easier to buy drugs in the jail than it is on the streets. There have been numerous escapes from the jail. Our clients have told us that some staff at the jail participate in the use of drugs and alcohol in the jail. Many hint at the involvement of the sheriff in the drug trade in the county, though no one is willing to speak directly about his involvement. This description just gives you a flavor of what this jail is like.

The purpose of our lawsuit: We would like to see the jail closed down. If the court orders that a new jail is to be built, we want it to be put into receivership as we do not believe the present county officials are capable of running a safe or humane jail..
Reasons for our request for assistance: Our office has handled numerous jail conditions suits over the years. This jail is one of the most dangerous we have encountered. The defendants are unwilling to settle the case, even though privately the sheriff and the jailers acknowledge that jail is unsafe and needs to be closed. The commissioners have acknowledged publicly that a new jail is needed, but state that the taxpayers won't vote for the taxes needed. Our sense of the community is that they lack faith in the county commission's ability to properly handle any taxes imposed to build a new jail. Our hope is that a report from the Justice Department will push the county to make the hard decision to close the jail or at a minimum bolster our case if we go to trial.
Outline of our requests for assistance: First, we would like to have your division do an evaluation of this jail and the practices and policies of the people who run and maintain the jail. Second, we request that your office issue a report which sets out clearly the severity of these problems and the consequences to the county if the problems are not addressed. Third, we would like assistance obtaining immunity for any witnesses who may have participated in the use of drugs in the jail so that they can testify freely about the severity and extent of these problems. We are approaching your office with this particular request because we have reason to believe that if this request is made initially at the local level (i.e in Alabama) confidentiality will not be maintained. Fourth, we would like assistance bringing this jail into receivership.
We understand that generally your involvement consists of intervening in and litigating the case. At this point, we are hoping that your limited involvement, which we described above in our request, would be sufficient to get the results we want. We know that your resources are limited and wish to request only the assistance we need. Because of the December 30, 1993 discovery cut-off, we are hoping that we will be able to discuss this further with you soon. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated.
J|incerely,
Nancy E. Orteg Henry Brewster Plaintiffs' counsel

r - TECHNICALASSISTANCE REPORT
THE iWTIOJYAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIO1VS JAIL CENTER
PLANNING OF NEW INSTITUTIONS LOCAL SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
AND
PHASE ONE COMMUNITY MEETING
CONECUH COUNTY,ALABAMA
MARCH 9 - 1 1 , 1 9 9 2
DAVID DtPREE A N D MARK KELLAR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONSULTANTS
MCTAIV0.92-J1114 —I

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS JAIL CENTER
PLANNING OF NEWINSTITUTIONS LOCAL SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
AND
PHASE ONE COMMUNITY MEETING
CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA
NICTAN0.92-J1114 MARCH 9 - 1 1 , 1 9 9 2
DAVID DUPREE AND MARK KELLAR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONSULTANTS

This technical assistance activity was funded by the National Institute of Corrections Jails Division. NIC is a federal agency that provides assistance to state and local correctional agencies in their efforts to improve their operations by making them more effective, humane and safe.
The Consultants, Messrs.David Dupree and Mark Kellar, provided technical assistance on a contractual basis at the request of the Conecuh County (Alabama) Commission and through the coordination of NIC. The assistance and this report are intended to assist Conecuh County in addressing the issues outlined in the original request.
The contents of this document reflect the views of Messrs. Dupree and Kellar. The contents do not necessarily reflect officialNIC viewsorpolicies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
LOCAL SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
THE COUNTY THE LOCAL DETENTION FACIUTY THE LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THE NEW FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
PHASE ONE COMMUNITY MEETING
LEGAL ISSUES WHAT IS THE JAIL FOR? TOTAL SYSTEMS PLANNING
LOCAL SYSTEiVI ASSESSMENT PARTICIPANTS

PAGE
1
3 3 6 8 9
12 16 17
21

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

INTRODUCTION

On December 18, 1991, Judge Sue Bell Cobb, Chairperson of the Courthouse/Jail Task Force, formally requested technical assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in the planning of a new local detention facility for Conecuh County, Alabama.
In response to Judge Cobb's request, Mr. David Dupree, Criminal Justice Consultant, and Mr. Mark Kellar, Harris County (Texas) Sheriffs Department, visited Conecuh County on March 9 - 1 1 , 1992. The purpose of the Consultants' visit was to evaluate the current physical plant and operations of the Conecuh County Detention Facility; assess the impact of the local criminal justice system on the operations of the detention facility; and conduct a Planning Of New Institutions (PONI) Phase I Community Meeting. Toward the accomplishment of these objectives, the Consultants undertook the following activities during their site visit.

TASK FORCE MEETING

On March 9, 1992, the Consultants attended a meeting

of the Conecuh County Courthouse/Jail Task Force.

The purpose of the meeting was to review the alternatives proposed by the architects

retained by the county to conduct a feasibility study; and finalize the Task Force's formal

recommendation to the Conecuh County Commission regarding the placement of a

measure on the June, 1992 ballot for an ad valorem tax increase of 13.5 mils to finance

the construction of a new local detention facility and the construction of a new county

courthouse or the renovation of the existing structure.

During the course of the meeting, the Consultants explained to the Task Force the role of NIC in providing technical assistance to local jurisdictions, and the purpose of the assessment and community meeting.

COMMISSION MEETING

On March 9, 1992, the Consultants also attended a

meeting of the Conecuh County Commission, during

which the Task Force formally recommended and the Commission approved the place-

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

ment of the measure noted above on the June, 1992 ballot. In addition, the Consultants met privately with the Commission to discuss the members' perceptions of the need for a new local detention facility.

FACILITY INSPECTION

On March 9, 1992, the Consultants met with Sheriff

Edwin Booker to inspect the existing local detention

facility and review the facility's operations.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

On March 9, 1992, the Consultants met with represen-

SYSTEM INTERVIEWS

tatives of the local courts to explore the pre-trial re-

lease and sentencing practices of the court system,

and to determine the potential impact of those practices on the capacity and operations

of a new local detention facility.

On the morning of March 10, 1992, the Consultants interviewed representatives of those law enforcement agencies which utilize the existing local detention facility in order to obtain information regarding the nature and level of criminal activity within the county, and determine the impact of current arrest practices on the capacity and operations of a new local detention facility.

The Consultants also met with local adult and juvenile probation officers to discuss the degree to which probation and other programs are utilized as alternatives to incarceration.

COMMUNITY MEETING

On the evening of March 10, 1992, the Consultants

conducted an abbreviated Phase I Community Meet-

ing, during which they discussed their perceptions of the physical plant and operations

of the existing detention facility, the history of judicial intervention in corrections, and

the role of data collection in the planning process.

In addition, On March 11, 1992, the Consultants conducted a meeting for those individuals who will be involved in the planning of the new detention facility to discuss the rationale for and implementation of the Total Systems Planning Model.

The Consultants wish to thank Judge Cobb for her invaluable assistance in the completion of this technical assistance activity, and her most gracious hospitality.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

LOCAL SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

THE COUNTY
Conecuh County is an 854 square mile, rural county located in the south west region of the state of Alabama. The County is comprised of three (3) incorporated municipalities Evergreen, Repton and Castleberry - and several unincorporated townships. The City of Evergreen, the largest of the incorporated municipalities, serves as the county seat.
The current county population approximates 14,200 residents. No significant growth in population has occurred within the past ten years, and no growth is anticipated within the foreseeable future. Timber and dried flower processing are the principal industries within the county. While accurate statistics were not readily available, it is estimated that unemployment within the county exceeds ten (10) percent. As would be expected, unemployment among the county's young adult male population, which comprises the largest percentage of the detention facility's inmate population, is significantly higher.
As a result of the lack of population growth, the level of unemployment, and a relatively low state-mandated property tax base, Conecuh County is currently experiencing severe fiscal difficulties which could jeopardize the Commission's ability to fully fund the operations of a new local detention facility.

THE LOCAL DETENTION FACILITY

PHYSICAL PLANT

The existing Conecuh County Detention Facility is a

single story structure, constructed in 1958, on the

third floor of the Courthouse Annex in the City of Evergreen. The facility, which is of

traditional linear design, can accommodate a total of forty-two (42) adult male and fe-

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

male inmates. It must be noted that the facility does not house juveniles on either a pretrial or sentenced basis.
On March 9, 1992, the Consultants inspected the facility, and found the following.
Inmate Housing Units - In the opinion of the Consultants, the multiple occupancy nature of the inmate housing units effectively precludes the implementation of a classification system, and makes the segregation of individual inmates for administrative or disciplinary reasons impossible. Given the multiple occupancy design of the cells and the limited amount of day room space, it is estimated that, excluding bed space, each inmate is afforded approximately seven (7) to ten (10) square feet of living space.
• Inmate Services and Programs Space - No space currently exists within the facility for the provision of inmate recreational activities; health care, educational, library and substance abuse counseling services; attorney/client and other criminal justice-related interviewing activities; or the storage of inmate property.
Inmate religious services and family visitation must be conducted in the staff corridors adjacent to each living unit, which creates significant breaches of facility security, and facilitates the introduction of contraband.
Inmate intake activities must be performed in the administrative office, used for the performance of communication services, located in close proximity to the primary entrance (via elevator) to the facility. Given the proximity of the office to the entrance and the absence of a pedestrian "sally port," opportunities for inmate escapes during the intake process are substantial. In addition, there is no space available in the facility for the performance of comprehensive body cavity searches of inmates during intake. In the opinion of the Consultants, the inability to perform body cavity searches because of the absence of a suitable space materially impacts the safety and security of the facility.
• Environmental Conditions - It is clear that, over the years, little attention has been given to the preventative and routine maintenance of the facility, and its systems and equipment. It is equally clear that, with the exception of the facility kitchen, virtually no effort is made to maintain the facility in a clean and sanitary condition.
The Consultants noted that several of the exterior windows of the facility have been retrofitted with metal shields in an attempt to minimize the public's exposure to anti-social inmate behavior and control the introduction of contraband. Unfortu-

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

nately, the shields substantially reduce the amount of natural light and restrict the flow of air into the cell blocks.
Emergency Evacuation Systems - The Consultants were informed that plans are currently being developed to retrofit the facility with an external fire escape. How ever, the Consultants noted that access to an from the inmate living units is controlled via a manual, key-activated locking system. In the opinion of the Consultants, the utilization of such a system is a major impediment to the efficient evacuation of the facility, in the event of a major fire or other disaster.

STAFFING

The facility is currently staffed by a total of six (6)

dispatcher/jailers, none of whom have received for-

mal training in the performance of their inmate supervision responsibilities. Given the

physical design of the facility and the limited capacity for electronic surveillance, the

Consultants consider the current staffing pattern totally inadequate to insure the security

of the facility and the safety of staff, inmates and visitors.

FACILITY OPERATIONS

Given the previously noted physical plant and staffing

deficiencies, it is the opinion of the Consultants that

the Conecuh County Detention Facility is little more than an inmate warehousing opera-

tion. Following are the Consultants' specific observations.

• Facility Policies and Procedures - The Consultants noted that no written policies procedures, rules, regulations or job descriptions have been developed to provide direction to the staff in the performance of facility security and inmate supervision activities.

• Inmate Supervision - The Consultants noted that little or no effort is made to actually supervise inmates, and that facility staff rely, primarily, on an inadequate electronic surveillance system to remotely monitor inmate activities. In the opinion of the Consultants, the potential for assaultive behavior by inmates is substantial. In addition, evidence of inmate vandalism to the facility and its equipment is readily apparent.
The Consultants also noted that facility trustys are utilized to perform many operational functions which should be performed by staff, including the control of ac-

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

cess to and from the inmate living units. In effect, a system has been institutionalized by which trustys, whose selection is not based on specific criteria, are allowed to exercise undue authority in the operation of the facility.
• Inmate Health Care Services - Currently, the facility does not provide intake medical screening by qualified health care personnel. As a result, facility staff are required to make subjective decisions regarding the physical condition of inmates at intake. In the opinion of the Consultants, the provision of intake medical screening in this manner not only significantly increases the risk, to both staff and inmates, for the transmission of infectious diseases, but constitutes a potential legal liability for the county of major proportions.
In addition, the facility has no internal capacity for the provision of basic health care services for the inmate population. Inmates requiring medical attention must be transported to either a physician's office or the local for-profit hospital for care.
• Inmate Recreational and Program Activities - The facility provides no opportunities for formal inmate recreational and leisure time activities. Indeed, inmates are allowed access to televisions and radios only if they provide their own equipment. Aside from regularly conducted religious services and visitation, the facility provides no program activities for the inmate population. In effect, inmates are placed in a condition of enforced idleness which exacerbates the potential for assaultive behavior and vandalism.
• Inmate Food Services - Inmate meals are prepared internally by part-time food service staff. The Consultants were unable to assess the nutritional value and palatability of inmate meals. However, the Consultants were informed that inmates receive three (3) hot meals daily.

THE LOCAL CRIiYHNAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
As previously noted, the Consultants conducted interviews of local judicial, prosecutorial, law enforcement and probation officials on March 9 and 10, 1992. As a result of those interviews the Consultants were able to identify several issues of importance to the facility planning process.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, AIABAMA

INMATE PROFILE

The Consultants found a significant diversity of opin-

ion regarding the average daily population of the

Conecuh County Detention Facility, with estimates ranging from twenty-two (22), as

reflected in the Local System Assessment application, to thirty-five (35), as reflected in

the recently completed feasibility study. At the time of the Local System Assessment,

twenty-nine (29) individuals were incarcerated in the facility. Local residents comprise

approximately ninety (90) percent of the inmate population. As reflected in the Local

System Assessment application, adult males constitute ninety-five (95) percent of the

inmate population, while adult females constitute the remaining five (5) percent.

A clear consensus exists among those individuals interviewed regarding the necessity for bed space within the local detention facility for the incarceration of juvenile offenders. Currently, juveniles requiring incarceration must be transported approximately eightyfive (85) miles, one-way, to a facility in Selma, Alabama, where one bed is available to the county on a contractual basis.

ARREST PRACTICES

As would be expected, the Evergreen Police Depart-

ment, which provides law enforcement services for

the county's largest municipality, is responsible for the majority of arrests. The Con-

sultants obtained anecdotal information from those law enforcement officials inter-

viewed which suggests that drug-related property crimes, domestic violence, and alco-

hol-related vehicular offenses represent the majority of the arrests made by law en-

forcement agencies. However, it also appears that law enforcement agencies continue to

incarcerate individuals charged with minor misdemeanor offenses in lieu of implement-

ing a cite and release program.

PRE-TRIAL RELEASE

Based on discussions with local judicial and prosecu-

PRACTICES

torial officials, it appears that, in response to the gen-

eral perception of a severely unconstitutional deten-

tion facility, an informal system has been implemented which facilitates the pre-trial

release of county residents, either on bail or on their own recognizance, charged with

minor felony offenses. While statistics were not available, local officials agree that the

failure to appear rate is relatively low.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

SENTENCING PRACTICES

As reflected in the Local System Assessment applica-

tion, sentenced inmates represent approximatelyfifty-

five (55) percent of the inmate population of the Conecuh County Detention Facility.

However, the overwhelming majority of the sentenced population are inmates awaiting

transport to state facilities. It must be noted that the back-up of state sentenced inmates

in local detention facilities is occurring throughout the State of Alabama, because of a

chronic shortage of state facilities.

Given the relatively small number of individuals who are actually sentenced to the Conecuh County Detention Facility, it is clear that the impact of the implementation of post-trial alternatives to incarceration on the population of the facility would be negligible.

THE i\EW FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS
In recognition of the substantial deficiencies associated with its existing detention facility, Conecuh County has, within the past eight (8) months, initiated a planning process for the design and construction of a new facility.
In September, 1991, a fifteen (15) member Courthouse/Jail Task Force was established to develop comprehensive recommendations regarding the future utilization of the existing detention facility and courthouse. In January, 1992, the architectural firm of Watson and Rutland was retained by the County Commission to conduct a feasibility study. As a result of the study, four (4) alternatives were proposed by the project architects. It must be noted that all four (4) alternatives include the construction of a new detention facility. On March 9, 1992, the Task Force recommended to the Conecuh County Commission that a measure be placed on the June, 1992 ballot for a 13.5 mil ad valorem tax increase for the construction of a new detention facility, and the construction of a new county courthouse or the renovation of the existing structure.
It is anticipated that, for the immediate future, the Task Force will focus its attention on the development and implementation of a public relations campaign to obtain voter support for the tax increase. No further action will be taken toward the performance of pre-architectural planning activities until financing for the project has been secured.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

RECOMMENDATIONS

Without doubt, the potential for successful inmate initiated litigation regarding the current conditions of incarceration associated with the Conecuh County Detention Facility is substantial. The Conecuh County Commission, Courthouse/Jail Task Force and the local criminal justice system must be commended for their efforts to preclude such litigation through the initiation of the facility planning process.
To assist Conecuh County in the successful completion of the planning process, the Consultants offer the following recommendations.

ESTABLISH PLANNING

The Consultants recommend that, once funding for

PROCESS

the project has been obtained, the Conecuh County

Commission and Courthouse/Jail Task formally estab-

lish a structured, systematic process for the planning and design of a new local deten-

tion facility. The Consultants recommend the adoption of the Total Systems Planning

Model, discussed with local officials on March 11, 1992 and summarized in this report.

Regardless of the model adopted, it is essential that, early in the process, those responsible for planning undertake a comprehensive identification of the specific problems and issues which must be addressed; identify the criminal justice agencies which will utilize the new facility and obtain the formal commitment of appropriate governmental and funding authorities to participate in the project; and develop an action plan which details the activities, responsible personnel and schedule associated with the accomplishment of critical planning tasks.

COLLECT AND ANALYZE

The Consultants recommend that a comprehensive

DATA

effort be initiated to collect and analyze relevant statis-

tical data regarding the inmate population and the

local criminal justice system. The Consultants recommend that, at a minimum, the fol-

lowing information be collected.

INMATE PROFILE DATA • Legal status; • Charge status; • Charge category;

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT
• Age; • Ethnicity; • Education; • Employment/vocational skills; • Family ties and residence; • Physical, emotional and mental health status; • Substance abuse status; and • Means of release.
INMATE POPULATION DATA • Average daily population; • Length of stay; • Jail days; • Total bookings; • Net bookings; • Felony and misdemeanor inmates; • Pre-trial and sentences inmates; and • Male and female inmates.
LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA • Arrest practices; • Summons and citation practices; • Traffic-related arrests; and • Alcohol-related arrests.

-/*-» yf

»»• -• -n 4.

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA PAGE 10

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

COURTS DATA • Bonding practices; • Failure-to-appear rate; • Types of offenses for which jail sentences are given; • Average length of sentence served - by offense; • Percent released after first appearance; and • Percent held for pre-trial detention and released upon completion of court
processes.
In addition to the collection of statistical data, discussions must be held with all criminal justice agencies which will utilize the new facility to collect empirical data regarding their long-term incarceration needs.

HIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF

Regardless of the method(s) utilized to design and

construct a new local detention facility, it is clear that

the incarceration needs of Conecuh County will require the continued operation of the

existing facility for some time to come. The Consultants, therefore, recommend that, in

order to positively impact the conditions associated with incarceration in the existing

facility, the Conecuh County Commission and Sheriffs Department begin immediately

to enhance the safety and security of the facility through the hiring of additional staff,

and the training of all staff in appropriate security and inmate supervision techniques.

In addition, the Consultants recommend that written policies and procedures be de-

veloped to provide guidance to staff in the performance of their responsibilities.

APPLY FOR PONI PHASE II Once funding for the construction of a new local detention facility has been secured, the Consultants
recommend that Conecuh County apply for participation in Phase II of the National Institute of Corrections' PONI Program.

VIC TA NO.02-11114

PAGE 11

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

PHASE I COiWMlMTY MEETING

On March 10, 1992, the Consultants conducted an abbreviated PONI Phase I Community Meeting at the Conecuh County Courthouse in Evergreen, Alabama. Approximately sixty-five (65) governmental, criminal justice system and community representatives attended the meeting. In addition, on March 11, 1992, the Consultants conducted a meeting for those individuals who will be directly involved in the planning of the new local detention facility to discuss the Total Systems Planning Model.
Following is a summary of the significant issues discussed by the Consultants.

LEGAL ISSUES

David Dupree provided the participants with a history

of judicial involvement in corrections, and discussed

the major issues associated with the operation of corrections facilities with which the

courts have been concerned over the past several decades.

Mr. Dupree informed the participants that, prior to the 1960's, the courts refused to involve themselves in the operations of jails and prisons for the following reasons:

• The issue of the separation of powers associated with the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government;

• Lack of judicial expertise in correctional operations;

• An unwillingness to undermine institutional security and discipline; and

• A basic belief that incarceration brings about a loss of rights and privileges.

Mr. Dupree cited the following cases associated with the "Hands-Off Era."

r»* f- u 1 ">

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

• Price vs.Johnson (1948) - The court ruled that, "Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system."
• Pickens vs. Alaska (1951) - The court agreed that conditions in the jail were deplorable but refused to rule on behalf of the plaintiff because, in the court's opinion, solving the problem was beyond the authority of the jail; additional funding for operational improvements had been solicited but had not been granted; the jail was the only holding facility near the place of trial; and the conditions imposed would not be deemed cruel and unusual punishment in every civilized society.
During the 1960's and early 1970's, the courts began to involve themselves in cases which they considered were associated with basic prisoner rights including:
• The rights of pre-trial detainees;
• Freedom from crude brutality; and
• The right of inmates to take legal action without interference from prison and state officials.
Mr. Dupree cited the following cases associated with this period of limited judicial involvement.
• Monroe vs. Pape (1961) - The court eliminated the restrictions on Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 by allowing individuals direct access to federal courts. Section 1983 states, "Any person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation custom, or usage, of any state or territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
• Robinson vs. California (1962) - The court ruled that the eighth amendment to the Constitution, which addresses cruel and unusual punishment, applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment, which provides equal protection under the law.
• Copper vs. Pate (1964) - The Supreme Court confirmed a prisoner's right to utilize Section 1983 to sue prison officials.
• Wright vs. McMann (1967) - The court ruled that inmates have the right to file suit based on the eighth amendment because of an earlier case (Trop vs. Dulles (1958) which stated, "The amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards that mark the progress of a maturing society."

Mir TA N O Q2.li 114

PAGE 13

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

• Jackson vs. Bishop (1968) - The court banned the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure.
During the 1970's, problems at Folsom, San Quentin, Attica, McAlester and other prisons and jails throughout the United States precipitated wholesale judicial intervention in correctional operations. By the mid-1980's, one (1) out of every seven (7) cases heard in the federal district courts involved inmate rights issues. Mr. Dupree informed participants such cases are generally based on one (1) or more of the following constitutional amendments.
• First Amendment - Freedom or religion, and access to mail and library;
• Fifth Amendment - Due Process;
• Sixth Amendment - Right to counsel;
• Eighth Amendment - Cruel and unusual punishment;
• Fourteenth Amendment - Due process, and equal protection under the law.
The following cases were cited by Mr. Dupree.
• Newman vs. Alabama (1972) • The court ruled that confinement in the Alabama prison system was, in and of itself, cruel and unusual punishment. One (1) of the long-term effects of this landmark case is the current back-up of state prisoners in local detention facilities throughout the state.
• Williams vs. Edwards (1977) - The court ruled that the lack of funds was not a valid defense for inadequate facilities and operations.
• Smith vs. Sullivan (1977) - The court ruled that inmates are entitled to adequate staff supervision, and assistance from staff.
• Finney vs. Arkansas (1978) - In this case, which was affirmed as Hutto vs. Finney, the court ruled that if a state chooses to operate prison facilities, those facilities must be constitutional. In addition, the court ruled that the "budgetary defense" is an invalid defense.
Mr. Dupree informed the participants that court rulings vary from district to district based on the political philosophies of the judicial officials involved. However, it is clear that the courts have chosen to involve themselves in virtually every facet of correctional operations including the following:

NIC TA NO. 92-J1114

PAGE 14

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

• Staffing; • Access to courts and counsel; • Access to mail and telephones; • Availability of libraries and particularly law libraries; • Availability of reading materials; • Religious services; • Visitation including media visits; • Provision of medical care; • Enforced idleness and the provision of recreational activities; • Food service; • Provision of educational and vocational opportunities; • The utilization of behavior modification techniques; • Inmate classification systems and segregation procedures; and • Inmate discipline, administrative due process and grievance procedures. Finally, Mr. Dupree stated that the courts have established four (4) basic requirements for the determination of liability: • An affirmative duty must exist; • The official(s) involved knew or should have known; • A pattern ofgross abuse exists orthe occurrence ofa single brutal incident was
foreseeable; and • The official (s) involved knew of the pattern or incident but took no action. However, the courts have also established the following criteria to determine the validity of defenses against charges of liability:

Kits rt-> t i 1 -t A

1

1—m 1 '

T*ACLV 1 C

•—" T

IT

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

• Timely action (s) are taken ingood faith which are appropriate to remedy theinjury, are initiated prior tolitigation and are within the scope ofthe official(s)' responsibility and authority;
• The official(s) have begun an acceptable course of action;or
• The official (s) have made a reasonable offer of settlement.
Mr. Dupree stated that, given the current conditions associated with incarceration in the local detention facility, Conecuh County must make a concerted, long-term commitment to the establishment ofa physical plant and operations which comply with applicable corrections standards and constitutional mandates if the community wishes to maintain full control oflocal corrections.

WHAT IS THE JAIL FOR?

Mark Kellar initiated the discussion by asking partici-

pants to articulate their perceptions of the reasons

why the Conecuh County Detention Facility exists. The reasons given by the participants

included the long-term incarceration ofindividuals committing serious criminal acts;

protection of the community and law-abiding citizens; and the rehabilitation of offend-

ers.

Mr. Kellar then shared with the participants pre-trial release data averaged from 125 communities nation-wide which, in summary, indicated that approximately 66 percent of all pre-trial detainees are released within 24 hours, and that only seven (7) percent of all pre-trial detainees remain in local detention facilities for more than 30days. Mr. Kellar stated that the data suggest that local detention facilities exist forshort-term rather than long-term incarceration, and that, indeed, they may beviewed as "revolving doors" in which population turn-over is quite rapid. Mr. Kellar also stated that the data suggest that rehabilitation may bea viable objective for only that small percentage of inmates who remain infacilities over 30 days.

Mr. Kellar then shared with participants arrest and conviction data which indicated that only four (4)percent of all part one felony offenses reported result in incarceration. Mr. Kellar stated that, as a result, the ability of a local detention facility to protect the community from criminal activity was negligible.

Mr. Kellar informed the participants that one (1)ofthe major problems associated with the planning of new local detention facilities is that communities have deep-seated perceptions ofthe role ofa detention facility, based onthe experiences of individual citizens and media images of the offender population, which bear little semblance to reality, but which, nevertheless, have a substantial impact on decisions regarding the mission, size and design of a facility. Mr. Kellar stated that, in order to plan a facility which

Mir T l MO O-7.fi 1 1 i

PAGE 16

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPoRT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

meets the long-term incarceration needs of the community in a cost-effective manner, statistical data which reflects, historically, the size and composition of the inmate population, and the policies and practices of the local criminal justice system must be collected and analyzed.
Mr. Kellar noted that one (1) of the major issues currently being discussed in Conecuh County is the size of the newlocal detention facility. Currently, opinions range from 50 to 70 beds. Mr. Kellar stated that, unfortunately, local detention facilities are capacity driven. Regardless of the size of the facility constructed, those law enforcement and judicial agencies which utilize the facility will adjust their policies and practices, often unwittingly, to insure that the facility is filled beyond its design capacity. It is, therefore, essential that substantive discussions be held with the key actors in every criminal justice agency which will utilize the facility to identify potential arrest and incarceration trends, and policy and practice changes which will impact the size of the new facility. Based on those discussions, firm policies which mandate howthe facility will be utilized must be developed, agreed to by all involved parties, and implemented.

TOTAL SYSTEMS PLANNING David Dupree initiated the presentation of the Total System Planning Model by stating that experience has
shown that the complexity and expense of making lasting changes in local detention facilities and criminal justice systems make comprehensive planning absolutely imperative. Total Systems Planning is a model recommended for the systematic planning of criminal justice services and facilities. The model involves the basic skills used inmaking any decision where several related problems must be examined in light of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative solutions. For the sake of clarity, the model is presented sequentially, in six phases, as a logical progression of activities. However, the particular demands of the planning effort sometimes involve an amending or reordering of the activities within each phase. In addition, the process of criminal justice planning frequently requires that assumptions and conclusions reached in the early planning phases be revised in order to properly respond to issues which arise in later phases.
Mr. Dupree proceeded to discuss each phase of the Total Systems Planning Model as follows.
PHASE ONE- IDENTIFY PLANNING TASKS
The following major activities are associated with the initial phase of the planning model:
• Establish planning group and representative advisory committee;
• Identify major issues;

NICTA NO. 92-J1114

PAGE 17

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

• Assess need for consultant services (and obtain funding for such services if required);
• Define and assess the boundaries ofthe service area including legal and geographical jurisdiction, funding sources, justice agencies, other service agencies, and community support and opposition;
• Develop project organization, program, operations, facilities andfunding goals; and
• Establish a working timetable forthe project.
The primary product associated with the completion of Phase One activities is a written statement of broad project goals which has been approved byboth the planning group and advisory committee.
PHASE TWO - GATHER INFORMATION
The major Phase Two activities are:
• Initiate information gathering;
• Conduct research regarding criminal justice system models andprograms, and current standards and trends;
• Develop andconduct surveys regarding the existing local detention facility and its operations, programs andservice needs, related justice agencies, andthe service area and its resources; and
• Establish criteria forthe analysis ofcollected data.
The completion of Phase Two activities will result in the availability of raw data regarding the offender population andthelocal criminal justice system, andthe criteria tobeutilized in the analysis ofthat data.
PHASE THREE - ANALYZE INFORMATION
Phase Three of the planning model focuses exclusively on theanalysis of the data collected during Phase Two. The major activities are:
• Analyze research and survey results;

NirTANO.02-11114

PAGE 18

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

• Determine and evaluate the capabilities and deficiencies of the existing local detention facility and criminal justice system;
• Identify present and future service area needs; and
• Rank the service area needs, and establish organizational, programmatic, operational, structural and resource requirements.
The completion of Phase Three activities will result in an evaluation of the collected data, and a comprehensive classification of the community's incarceration needs.
PHASE FOUR - DEVELOP POLICY
Based on the data analysis and the rank ordering of incarceration needs, the following policy development activities should be undertaken during Phase Four:
• Generate organizational, programmatic and facility alternatives;
• Evaluate each alternative to determine its efficiency and effectiveness; and
• Develop cohesive policy statements which reflect the selected alternatives regarding the purpose, organization, operations, structure(s), funding, and required support for the community's incarceration needs, and detailed statements regarding the implementation and on-going monitoring/evaluation of the policy statements.
The completion of Phase Four activities will result in a formal master plan for the new local detention facility.
PHASE FIVE - TRANSLATE POLICY TO PROGRAM
Phase Five is the stage in the planning process at which most communities wish to begin because it is the first phase at which those responsible for the planning process can see the concrete results of their efforts. However, failure to perform the activities associated with the previous four (4) phases of the process will, in all probability, result in the design of a new facility or renovation project which is cost inefficient and does not meet the incarceration needs of the community.
The following activities are associated with Phase Five:
• Develop an organizational program which reflects the project goals and objectives, organizational structure, and monitoring, evaluation and feedback network;

NICTA NO. 92-J1114

PAOF TQ

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPOKT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

• Develop a service program which defines the client base, staffing requirements, facility operations and the methods by which services will be delivered; and
• Address architectural design issues including the project concept, site criteria, schematic design, preliminary design and construction documents.
The products of Phase Five are written organizational, service and architectural programs -which have been reviewed and approved by the planning group, advisory committee, and appropriate criminal justice, governmental and funding authorities.
PHASE SIX - IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS
Phase Six reflects the point at which the new facility is actually constructed or the existing facility is renovated. Of equal importance, Phase Six also reflects the implementation of the organizational and service programs developed during Phase Five.
The major activities associated with Phase Six are as follows:
• Implement the organizational and service programs including the organizational structure, monitoring/evaluation and feedback system, client services, staffing pat tern, and acquire required equipment and materials;
• Implement the architectural program which broadly includes awarding the required contracts), constructing or renovating the facility, and obtaining certification of occupancy;
• Plan and implement the transition to the new or renovated facility;
• Maintain and evaluate, on an on-going basis, the organizational, service and architectural programs.
The principal product of the completion of Phase Six activities is the operationalization of a new or renovated local detention facility which satisfies the long-term incarceration needs of the community.
In concluding his presentation on the Total System Planning Model, Mr. Dupree informed the participants that the planning of a new local detention facility requires a considerable investment of money, time, thought and effort. Many communities are more than willing to invest the money, but refuse to invest the time, thought and/or effort. However, failure to make these investments usually results in a wasted financial investment because the new local detention facility fails to address the very problems for which it was designed and constructed.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REI-v-iCT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

LOCAL SYSTEM ASSESSMEIVT PARTICIPAiYTS
The following individuals, representing Conecuh County, Alabama, participated in the various activities associated with the Local System Assessment. It must be noted that because of the number of individuals in attendance, a roster of Phase I Community Meeting participants was not established.
CONECUH COUNTY COMMISSION • Hugh Barrow, Chairperson • Jerald Dean • Leonard Millender • Frank Pate • Freddie Stallworth
CONECUH COUNTY COURTHOUSE/JAIL TASK FORCE • Sue Bell Cobb, Chairperson • J. E. Alford • Alonzo Dukes • Johnny Mack Grace, Jr. • Ernest Hanks

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

• Alton Henderson • William F. Howard • B. G. Jones • Alester McBride • William D. Melton • Knud Nielsen • Palmer Watson • Sam Welch
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OFFICIALS • Vivian Bowen, Adult Probation Officer • Tommy Chapman, District Attorney • J. Wayne Harrelson, Juvenile Probation Officer • David Hyde, Assistant District Attorney • Joseph Nix, County Attorney
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS • Kenneth Ausby, Evergreen Police Department • Simon Benson, Alabama Bureau of Investigations • Edwin L. Booker, Conecuh County Sheriffs Department • William Gibson, Repton Police Department • Marty Griffin, Alabama Highway Patrol • Larry Jackson, Evergreen Police Department

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RE1-v..<T
• David Killingsworth, Alabama Highway Patrol • Don Morris, Alabama Highway Patrol

CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

Mir TA NO. 92-11114

PAGE 23

 
 ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 1 of 28

U.S. District Court Southern District of Alabama - District Version 2.5 (Mobile)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:92-cv-00316-M

CLOSED

Rooks, et al v. Thigpen, et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Kevin P. Rooks

represented by Henry Brewster Stein and Brewster P.O. Box 1051 Mobile, AL 36633 (334) 433-2002 Fax: 2514327756 Email: hbrewster@steinandbrewster.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Paul Owens

Nancy E. Ortega Southern Center For Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, N. W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2122 404/688-1202 TERMINATED: 11/29/1995 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Henry Brewster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenneth Earl Williams

Nancy E. Ortega (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/1995 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Henry Brewster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 2 of 28

Plaintiff Curtis Sexton TERMINATED: 12/13/1993
Plaintiff Tammy M. Mixon
Plaintiff Cynthia A. Fair
V. Defendant Morris Thigpen Commissioner, Ala. Dept. of Corrections in his official capacity

Nancy E. Ortega (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/1995 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Henry Brewster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy E. Ortega (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/1993 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Henry Brewster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy E. Ortega (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/1995 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Henry Brewster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy E. Ortega (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/1995 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Harry A. Lyles Alabama Department of Corrections 50 N. Ripley St. Montgomery, AL 36130 205-242-9360 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 3 of 28

Defendant Conecuh County, Al.
Defendant Freddie Stallworth In official capacity as County Commissioner
Defendant Commissioner Jerold Dean In official capacity as County Commissioner

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew W. Redd Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division P. O. Box 301501 Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 240-9500 Fax: 3343533891 Email: aredd@doc.state.al.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ellen Ruth Leonard Office of the Attorney General State of Alabama 11 South Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130 334-242-7300 Email: consumerfax@ago.state.al.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Frederick H. Stevens 9 Court Square North Evergreen, AL 36401 (334) 578-4700 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Helen Johnson Alford Alford, Clausen & McDonald 1 St. Louis Centre, Ste. 5000 Mobile, AL 36602 (251) 432-1600 Email: hja@alfordclausen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen Johnson Alford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen Johnson Alford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 4 of 28

Defendant Leonard Millender In official capacity as County Commissioner
Defendant Commissioner Hugh Barrow In official capacity of County Commissioner
Defendant Frank Pate In official capacity as County Commissioner
Defendant Sheriff Edwin L. Booker Individually and in official capacity as Sheriff
Defendant Larry Farrell Individually and in official capacity as Chief Deputy
V. Movant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen Johnson Alford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen Johnson Alford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen Johnson Alford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen Johnson Alford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen Johnson Alford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul M. Harden, Jr. 128 N. Alabama Avenue P. O. Box 985 Monroeville, AL 36461 (205) 743-3176 TERMINATED: 08/21/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 5 of 28

U.S.A.

represented by Arthur E. Peabody, Jr. Chief Special Litigation Section Department of Justice Post Office Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035 202-514-6252 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin P. Schoen Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Post Office Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035 202-514-6252 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugene A. Seidel U.S. Attorney's Office 63 S. Royal St., Rm. 600 Mobile, AL 36602 (334) 441-5845 Fax: 2514415051 Email: eugene.seidel@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James P. Turner Post Office Box 66128 Washington, DC 20035-6128 (202) 514-6331 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice P. O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035 202-514-6252 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Masling Trial Attorney Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 6 of 28

Date Filed 04/23/1992 04/23/1992 04/23/1992 04/23/1992 04/23/1992 04/29/1992
05/07/1992 05/08/1992
05/21/1992
06/01/1992 06/04/1992 06/04/1992

Post Office Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035 202-514-6252 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

CASE ASSIGNED to Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. (dktclerk) (Entered: 04/28/1992)

1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE $ ifp RECEIPT # ifp (dktclerk) (Entered: 04/28/1992)

2 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton for Nancy E. Ortega to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; referred to Judge Hand (dktclerk) (Entered: 04/28/1992)

Motion(s) referred: [2-1] motion for Nancy E. Ortega to Appear Pro Hac Vice referred to Senior Judge W. B. Hand (dktclerk) (Entered: 04/28/1992)

3 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ; referred to Mag. Judge Milling (dktclerk) (Entered: 04/28/1992)

4 ORDER entered that the plaintiffs are ORDERED by 5-19-92 to complete and file this Court's form for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 05/01/1992)

Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $ 120.00 RECEIPT # 6459 (dktclerk) (Entered: 05/08/1992)

5 SUMMONS(ES) issued for Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell; furnished local counsel for plaintiffs for service (dktclerk) (Entered: 05/08/1992)

6 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell 5/16/92 ; Special report due on 6/25/92 for Larry Farrell, for Edwin L. Booker, for Frank Pate, for Hugh Barrow, for Leonard Millender, for Jerold Dean, for Freddie Stallworth, for Conecuh County, Al. (mbp) (Entered: 05/22/1992)

7 SPECIAL REPORT filed by Morris Thigpen; referred to Magistrate Judge Milling (mbp) (Entered: 06/04/1992)

8 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Morris Thigpen 5/21/92 ; Special report due on 6/30/92 for Morris Thigpen (mbp) (Entered: 06/04/1992)

9 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean,

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 7 of 28

06/05/1992 06/05/1992 06/09/1992
06/09/1992
06/10/1992 06/29/1992 06/29/1992 06/30/1992 06/30/1992 07/01/1992 07/17/1992 07/17/1992
07/20/1992 07/21/1992

Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to Extend Time to respond to the complaint (mbp) (Entered: 06/08/1992)
10 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Certify Class (mbp) (Entered: 06/08/1992)
11 MEMORANDUM by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton in support of [10-1] motion to Certify Class (mbp) (Entered: 06/08/1992)
12 ORDER granting [9-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to the complaint; Defendants are to respond to the complaint by 7-17-92 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 06/09/1992)
13 NOTICE of Rule 16b consulation by mail; Response to Rule 16b deadline 6/29/92 for Larry Farrell, for Edwin L. Booker, for Frank Pate, for Hugh Barrow, for Leonard Millender, for Jerold Dean, for Freddie Stallworth, for Conecuh County, Al., for Morris Thigpen, for Curtis Sexton, for Kenneth Earl Williams, for John Paul Owens, for Kevin P. Rooks (mbp) (Entered: 06/09/1992)
14 ANSWER to Complaint by Leroy Farrell (Attorney Paul M. Harden), (mbp) (Entered: 06/10/1992)
15 RESPONSE to Rule 16b by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate (mbp) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
16 RESPONSE to Rule 16b by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton (mbp) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
17 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Amend [1-1] complaint (mbp) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
Motion(s) referred: [17-1] motion to Amend [1-1] complaint referred to Senior Judge W. B. Hand (mbp) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
18 RESPONSE to Rule 16b by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell (mbp) (Entered: 07/02/1992)
19 MOTION by Larry Farrell to Amend [14-1] answer (mbp) (Entered: 07/20/1992)
20 OBJECTION by Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to [10-1] motion to Certify Class (mbp) (Entered: 07/20/1992)
Motion(s) referred: [19-1] motion to Amend [14-1] answer referred to Senior Judge W. B. Hand (mbp) (Entered: 07/20/1992)
21 ORDER granting [17-1] motion to Amend [1-1] complaint allowing

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 8 of 28

07/21/1992
07/21/1992 07/22/1992 07/23/1992 07/28/1992 08/21/1992 09/14/1992 10/02/1992
10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992

plaintiffs to add Tammy M. Mixon and Cynthia A. Fair as plaintiffs; Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification was filed 6-5-92; Defendants are to file a response to that motion and inform the Court as to their position with respect to this case proceeding as a class action ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 07/22/1992)
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton , (Answer due 7/31/92 for Larry Farrell, for Edwin L. Booker, for Frank Pate, for Hugh Barrow, for Leonard Millender, for Jerold Dean, for Freddie Stallworth, for Conecuh County, Al., for Morris Thigpen ) amending [1-1] complaint adding Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair (mbp) (Entered: 07/22/1992)
23 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 1/21/93 ; Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 10/21/92 ; ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 07/22/1992)
24 ORDER granting [2-1] motion for Nancy E. Ortega to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Senior Judge W. B. Hand ) (mbp) (Entered: 07/22/1992)
25 MOTION by Larry Farrell for Paul M. Harden to Withdraw as Attorney (mbp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
Motion(s) referred: [25-1] motion for Paul M. Harden to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Senior Judge W. B. Hand (mbp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
26 NOTICE entered, endorsed motion granting [25-1] motion for Paul M. Harden to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Paul M. Harden for Larry Farrell ( signed by Senior Judge W. B. Hand 8-20-92) (mbp) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
27 MOTION by Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell for non-party to Produce medical records (mbp) (Entered: 09/16/1992)
28 ORDER granting [27-1] motion for non-party to Produce medical records; non-party Southwest Alabama Mental Health and/or Jim Coldwell are to produce as requested in the medical records of Cynthia Ann Fair by 10-16-92 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 10-292) (mbp) (Entered: 10/02/1992)
29 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton for Protective Order (mbp) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
30 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Extend Time to amend complaint (mbp) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
31 RENEWED MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Certify Class (mbp) (Entered: 10/21/1992)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 9 of 28

10/23/1992 10/29/1992 11/05/1992 11/05/1992 11/06/1992
11/06/1992 11/13/1992 11/16/1992
11/18/1992 12/01/1992 12/01/1992

32 RESPONSE by Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to [31-1] motion to Certify Class (jlr) (Entered: 10/29/1992)
Motion(s) referred: [31-1] motion to Certify Class referred to Senior Judge W. B. Hand, [30-1] motion to Extend Time to amend complaint referred to Senior Judge W. B. Hand, [19-1] motion to Amend [14-1] answer referred to Senior Judge W. B. Hand (jlr) (Entered: 10/29/1992)
34 AMENDED MOTION by Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair, Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton for Protective Order referring to (adk) (Entered: 11/06/1992)
35 PROTECTIVE ORDER entered. Copies mailed 11/6/92 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (adk) (Entered: 11/06/1992)
33 ORDER granting [29-1] motion for Protective Order granting [30-1] motion to Extend Time to amend complaint, setting Response to Order Deadline for Plaintiffs to file affidavits in support of their motion for class certification re: [33-1] order to 11/25/92 for Cynthia A. Fair, for Tammy M. Mixon, for Curtis Sexton, for Kenneth Earl Williams, for John Paul Owens, for Kevin P. Rooks , a reset Amended Pleadings deadline to 11/12/92 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) Copies mailed 11/6/92 (adk) (Entered: 11/06/1992)
36 AFFIDAVIT by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton Re: [31-1] motion to Certify Class (mbp) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
37 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Amend [35-1] order , or to Sever (mbp) (Entered: 11/16/1992)
38 ORDER entered that Plaintiffs' oral motion to withdraw Plaintiffs' Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification filed on 11-6-92 (doc.36) is GRANTED; the Clerk is directed to withdraw that pleading and return it to counsel for Plaintiffs, Henry Brewster ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 11-13-92 ) (mbp) (Entered: 11/16/1992)
39 MOTION by Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell for Non-Party to Produce Medical Records ; referred to MJ/Milling 11-23-92 (dktclerk) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
40 ORDER denying [39-1] motion to Produce Medical Records ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 11-30-92) (mbp) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
41 JOINT STIPULATION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton, Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair to enter a protective order to guarantee the confidentiality of

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 10 of 28

12/07/1992 12/15/1992 12/15/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992
12/17/1992
12/21/1992 12/21/1992 12/21/1992 12/22/1992

psychiatric records of Plaintiff (mbp) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
42 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Amend [1-1] complaint ; proposed amendment attached (mbp) (Entered: 12/09/1992)
43 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton for class notice of class certification to be posted should the Court grant certification (mbp) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
44 RESPONSE by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to Plaintiffs' requests for entry upon land for inspection and other purposes (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
45 RESPONSE by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' request for entry upon land for inspection and other purposes (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
45 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Compel (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
46 PROTECTIVE ORDER entered as to the documents concerning Kevin Rooks ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 12-17-92) (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
47 ORDER entered that the Court held a telephone conference with counsel concerning some discovery disputes; defendants will be given the normal time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to compel which was just filed on 12-16-92 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 12-17-92 ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
48 ORDER entered that regarding the motion of defendants for an order compelling Morgan Counseling Center and/or Leah Oakley to produce records pertaining to plaintiff was ruled on as more fully set out in order ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 12-17-92 ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
49 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell for Protective Order (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
50 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to Strike plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
51 RESPONSE by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to proposed class notice (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
52 JOINT MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton, Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 11 of 28

12/29/1992 01/29/1993
02/03/1993 02/04/1993 02/04/1993 02/09/1993 02/11/1993 02/11/1993 02/16/1993 02/16/1993 02/16/1993
02/17/1993

Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair to Stay of discovery until 1-31-93 to recommence 2-1-93 (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
53 ORDER granting [52-1] motion to Stay of discovery until 1-31-93 to recommence 2-1-93 ( signed by Senior Judge W. B. Hand 12-29-92 ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
54 JOINT MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton, Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair for Protective Order (mbp) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
55 ORDER granting [54-1] motion for Protective Order ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 2-2-93 ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/03/1993)
56 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al. to Extend Time within which to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories and request for production. (dfj) (Entered: 02/05/1993)
57 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell for Protective Order (mbp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
58 OBJECTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to [56-1] motion to Extend Time (mbp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
59 RESPONSE by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to [50-1] motion to Strike plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (mbp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
60 RESPONSE by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to [57-1] motion for Protective Order (mbp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
61 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to substitute the second amended complaint for the previously filed third amended complaint (mbp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
62 ORDER entered that this case has been referred to MJ/Milling for the purpose of holding a settlement conference, which is scheduled for 3-1593 at 9:00 a.m. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 2-16-93 ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
63 ORDER denying [57-1] motion for Protective Order, granting [56-1] motion to Extend Time, mooting [50-1] motion to Strike plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, granting [42-1] motion to Amend [1-1] complaint, reset Discovery deadline to 6/12/93 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 2-16-93 ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
64 Plaintiff's Submission of Proposed Order granting Plaintiffs' Experts and

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 12 of 28

02/17/1993
02/17/1993
02/24/1993
02/24/1993 03/02/1993 03/05/1993 03/16/1993 03/17/1993 04/05/1993
05/03/1993 05/03/1993

Plaintiffs' counsel entry upon land for inspection and other purposes filed; referred to M/J Milling (mbp) (Entered: 02/17/1993)
65 NOTICE entered, endorsed motion granting [61-1] motion to substitute the second amended complaint for the previously filed third amended complaint; see paragraph 1 of Court's Order dated 2-16-93 (doc.63) ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 2-17-93) (mbp) (Entered: 02/17/1993)
66 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton , (Answer due 2/27/93 for Larry Farrell, for Edwin L. Booker, for Frank Pate, for Hugh Barrow, for Leonard Millender, for Jerold Dean, for Freddie Stallworth, for Conecuh County, Al., for Morris Thigpen ) amending [1-1] complaint (mbp) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
67 ORDER entered that plaintiffs are hereby granted permission for their attorneys and their expert witnesses, Mr. Ward Dewel and Mr. Joe Rowan to enter upon the Conecuh County Jail on one date to be agreed upon by the parties to perform the activities described more fully in order ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 2-19-93 ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
68 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to Amend [1-1] complaint (mbp) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
69 ORDER granting [68-1] motion to Amend [1-1] complaint ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dfj) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
70 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks to Amend the courts oral order to February 19, 1993, and written order of February 24, 1993. (dfj) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
71 ORDER the settlement conference is continued to be reset at later date see tab 71 order. copies mailed. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dfj) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
72 ANSWER by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to third amended complaint (mbp) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
73 ORDER entered that counsel for plaintiffs informed the Court that they are withdrawing plaintiffs' objections to and motion to amend the Court's oral order of 2-19-93 and written order of 2-24-93; this request was withdrawn at the hearing; the inspection will take place on 4-21-93; it will start at 6:00 a.m. and be concluded no later than 8:00 p.m. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 4-2-93 ) (mbp) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
CASE reassigned to Chief Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. (mbp) (Entered: 05/03/1993)
74 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell for amendment of order under rule 16(b) referred to Mag Judge

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 13 of 28

05/20/1993 05/20/1993
05/24/1993
06/09/1993 06/11/1993 06/17/1993 07/06/1993 07/09/1993 07/09/1993

Milling 5/4/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
75 ORDER granting [74-1] motion for amendment of order under rule 16 (b); The number of depositions which each party may take is increased from 8 to 16 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
76 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton, Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair to Extend Time for discovery referred to Mag. Judge Milling 5/21/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 05/21/1993)
77 ORDER granting [76-1] motion to Extend Time for discovery the discovery completion date is EXTENDED from June 12, 1993 to September 30, 1993. The Court has already entered an Order extending the number of depositions that may be taken by each party from 8 to 16 (doc. 75) reset Discovery deadline to 9/30/93 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 05/25/1993)
78 MOTION by Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell for non-party to appear for deposition referred to Mag. Judge Milling 6/10/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 06/10/1993)
79 ORDER granting [78-1] motion for non-party to appear for deposition; Leah Oakley shall comply by appearing for deposition on June 23, 1993 at Morgan Counseling Center in Decatur, Al ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) copies mailed 6/15/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
80 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: it is the recommendation of the Mag. Judge that pltf's "Motion for Class Notice of Class Certification to be Posted" be granted ; Motion no longer referred Objections to R and R due by 7/6/93 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) copies mailed 6/17/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
File forwarded to Judge Howard for R&R (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/06/1993)
81 ORDER ADOPTING [80-1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: it is the recommendation of the Mag. Judge that pltf's "Motion for Class Notice of Class Certification to be Posted" be granted ; copies mailed 7/9/93 ( signed by Chief Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/09/1993)
82 JUDGMENT; it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the pltf's motion for class certification be GRANTED. Specifically, it is ordered that a class be certified to include the named class representatives and that group of people housed at the Conecuh County Jail, Evergreen, Al. on the date that this complaint was filed in this action. However, the class will not include people subsequently imprisoned in the Jail. However, since the members of the class are clearly defined and readily

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 14 of 28

07/19/1993 07/19/1993 07/22/1993 07/26/1993 08/03/1993 08/03/1993 08/04/1993 08/09/1993 08/12/1993 08/19/1993 09/01/1993

discoverable, the pltfs. motion for class notice of class certification to be posted should the Court grant certification is unnecessary and therefore DENIED. ( signed by Chief Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. ); J/E # 2346 Judgment EOD: 7/9/93 copies mailed 7/9/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/09/1993)
83 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton for modification of class certification order referred to Judge Howard 7/22/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/22/1993)
84 MEMORANDUM by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton in support of [83-1] motion for modification of class certification order referred to Judge Howard 7/22/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/22/1993)
Motion(s) referred: [83-1] motion for modification of class certification order referred to Chief Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/22/1993)
85 OBJECTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to [83-1] motion for modification of class certification order (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/28/1993)
86 NOTICE entered, endorsed motion denying [83-1] motion for modification of class certification order ( signed by Chief Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. on July 30, 1993 ) copies mailed 8/3/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
87 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks to Strike [85-1] defts. objection to pltf's motion for modification of class certification order referred to Judge Howard 8/4/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/04/1993)
Motion(s) referred: [87-1] motion to Strike [85-1] defts. objection to pltf's motion for modification of class certification order referred to Chief Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/04/1993)
88 NOTICE entered, endorsed motion mooting [87-1] motion to Strike [851] defts. objection to pltf's motion for modification of class certification order ( signed by Chief Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. ) copies mailed 8/9/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
89 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell for Sanctions referred to Mag. Judge Milling 8/13/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/13/1993)
90 RESPONSE by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to [89-1] motion for Sanctions referred to Mag. Judge Milling 8/24/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/24/1993)
91 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks to Extend Time on discovery referred to Mag. Judge Milling 9/2/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/02/1993)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 15 of 28

09/03/1993 09/09/1993
09/09/1993 09/30/1993 11/10/1993
11/30/1993 12/03/1993
12/07/1993 12/10/1993

92 MEMORANDUM by Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell in opposition to [91-1] motion to Extend Time on discovery; referred to Mag. Judge Milling 9/3/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/03/1993)
93 ORDER granting [91-1] motion to Extend Time on discovery; the number of depositions allowed is increased to one hundred and the discovery completion date is EXTENDED from Sept. 30, 1993 to Dec. 31, 1993. All discovery is to be completed within that period of time; signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
Deadline updated; reset Discovery deadline to 9/30/93 , reset Discovery deadline to 12/31/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
94 ORDER; pltf's motion to alter o amend the Court's order of Nov. 5, 1992 (tab 37) is GRANTED. Pltfs. have in fact already amended the complaint as requested (see tab 68 and 69) ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) copies mailed 10/1/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
95 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: it is the recommendation of the Mag. Judge that defts. Conecuh County, Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker and Leroy Ferrell's motion for sanctions (tab 89) be granted. It is further the recommendation that pltf. Curtis Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a member of the class be dismissed with prejudice; ; Motion no longer referred Objections to R and R due by 11/29/93 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) copies mailed 11/10/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
96 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton to allow for the filing of requests for admissions outside of the discovery deadline referred to Mag. Judge Milling 12/1/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 12/01/1993)
97 ORDER granting [96-1] motion to allow for the filing of requests for admissions outside of the discovery deadline; the discovery period is EXTENDED from Dec. 31, 1993, to Feb. 15, 1994, solely for the purpose of allowing the parties to file requests for admissions on each other, if they so desire ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) copies mailed 12/3/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
REPORT and RECOMMENDATION REFERRED TO JUDGE HOWARD this date (dktclerk) (Entered: 12/07/1993)
98 ORDER ADOPTING [95-1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: it is the recommendation of the Mag. Judge that defts. Conecuh County, Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker and Leroy Ferrell's motion for sanctions (tab 89) be granted. It is further the recommendation that pltf. Curtis Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a member of the class be dismissed with prejudice; ; ( signed by Judge Richard W. Vollmer Jr. )

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 16 of 28

12/10/1993 12/10/1993
12/17/1993 12/27/1993 01/03/1994 01/03/1994 01/05/1994
01/18/1994 01/18/1994

(dktclerk) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
99 ORDER; the report and recommendation of the Mag. Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. ( signed by Judge Richard W. Vollmer Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 12/13/1993)
100 JUDGMENT; it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defts. Concecuh County, Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, and Leroy Ferrell's motin for sanctions (doc. 89) be and is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that pltf. Curtis Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a member of the Class, be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No costs are to be taxed ( signed by Judge Richard W. Vollmer Jr. ); J/E 2802 Judgment EOD: 12/13/93 copies mailed 12/13/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 12/13/1993)
101 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to Extend Time to 2nd set of continuing interrogatories & request for production (dktclerk) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
102 ORDER mooting [101-1] motion to Extend Time to 2nd set of continuing interrogatories & request for production ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) copies mailed 12/28/93 (dktclerk) (Entered: 12/28/1993)
103 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair to Compel defts. answers to pltf's second set of interrogatories and request for production of documents referred to Mag. Judge Milling 1/4/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 01/04/1994)
104 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair to allow pltf's motin to compel out of time referred to Mag. Judge Milling 1/4/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 01/04/1994)
105 ORDER granting [104-1] motion to allow pltf's motin to compel out of time, Response to Motion reset to 1/14/94 for [103-1] motion to Compel defts. answers to pltf's second set of interrogatories and request for production of documents for plaintiffs , Response to Motion reset to 1/24/94 for [103-1] motion to Compel defts. answers to pltf's second set of interrogatories and request for production of documents for defendants to show cause why motion should not be granted ; copies mailed 1/6/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. on 1/5/94) (dktclerk) (Entered: 01/06/1994)
106 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams to Extend Time pleading deadline referred to Mag. Judge Milling 1/19/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
107 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams to Extend Time to allow pltf's motion to extend pleading deadline out or time referred to Mag. Judge Milling 1/19/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 01/19/1994)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 17 of 28

01/20/1994
02/16/1994 02/16/1994 02/17/1994
02/24/1994 03/04/1994

108 ORDER granting [107-1] motion to Extend Time to allow pltf's motion to extend pleading deadline out or time, granting [106-1] motion to Extend Time pleading deadline; The time by which pltfs. are to file a brief in support of their motion to Compel is EXTENDED from Jan. 14, 1994, to Feb. 28, 1994, and the time by which the defts are to file a response to the Motion to Compel showing cause why it should not be granted is EXTENDED to March 10, 1994. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) copies mailed 1/20/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
109 MOTION to Intervene by U.S.A. referred to Mag. Judge Milling 2/16/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 02/16/1994)
110 MEMORANDUM by U.S.A. in support of [109-1] motion to Intervene by U.S.A. ; referred to Mag. Judge Milling 2/16/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 02/16/1994)
111 ORDER, by March 17, 1994, pltfs. and defts. are to file a response to the U.S. motion to intervene and memorandun in support.. (docs. 109 and 110). setting Response to Order Deadline re: [111-1] order to 3/17/94 for Cynthia A. Fair, for Tammy M. Mixon, for Larry Farrell, for Edwin L. Booker, for Frank Pate, for Hugh Barrow, for Leonard Millender, for Jerold Dean, for Freddie Stallworth, for Conecuh County, Al., for Morris Thigpen, for Curtis Sexton, for Kenneth Earl Williams, for John Paul Owens, for Kevin P. Rooks ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 02/17/1994)
112 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton, Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair, U.S.A. to Stay all discovery matters for forty-five days (45) referred to Mag. Judge Milling 2/25/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
113 ORDER granting [112-1] motion to Stay all discovery matters for fortyfive days (45); The discovery period in this action expired on Dec. 31, 1993 (doc. 93), except for requests for admissions which could be filed not later than Feb. 15, 1994 (doc. 97). The only matters pending are pltf's motion to compel defts. answers to pltf's second set of interrogatories and requests for production (docs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108) and the U.S. motion to intervene (docs. 109, 110, and 111) In order to allow the parties to devote their full efforts toward settlement of this action, the time by which pltfs. are to file a brief in support of their motion to compel is EXTENDED from Feb. 28, 1994 to April 11, 1994. The time by which pltfs and defts are to file a responde to the U.S. motion to interven and mem. in support ... is EXTENDED from March 17, 1994 to April 11, 1994; and the tme by which defts are to file a response to pltfs motion to compel is EXTENDED from March 10, 1994 to April 21, 1994. The parties are to notify the Court immediately if this case settles; otherwise, they are to comply with the scheduling orders set out in this order ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 03/07/1994)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 18 of 28

03/08/1994 03/09/1994 03/11/1994
03/14/1994 03/17/1994 04/05/1994 04/08/1994 04/12/1994
05/23/1994 05/26/1994 06/07/1994 06/07/1994

115 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams to Extend Stay on discovery to include requests for admission and allow filing of the requests to follow final production of discovery documents referred to Mag. Judge Milling 3/10/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
114 NOTICE of attorney appearance for U.S.A. by Eugene A. Seidel (dktclerk) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
117 ORDER granting [115-1] motion to Extend Stay on discovery to include requests for admission and allow filing of the requests to follow final production of discovery documents. The time for filing request for admissions is extended to May 2, 1994, with those requests to be admitted or denied not later than May 27, 1994. signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
116 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by U.S.A. in support of [109-1] motion to Intervene by U.S.A. (dktclerk) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
118 OBJECTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to [109-1] motion to Intervene by U.S.A. referred to Mag. Judge Milling 3/18/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
119 MOTION by all parties to Continue stay on all discovery matters , and for stay of all other pending matters for forty-five days; referred to Mag. Judge Milling 4/6/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 04/06/1994)
120 RESPONSE by U.S.A. to defts. [118-1] objection to its motion to intervene; referred to Mag. Judge Milling 4/13/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
121 ORDER granting [119-1] motion to Continue stay on all discovery matters; the dates set out in the Court's orders dated March 4, 1994, and March 11, 1994 (docs. 113 and 117) are EXTENDED for forty-five days in order to allow the parties to complete settlement negotiations ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
122 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams to continue stay on all discovery matters and all other pending matters for an additional fourteen days referred to Mag. Judge Milling 5/24/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
123 ORDER granting [122-1] motion to continue stay on all discovery matters and all other pending matters for an additional fourteen days ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
124 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams to Continue the stay of discovery and other pending matters. (bjt) (Entered: 06/07/1994)
Motion(s) referred: [124-1] motion to Continue referred to Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. (bjt) (Entered: 06/07/1994)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 19 of 28

06/15/1994
06/21/1994
06/22/1994 07/21/1994 07/22/1994 08/04/1994 08/10/1994
08/22/1994

125 ORDER granting [124-1] motion to Continue and ORDERS that: (1) the time by which pltfs are to file a brief in support of their motion to compel is EXTENDED from June 9, 1994, to August 8, 1994, and the time by which defts. are to file a response to pltfs motion to compel is EXTENDED from June 20, 1994, to August 19, 1994: (2) the time by which pltfs. and defts. are to file a response to the U.S. motion to intervene and memorandum in support...is EXTENDED from June 9, 1994, to August 8, 1994; and (3) the time by which the parties may file requests for admissions on each other, if they so desire, is EXTENDED from June 30, 1994 to August 29, 1994, and all requests for admissions, including those yet to be served, are to be admitted or denied not later than Sept. 16, 1994. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 06/16/1994)
126 ORDER; this action is hereby set for a final pretrial conference in Mobile, Al during the month of Feb. 1995 (the specific date will be set by subsequent notice or order) and for jury trial in Selma, Al during the month of May 1995 (the specific date be subsequent notice or order). Counsel estimate that the trial of this action will last approximately two weeks ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 06/22/1994)
Motion(s) referred: [109-1] motion to Intervene by U.S.A. referred to Chief Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. (dktclerk) (Entered: 06/22/1994)
127 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks for Hearing on attorneys' fees and continue stay referred to Judge Howard 7/22/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/22/1994)
Motion(s) referred: [127-1] motion for Hearing on attorneys' fees and continue stay referred to Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. (dktclerk) (Entered: 07/22/1994)
128 ORDER, reset Settlement Conference for 9:00 8/12/94, Room 301 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/05/1994)
129 ORDER, with the agreement of counsel for all parties the settlement conference scheduled for Friday, Aug. 12, 1994, at 9:00 a.m. is CONTINUED to Friday, Aug. 19, 1994, at 2:00 p.m. in the chambers of Mag. Judge Milling. Any party who has not already done so is to file their confidential settlement statement by 5:00 p.m. on Wed. Aug, 17, 1994. reset Settlement Hearing Hearing Deadline for 2:00 8/19/94 before Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/11/1994)
130 ORDER; the settlement conference held on Friday, Aug. 19, 1994, is RECESSED until Friday, Aug. 26, 1994, at 1:00 p.m. at which time it will be reconvened in the chambers of the Mag. Judge. Counsel for deft. Tommy Herring and Deft. Herring or his representative who has full settlement authority are to be personally present for the continuation of the settlement conference. The settlment conference was continued because counsel for deft. Herring, who was allowed to participate by

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 20 of 28

08/25/1994
08/30/1994 08/30/1994
09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994
09/02/1994
09/12/1994 09/12/1994 09/13/1994

telephone, did not have full and final settlemtn authority. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/22/1994)
131 ORDER; the court was notified this date by counsel for pltfs that this case has been settled. Therefore, the continuation of the settlement conference set at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, Aug. 26, 1994 is CANCELLED. By Friday , Sept 2, 1994, the parties will file with the Court a proposed consent order ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (dktclerk) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
132 MOTION by U.S.A. to Intervene by U.S.A. referred to Mag. Judge Milling 9/1/94 (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
133 CONSENT to trial by Magistrate by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton, Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair, U.S.A. ; Case assigned to Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
134 ORDER granting [132-1] motion to Intervene by U.S.A., granting [1091] motion to Intervene by U.S.A.; Plaintiff's motion to compel defendants' answers to plaintiffs' second set of interrogatories and requests for Production of Documents (doc. 103) is MOOT ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
135 NOTICE of Intent to Substitute the faxed signature of Ms. Leonard filed by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams; referred to M/J Milling 9-7-94 (mbp) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
136 JOINT MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton, Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair, U.S.A. for approval of Consent Order ; referred to M/J Milling 9-7-94 (mbp) Modified on 09/19/1994 (Entered: 09/07/1994)
137 JOINT MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Curtis Sexton, Morris Thigpen, Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair, U.S.A. for approval of notices ; referred to M/J Milling 9-7-94 (mbp) Modified on 09/19/1994 (Entered: 09/07/1994)
CASE reassigned to Judge Alex T. Howard Jr.; case inadvertly transferred to Mag. Case; all consents were not filed (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
New constent to Mag. form sent to Helen Alford this date (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
138 NOTICE of CONSTENT TO JURISDICTION BY A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 21 of 28

09/15/1994 09/15/1994
09/15/1994 09/15/1994 09/27/1994 10/03/1994 10/05/1994 10/06/1994
10/06/1994
10/06/1994

Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell (dktclerk) Modified on 09/19/1994 (Entered: 09/15/1994)
File forwarded to Judge Howard for consent to Mag. Trial order (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
139 ORDER of reference; it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action be referred to the U.S. Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr. for all further proceedings and entry of judgment in accordance with Title 28, U.S.C. sec 636(c) and the consent of the parties; copies mailed 9/15/94 ( signed by Judge Alex T. Howard Jr. )(dktclerk) Modified on 09/19/1994 (Entered: 09/15/1994)
CASE ASSIGNED to Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. (dktclerk) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
CASE NO LONGER REFERRED TO Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr.. Consent filed, Judge Milling now presider (admin) (Entered: 10/15/1997)
140 CONSENT JUDGMENT (Decree) for Plaintiffs and against Defendants, as more fully and particularly set out in order. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ); J/E #: 3593 Judgment EOD: 10/4/94 (eec) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)
141 MOTION by Plaintiffs to Dismiss Leroy Ferrell and Edwin Booker as Defendants in their individual capacity only and motion to substitute the name of Leroy Ferrell with his official title until the position of Chief Deputy is filled . Ref. to Mag. Judge Milling 10-4-94. (eec) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)
142 ORDER granting [141-1] motion to Dismiss Leroy Ferrell and Edwin Booker as Defendants in their individual capacity only and motion to substitute the name of Leroy Ferrell with his official title until the position of Chief Deputy is filled ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ). Copies mailed. (eec) (Entered: 10/06/1994)
143 ORDER entered after telephone conference that the court has entered the proposed order pertaining to the Notice of Proposed Class Settlement and Class Notice; counsel are reminded of the proper civil action number; the Consent Order signed and entered on 9/27/94 is effective on that date; copies mailed 10/7/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. on 10/6/94) (dktclerk) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
144 ORDER granting [137-1] motion for approval of notices, granting [1361] motion for approval of Consent Order, set deadline for 11/18/94 for filing of objections to Consent Order ; parties shall file with the Court appropriate documentation that they have given notice in the manner prescribed; copies mailed 10/7/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. on 10/6/94) (dktclerk) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
145 CLASS NOTICE directed to all persons confined in the Conecuh County Jail entered by Clerk; this Notice to be posted by defendants, w/copy of Consent Order in the Conecuh County Jail as set out in the order of

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 22 of 28

10/06/1994
10/07/1994
10/31/1994 11/18/1994 11/18/1994 11/21/1994 11/21/1994 11/21/1994 11/23/1994
11/30/1994
12/06/1994
12/06/1994

10/6/94 approving Joint Motion for Approval of Notices, such notice to be posted on or before 10/11/94; copies mailed 10/7/94 (dktclerk) Modified on 10/07/1994 (Entered: 10/07/1994)
146 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT entered by Clerk; this notice to be published once each week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Conecuh County, Ala. prior to 11/11/94 by the plaintiffs (dktclerk) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
TEN certified copies of Class Notice w/ten certified copies of Consent Order and one certified copy of Notice of Proposed Class Settlement furnished Eugene A. Seidel, Esq., AUSA who is to cause the Notice w/Consent Order to be posted and to cause the Notice of Proposed Class Settlement to be published (dktclerk) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
147 Plaintiffs' Newspaper Class Notice Submission, filed. (eec) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
ALL OBJECTIONS TO CONSENT ORDER ARE BEING PLACED IN RED FILE FOLDER (eec) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
OBJECTION to [0-0] Consent Order filed by RANCE ENGLISH (eec) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
OBJECTION to Consent Order filed by TOMMY CHAPMAN. (eec) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
OBJECTION to Consent Order filed by JOHN PERDUE, JR. (eec) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
OBJECTION to Consent Order filed by LEVON MCCREARY, JR. (eec) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
148 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Tammy M. Mixon for Permission to Respond to Objections to Consent Order Filed by Tommy Chapman . Ref. to J/Milling 11-29-94. (eec) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
149 ORDER granting [148-1] motion for Permission to Respond to Objections to Consent Order Filed by Tommy Chapman ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ). Copies mailed to parties 11-30-94 (eec) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
150 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell for permission to respond to objections to Consent Order filed by Tommy Chapman . Ref. to J/Milling 12-8-94. (eec) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
151 RESPONSE by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to [0-1] objection filed by Tommy Chapman. Ref. to J/Milling 128-94. (eec) (Entered: 12/08/1994)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 23 of 28

12/06/1994 12/13/1994 12/19/1994 12/29/1994 01/05/1995 01/11/1995 01/12/1995 01/18/1995 01/24/1995
02/15/1995 02/23/1995 02/23/1995

152 JOINT RESPONSE by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams to [0-1] objection filed by Tommy Chapman. Ref. to J/Milling 12-8-94. (eec) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
153 RESPONSE by U.S.A. to Objections to Consent Order. Ref. to J/Milling 12-14-94. (eec) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
154 LEGAL ARGUMENT and Factual Basis for [0-1] objection filed by Tommy Chapman. Ref. to J/Milling 12-20-94. (eec) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
155 RESPONSE by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate to [0-1] objection Ref. to J/Milling (mpp) (Entered: 12/30/1994)
156 ORDER, set Hearing Deadline to hear from the parties on the written objections to the proposed class settlement and consent order for 9:00 1/17/95 before Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) . Copies mailed 1-6-95. (eec) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
157 ORDER, reset objections to consent order Hearing Deadline for 3:30 1/18/95 before Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ). Copies mailed 1-11-95. (eec) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
158 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by U.S.A. to [0-1] objection filed by Tommy Chapman. Ref. to J/Milling 1-12-95. (eec) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
159 NOTICE entered, endorsed motion granting [150-1] motion for permission to respond to objections to Consent Order filed by Tommy Chapman ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ). Copies mailed 120-95 (eec) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
160 ORDER entered that, as required by paragraph 151 of the Consent Order, Defendants must submit to the Court and to all parties four monthly status reports and quarterly reports thereafter; the four monthly reports shall be due on 2-15-95 and on the 15th day of the next three months, and the first quarterly report shall be due on August 15, 1995; the report shall contain sufficient information to allow the Court and the parties to understand and evaluate Defendants' progress in implementing all aspects of the Consent Order; Judgment Entry No. 3916-A (mbp) Modified on 01/26/1995 (Entered: 01/25/1995)
161 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate for Helen Johnson Alford to Withdraw as Attorney ; referred to M/J Milling 2-16-95 (mbp) (Entered: 02/16/1995)
162 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Conecuh County, Al. by Frederick H. Stevens (mbp) (Entered: 02/24/1995)
163 NOTICE of filing of First Compliance Report filed by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell; referred to M/J Milling 2-2495 (mbp) (Entered: 02/24/1995)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 24 of 28

02/24/1995
04/10/1995 04/17/1995 05/12/1995 05/18/1995 05/18/1995 06/06/1995
06/08/1995 06/14/1995 06/26/1995 06/26/1995 07/26/1995

164 ORDER granting [161-1] motion for Helen Johnson Alford to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Helen Johnson Alford for Larry Farrell, attorney Helen Johnson Alford for Edwin L. Booker, attorney Helen Johnson Alford for Frank Pate, attorney Helen Johnson Alford for Hugh Barrow, attorney Helen Johnson Alford for Leonard Millender, attorney Helen Johnson Alford for Jerold Dean, attorney Helen Johnson Alford for Freddie Stallworth; the Clerk is directed to attach a copy of Frederick H. Stevens' Notice of Appearance to each party's copy of this Order; the Clerk is to attach a copy of Doc. 121 to Mr. Maslin's copy of this Order since it does not appear that one was served on him ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/24/1995)
165 NOTICE of Filing of First 30-Day Report, filed by Defendants. Ref. to Judge Milling 4-11-95. (eec) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
166 ORDER entered regarding status reports; the next monthly status report is due 5-15-95; the next report is to address the status of each element of the consent decree. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
167 NOTICE of Filing of Second Thirty Day Compliance Report filed by Conecuh County Defendants; referred to M/J Milling 5-15-95 (mbp) (Entered: 05/15/1995)
168 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendants for non-compliance filed by James McConico, Jr.; referred to M/J Milling 5-22-95 (mbp) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
169 MOTION for relief from judgment filed by James McConico, Jr.; referred to M/J Milling (mbp) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
170 ORDER denying [169-1] motion for relief from judgment, denying [1681] motion for Sanctions against Defendants for non-compliance ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 6-5-95); a copy of documents 168 and 169 attached to Mr. Masling's copy of this Order (mbp) (Entered: 06/08/1995)
171 Report on Defendants' Compliance with Consent Order filed by the United States; referred to M/J Milling 6-12-95 (mbp) (Entered: 06/12/1995)
172 ORDER entered that in order to give Defendants an opportunity to respond to the Report filed by the United States, the date for filing the monthly report is EXTENDED from 6-15-95 to 6-23-95 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 6-13-95) (mbp) (Entered: 06/14/1995)
173 NOTICE of filing of Third Thirty Day Compliance Report filed by Conecuh County, Al. defendants; referred to M/J Milling (mbp) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
174 RESPONSE by Conecuh County to United States' Report on Compliance; referred to M/J Milling (mbp) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
175 ORDER entered concerning the status of and Defendants' efforts to

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 25 of 28

10/05/1995 11/20/1995 11/28/1995
11/28/1995 11/29/1995
01/04/1996 01/08/1996
01/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/28/1996

implement the consent order; Mr. Stevens reports that the County is proceeding with all due diligence and that he anticipates that the consent order will be fully implemented within six months from today ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 7-26-95 ) (mbp) (Entered: 07/27/1995)
176 NOTICE of filing of First Quarterly Compliance Report filed by Conecuh County, Al.; referred to M/J Milling 10-6-95 (mbp) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
Case closed (mbp) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
177 ORDER entered that the parties are to submit to the Court a joint report setting out those remaining items of the consent decree, if any, which have not been implemented ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 11-28-95) (mbp) (Entered: 11/29/1995)
178 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams, Tammy M. Mixon, Cynthia A. Fair for Nancy E. Ortega to Withdraw as Attorney ; referred to M/J Milling 11-29-95 (mbp) (Entered: 11/29/1995)
179 ORDER granting [178-1] motion for Nancy E. Ortega to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Nancy E. Ortega for Cynthia A. Fair, attorney Nancy E. Ortega for Tammy M. Mixon, attorney Nancy E. Ortega for Curtis Sexton, attorney Nancy E. Ortega for Kenneth Earl Williams, attorney Nancy E. Ortega for John Paul Owens, attorney Nancy E. Ortega for Kevin P. Rooks ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 11-29-95 ) (mbp) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
180 MOTION by U.S.A. to Extend Time which required the parties to this litigation to file a joint report by 1-12-96 ; referred to M/J Milling 1-8-96 (mbp) (Entered: 01/08/1996)
181 NOTICE entered, endorsed motion granting [180-1] motion to Extend Time which required the parties to this litigation to file a joint report by 1-12-96; time extended to 2-23-96 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 01/11/1996)
192 RESPONSE by Morris Thigpen to [191-1] Court Order; refererd to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 01/23/1997)
182 Joint Report on Defendants' Compliance with Consent Order filed by the parties; referred to M/J Milling 2-23-96 (mbp) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
183 ORDER entered that as soon as Defendants have complied with the remaining items of the consent decree and/or not later than 6-14-96, the parties are to submit to the Court a second Joint Report setting out those remaining items of the consent decree, if any, which have not been implemented and show cause why the Court's provision of the implementation of the consent decree should not be concluded and this action closed; counsel for Commissioner of the Alabama Dept. of Corrections is to participate in the compilation of the next Joint Report ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) (mbp) (Entered: 02/29/1996)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 26 of 28

06/17/1996 06/25/1996 06/27/1996 07/11/1996
07/24/1996
01/03/1997 01/03/1997 01/08/1997 01/22/1997 01/22/1997 01/29/1997 02/27/1997

184 NOTICE of filing of Final Compliance Report by Conecuh County, Al; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
185 ORDER entered that.. all terms of the consent decree have been complied with by Defts, The parties will file a joint motion to dismiss nlt Friday, 6/28/96 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 6/25/96) Copies mailed 6/27/96 (clr) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
186 ORDER, Parties are to confer and file a joint motion to dismiss nlt Friday, 7/12/96 ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 6/27/96) Copies mailed 6/27/96 (clr) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
187 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss filed by United States Department of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights division, the Hnorable Andrew Barrick, pltfs, Intervenors, Frderick H. Stevens, Conecuh County Attorneys, representing Conecuh County, Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, and Frank Pate, etc;ref. to M/Milling 7/16/96 (mca) (Entered: 07/16/1996)
188 ORDER GRANTING [187-1] joint motion to Dismiss. The Court retains jurisdiction solely for the purpose of ensuring, if necessary, Defts' compliance with paragraph 154 of the Consent Decree pertaining to the payment of attys' fees, the last payment is to be paid nlt 9/27/96.( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 7/24/96) Copies mailed 7/25/96 (clr) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
189 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams for relief from Order pursuant to Rule 60(b) ; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 01/06/1997)
190 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams to Show Cause ; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 01/06/1997)
191 ORDER entred on Pltfs' motions, Response to Motion set to 1/21/97 for [190-1] motion to Show Cause, set to 1/21/97 for [189-1] motion for relief from Order pursuant to Rule 60(b) ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 1/8/97) Copies mailed 1/10/97 (clr) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
193 ANSWER by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, Larry Farrell to [191-1] show cause order (clr) (Entered: 01/23/1997)
193 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Conecuh County Commission and Sheriff Thomas W. Hall for relief from Order ; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 01/23/1997)
194 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams to promulgate Discovery and for expedited discovery period ; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 02/03/1997)
195 MOTION by Conecuh County, Al., Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate to deny Pltfs' motion for relief from Order ; referred to Mag. Milling (clr) (Entered: 02/27/1997)

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 27 of 28

03/07/1997
03/07/1997 07/01/1997
07/28/1997 08/08/1997 08/18/1997 08/18/1997 10/14/1997 11/12/1997 11/24/1997 12/04/1997
10/02/1998 10/05/1998

196 ORDER entered STAYING this case until June 27, 1997. During the stay, Defts Coneuh Co., et al will submit monthly reports to counsel for Pltfs, coverning agreed upon topics including but not limited to the jail's population, as more fully set out in order. ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. ) copies mailed 3/12/97 (clr) (Entered: 03/12/1997)
Case stayed until June 27, 1997 (clr) (Entered: 03/12/1997)
197 MOTION with attached memorandum in support to terminate consent order pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act filed by The Attorney General for the State of Alabama and the Commission of the Alabama Dept. of Corretions; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 07/03/1997)
198 RESPONSE to [197-1] motion to terminate consent order pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act filed by Plaintiff-Intervenor United States; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
199 MOTION by Kevin P. Rooks, John Paul Owens, Kenneth Earl Williams for inspection ; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
200 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to [197-1] State Defts' motion to terminate consent order pursuant to the Prison Reform Act; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
201 RESPONSE by Conecuh County, Al. in opposition to [199-1] motion for inspection ; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
202 MOTION filed by The Attorney General for the State of Alabama to supplement the record ; referred to Mag. Milling (clr) (Entered: 10/20/1997)
203 MOTION by Plaintiffs for Order prohibiting Defts' interference with Attorney-Inmate communications ; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
204 RESPONSE by Conecuh County, Al. to [203-1] motion for Order prohibiting Defts' interference with Attorney-Inmate communications; referred loose to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
205 REPLY to Conecuh County's response to Plaintiffs' motion for order prohibiting Defendants' interference with Attorney-Inmate Communications filed; referred to Mag. Milling. (clr) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
206 MOTION by Morris Thigpen for to supplement the record ; referred to M/J Milling. (clr) (Entered: 10/07/1998)
207 ORDER entered mooting [206-1] motion for to supplement the record, mooting [203-1] motion for Order prohibiting Defts' interference with Attorney-Inmate communications, mooting [202-1] motion to supplement the record, mooting [199-1] motion for inspection, mooting [197-1] motion to terminate consent order pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, mooting [195-1] motion to deny Pltfs' motion for relief Order, mooting [194-1] motion to promulgate Discovery and for

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

ALS District Version 2.5 Live - Docket Report

Page 28 of 28

expedited discovery period, mooting [193-1] motion for relief from Order, mooting [190-1] motion to Show Cause, denying [189-1] motion for relief from Order pursuant to Rule 60(b) ( signed by Mag. Judge Bert W. Milling Jr. 10/3/98) Copies mailed 10/7/98 (clr) (Entered: 10/07/1998)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

10/14/2005 13:43:46

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:92-cv-00316-M

Billable Pages: 17

Cost:

1.36

https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?714989183148503-L_280_0-1

10/14/2005

 
 Rooks v. Thigpen
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division November 10, 1993, Decided ; November 10, 1993, Filed CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-0316-AH-M

Reporter: 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17794 KEVIN P. ROOKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MORRIS THIGPEN, et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: [*1] Adopting Order of December 10, 1993, Reported at: 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17683.
Judges: MILLING, JR.
Opinion by: BERT W. MILLING, JR.
Opinion
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action is before the Court on the defendants Conecuh County, Freddie Stallworth, Jerold Dean, Leonard Millender, Hugh Barrow, Frank Pate, Edwin L. Booker, and Leroy Ferrell's (hereinafter "defendants") Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 89), which has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). It is recommended that defendants' motion be granted and that plaintiff Curtis Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a class member, be dismissed with prejudice.
In their motion, the defendants seek sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) for the failure of plaintiff Curtis Sexton, a class representative, to appear and to be deposed each time his deposition was noticed. The defendants request that the sanction imposed be the dismissal of plaintiff Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a member of the class. Attached to the motion are four notices of plaintiff Sexton's deposition which were filed over an eight-month period.
Plaintiffs' counsel responded to the defendants' motion (Doc. 90) stating that even though plaintiff Sexton's deposition was noticed four times, [*2] the deposition was convened only twice despite plaintiffs' counsel advising the defendants prior to the depositions that counsel did not expect plaintiff Sexton to appear. The remaining plaintiffs assert that every attempt had been made to contact plaintiff Sexton, but they were unsuccessful. The remaining plaintiffs request that neither they nor plaintiffs' counsel be subjected sanctions.
A considerable period of tine has elapsed from the filing of the first notice of plaintiff's Sexton deposition on December 9, 1992 to the filing of defendants' Motion for

Sanctions on August 10, 1993 (Doc. 89). Plaintiffs' counsel have admitted not being able to contact plaintiff Sexton for his deposition and have not offered that they otherwise have been in contact with him then or recently. The undersigned therefore concludes that plaintiff Sexton has lost interest in his claims in this action and has abandoned prosecution.
When considering the alternatives available to the Court, the Court notes that in addition to plaintiff Sexton's lack of contact, plaintiff Sexton initially sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (Doc. 3) and that he was incarcerated at the time of the [*3] complaint's filing. The imposition of a monetary sanction based on the expenses associated with the scheduling and the taking of plaintiff Sexton's deposition thus would be a futile measure in view of the present facts. Nor would the imposition of such a monetary sanction on the plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel be warranted, as they have no control over this type of conduct by plaintiff Sexton and plaintiffs' counsel cooperated with the defendants by advising that they did not anticipate plaintiff Sexton appearing for his deposition. Moreover, the defendants have not requested a monetary sanction or submitted evidence of their expenditures related to the never-taken depositions and this motion. Rather, the defendants seek the dismissal of plaintiff Sexton's claims as an individual and as a member of the class. See Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (lesser sanctions should be shown to have been considered).
The type of sanctions which the defendants request is appropriate for the conduct that they strive to sanction. Because plaintiff Sexton has obstinately refused to participate in the litigation of his [*4] claims and those claims of the class through his apparent loss of interest, and due to the difficulty in the enforcement of any other type of sanction and to the additional expenses associated with such a sanction, the appropriate sanction for this type of conduct is dismissing plaintiff Sexton's claims with prejudice. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 839 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,493 U.S. 863, 110 S. Ct. 180, 107 L. Ed. 2d 135 (1989) (prisoner's refusal to be deposed resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of his action); Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff's action dismissed with prejudice for failure to appear at deposition with the Court noting at one time there had been no contact with counsel for 60 days). The

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17794, *4

Page 2 of 3

dismissal with prejudice would impact upon plaintiff Sexton should he regain interest in his claims and bring them again. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Whereas, a dismissal without prejudice more than likely would have no effect on plaintiff Sexton due to the nature of the dismissal and to the tolling statute, Ala. Code § 6-2-8, and cause [*5] the defendants to undergo additional expenses of a new action. A dismissal without prejudice is essentially no

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

sanction for plaintiff Sexton's conduct. Accordingly, it is recommended that the defendants' motion be granted and that plaintiff Curtis Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a member of the class, be dismissed with prejudice from this action.

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of this court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in the recommendation and

An alternate basis for dismissing with prejudice plaintiff Curtis Sexton's claims is the Court's inherent power to dismiss, sua sponte, those claims that have been abandoned. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962). It appears to the Court that plaintiff Curtis Sexton has willfully abandoned his claims. Plaintiff Sexton commenced this action with the other

will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982) (en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge is set out in more detail in Local Rule 26(4)(b), which provides that:

plaintiffs. Thus, he is aware that this action is pending. His failure to communicate with class counsel over at least an eight-month period, which is implicit in the plaintiffs' response that they tried unsuccessfully to contact plaintiff Sexton, is more than negligent conduct, but conduct that evinces a willful disregard for the proceedings which he helped to [*6] initiate.

Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report [*8] made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. The appellant shall file with the Clerk, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically

As discussed above in regard to sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, the other less drastic sanctions which are available to the Court are not appropriate in this instance. The plaintiff will not be affected by most other sanctions due to the course of conduct that he has chosen. This Court should impose a sanction which is efficient in that the sanction should not cause the parties to incur more expenses and the Court to expend additional time and resources until the time, if ever, that plaintiff Sexton is interested in his claims again. Therefore, imposing the sanction of dismissing with prejudice plaintiff Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a member of the class, is well-tailored to conduct sought to be sanctioned. This sanction would prevent plaintiff Sexton from invoking this Court's resources again to hear these claims since he disregarded the present proceedings which have resulted from the filing of his claims. Accordingly, it is recommended that

identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

plaintiff Curtis Sexton's claims, as an individual and as a member of the class, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for lack of prosecution.

A Magistrate Judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals; only the District Judge's order or judgment can be appealed.

The

attached

sheet

contains

important

information [*7] regarding objections to this Report and

Recommendation.

2. Transcript (applicable [*9] Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge finds that the tapes and original

DONE this 10th day of November, 1993.

records in this case are adequate for

BERT W. MILLING, JR.

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17794, *9

Page 3 of 3

purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this

recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is Bert W. Milling, Jr.

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is necessary is required before the United States will pay the UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cost of the transcript.