Twelve John Does v. D.C.
PC-DC-008-014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al.,

)

*w

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

C.A. No. 80-2136 (June L. Green, J.)

)

Defendants.

)

)

ORDER Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Contempt, and Imposition of Sanctions, on Environmental, Medical, and Mental Health Issues, the memorandum in support thereof, the opposition thereto, the reports of the Special Officer of the Court and of the entire record in this case, it is ORDERED that the Special Officer's Reports be and hereby are adopted by the Court as the Court's Findings of Fact on Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health programs at Lorton Central. Accordingly, it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Officer of the Court and defendants, in collaboration with such consultants or assistants as they may require, shall promulgate and implement a workable housekeeping plan and a preventive maintenance plan. It is

- 2-
FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Officer of the Court and defendants, in collaboration with such consultants or assistants as they may require, shall establish and implement a training program for the aforementioned housekeeping and preventive maintenance programs. Defendants shall make their staff available for such training at reasonable times as required by the Special Officer or her agents. The Special Officer will periodically inspect and evaluate the effectiveness of the housekeeping, preventive maintenance and training programs. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall, within 30 days from the date of this Order, present to the Court a plan for doubling the number of man-hours that are currently spent on housekeeping and maintenance at the Central Facility. Defendants shall give consideration to the use of inmate workers in achieving the aforementioned man-hour increase. Such plan shall be fully staffed and implemented within 60 days from the date of this Order. Failure of defendants to present such a plan within 30 days, or to implement it within 60 days, shall be subject to fines of $500 for every day that defendants are late in submitting or implementing the plan. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that within 45 days of this Order defendants shall correct the OSHA violations in the prison industries areas as noted in the Environmental Health and Sanitation Report filed by the Special Officer of the Court on July 25, 1989, and in the report of Dr. Bailus Walker attached

- 3-
thereto. After the 45 day period has passed, the Special Officer is ordered to cause the industries areas to be inspected for compliance with OSHA regulations, at intervals of her choosing. For further OSHA violations in the specific areas identified by the Special Officer and Dr. Walker, defendants shall pay a fine of $500.00 for each violation found by the Special Officer during reinspection or by the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs ("DCRA") during regular inspections. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall increase the illumination provided in the control cells to meet the standards set by Article VI.A.12. of the Consent Decree within 45 days. After the 45 day period, the Special Officer or her agents shall inspect the lighting in the control cells for compliance. For failure to provide required levels of illumination in the control cells after the 45 day period, defendants shall pay fines of $250 per day until the required levels of illumination are provided. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Officer of the Court and defendants, in consultation with such experts and consultants as they may require, will submit a plan to the Court to improve the ventilation throughout the Central Facility on both a short-term and long-term basis. Such a plan shall contain firm deadlines for achieving the improvements in ventilation. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Officer of the Court and defendants, in conjunction with such experts and

- 4-
consultants as they may require, shall design and implement a training program to implement the fire and accident plan. Defendants shall make their staff available for the training programs at reasonable times as required by the Special Officer and/or her agents.
The Court specifically finds that defendants have failed to achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with the Decree in the matters of medical services. The Court finds that defendants have not honored the staffing and other provisions of the Consent Decree regarding medical personnel and treatment. It is therefore
ORDERED that within 30 days of this Order, the Special Officer of the Court and defendants, with the assistance of such experts as they may require, shall develop a plan with firm deadlines but not longer than 90 days to hire additional medical doctors and 120 days to hire licensed physician's assistants to perform clinical duties at Health Services Unit #2, up to the number required in the Consent Decree. The Court authorizes the Special Officer to make arrangements to contract out, at the District's expense, for medical services equivalent to the services of any of the full-time physicians or licensed physician's assistants identified in the plan, whom the District fails to hire in accordance with the dates established in the submitted plan. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Officer of the Court and defendants, in consultation with any experts whom

- 5-
they may require, shall design and implement a quality assurance program for medical services at Central, including the training of staff. Defendants will make their staff available for such training at reasonable times as required by the Special Officer or her agent. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall remove all expired drugs from the Infirmary and other dispensaries at the Central Facility forthwith, and shall certify to the Court that they have done so within 7 days of this Order. Defendants are also ordered to present a plan to the Court within 45 days to reform the pharmaceutical procurement process and/or take other measures designed to ensure that the problem of expired drugs will not reawcur. The Special Officer, or her agents, shall be authorized to inspect the Infirmary pharmacy, and any other dispensaries at Central, at intervals of her choosing, in addition to the regular pharmacy inspections conducted by DCRA. Defendants shall pay a fine of $1,000.00 for every instance on which an inspection by the Special Officer or DCRA henceforth discloses expired drugs in the Infirmary pharmacy or other dispensaries at Central. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, within 90 days of this Order, defendants shall install hand washing facilities in the isolation rooms, and within 120 days of this Order, defendants shall (i) replace or repair the Infirmary roof and (ii) alter the ventilation system in the Infirmary's isolation rooms so that the air in the isolation rooms vents to the outdoors.

- 6-
For failure of defendants to complete the forementioned three requirements within the time allotted, defendants shall pay a fine of $250 per day, per unfinished requirement, provided that if within such 120 day period defendants make a showing that they have taken irrevocable action to replace the existing Infirmary with a modern infirmary facility within a year, such fines shall not be imposed. It is further provided that if there are days where work on the Infirmary roof is impossible because of weather, fines will not be imposed for those days.
The Court further finds that defendants have failed to achieve compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree, as amended, concerning mental health services. It is therefore
ORDERED that, within 120 days of this Order, defendants shall hire one full time, board certified psychiatrist and six full time psychologists as staff at Lorton Central. If defendants fail to certify within 120 days that the aforementioned positions are filled, then the Special Officer shall be authorized to procure equivalent mental health services at defendants' expense. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Officer and defendants, in consultation with such experts as they may require, shall design and implement a comprehensive mental
health program for the Central Facility, such plan to be
submitted within 90 days. The program should respond to the entire range of mental health needs of the inmates at the

- 7-
Central Facility/ as discussed in the Special Officer's report on mental health programs. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that where the Court has ordered that the Special Officer of the Court and defendants are jointly to develop plans or programs, the Court further directs the Special Officer to submit her own proposed plans or programs to the Court, in a prompt and timely manner, if the Special Officer concludes that after reasonable effort it is not possible to reach an agreement with defendants on such plans or programs.
FURTHER ORDERED that the full expenses of all of the foregoing measures shall be borne by the District of Columbia, in accordance with the Court's Order appointing Ms. Monaco as Special Officer, where applicable. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with this motion.
The Court makes no findings at this time as to whether defendants are or are not in compliance with aspects of the Consent Decree not specifically addressed herein.

Dated:

June L. Green United States District Judge

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(»>*' ' 'J
F/LED

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiff..
V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
Defendants,

: C.A. NO. 80-2136 (JLG)'
:
:

CONSENT ORDER. Upon consideration of plaintiff's Motion for Finding of Contempt, Imposition of Sanctions, and Award of Attorney's Fees for Medical and Mental Health Conditions at•Lorton Central Facility, the report of the Special Officer of the Court dated March 13, 1992, (which the Court has adopted as its own findings of fact), the agreement of the parties and the entire record herein, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Physicians. After July 20, 1992, defendants shall pay monetary sanctions if they fail to maintain six full-time physicians at the Central Facility infirmary in accordance with their revised staffing plan of August 20, 1991. In addition to the physicians presently assigned to Central Facility, an additional 1.5 physicians will be assigned to Centralvby July 6, 1992, and one additional, physician will be assigned by July 20, 1992. Sanctions shall be $250.00 per day for every physician short of the six physician requirement.
Defendants reserve the right to claim the defense of impossibility.
1 Twelve John Does v. D.C.

II Illl II III III
PC-DC-008-015

— ^y

These positions will continue to be subject to the provisions set forth in paragraph 1 of page 3 of the Consent Order filed on June 14, 1991. Records sufficient to show the number and identity of physicians working at the Central Facility infirmary shall be furnished in defendants' monthly compliance reports. The parties acknowledge that they are discussing the feasibility of plans to reduce the medical staff at the Central infirmary in connection with the possible relocation of Central infirmary beds to the Correctional Treatment Facility and this Consent Order is not intended to prejudice those efforts.
2. Psychologists. On and after July 7, 1992, defendants shall pay monetary sanctions if they fail to maintain four full-time psychologists and two full time masters degree social workers in temporary satisfaction of the consent decree requirement for six psychologists. Such sanctions shall be $250.00 per day for every psychologist and/or social worker short of the above-referenced requirement. Defendants reserve the right to claim the defense of impossibility. These positions will continue to be subject to the provisions set forth in paragraph 1 of page 3 of the Consent Order filed on June 14, 1991. Withinr-90 days of this Order, the Special Officer shall investigattMknd make, a report and recommendation to the Court as to whether masters degree social workers should, consistent with the purposes of the Decree, continue to staff any of the six required psychologist positions. The parties shall file comments on the

Special Officer's Report within fifteen days. The Court shall consider the- Special Officer's recommendations in light of the parties' comments and shall decide whether to modify the consent decree so as to permit masters degree social workers to fill some of the six psychologist positions.
3. Psychiatrist. Within 90 days of this Order, the Special Officer shall review and recommend whether the consent decree requirements for a boardcertified psychiatrist should be waived for Dr. Thompson and whether Dr. Thompson's schedule constitutes full-time service within the meaning of the consent decree requirement for a fulltime psychiatrist. 4. Special Officer's Authority to Contract Out. In the event that the Special Officer contracts out for medical and mental health positions pursuant to the Order of December 14, 1989, defendants are liable for all costs and expenses incurred by such contracts. Defendants, plaintiffs and the Special Officer are directed to devise a procedure to facilitate the Special Officer's ability to contract for the medical and mental health positions. The parties shall present their proposed procedure to the Court no later than July 15, 1992. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, plaintiffs may renew their request to the Court to order defendants to place $100,000.00 in the Registry of the Court in order to establish a fund that will permit the Special Officer to contract for medical and mental health staff on a temporary basis.

5. Handicapped Inmates. Defendants, in consultation with the Special Officer, shall employ within 45 days the services of a qualified physiatrist to
evaluate the care, services, and physical facilities available to
handicapped inmates. Also in consultation with the Special Officer, defendants shall within 90 days develop, implement and comply with an effective program to address the special needs of the physically handicapped inmates at Lorton Central, including such improvements to the physical structure as are necessary. Within 60 days of this Order, defendants shall keep, wheelchairs and other equipment for handicapped inmates in good repair.
6. Special Diets. Defendants shall provide special diets to inmates whose medical needs require such diets. Within 90 days, defendants, in consultation with the Special Officer, shall design, implement and comply with a plan to ensure that the special medical dietary needs of all inmates at the facility are met. The Court authorizes the Special Officer to employ the services of such experts as she may require to assist defendants to devise and implement such a plan. 7. Ambulance. Within five days of this Order, defendants shall maintain the ambulances in good working order and shall keep the ambulances fully stocked with necessary supplies. Defendants shall certify in their monthly compliance reports as to whether the requirements of this paragraph are met.

8. Emergency Medical Response Sy Within 60 days of this Order, defendants, in consultation with the Special Officer of the Court, and any experts whom the Special Officer may require, shall design, implement and comply with a plan to improve the emergency medical response system, including EMT training for medical staff who ride on the ambulance. 9. Facilities. Within 60 days of this Order, defendants, in consultation with the Special Officer of the Court, and any experts whom the Special Officer may require, shall design and implement a plan to address and remedy the general maintenance and structural deficiencies in the Infirmary and Dormitory 20 found in the Special Officer's Report of March 13, 1992. 10. Procurement. Within 60 days of this Order, defendants shall design, implement and comply with a plan to improve the procurement of necessary drugs, medical supplies and equipment. The Special Officer will evaluate whether the remedial plan cures the procurement problems noted in her report of March 13, 1992. 11. Computerized Pharmacy System. Within 60 days of this Order, defendants shall develop a plan for implementing a computerized pharmacy recording system to perform dru^Putilization reviews and to establish patient profiles. The plan shall include a schedule for implementation which shall be complied with.

12. Sick Call at Control Cells. DefendaTTts shall cause sick call rounds to be performed seven times weekly at the control cells by either licensed physician's assistants or medical doctors. In their monthly compliance reports to plaintiffs' counsel, defendants shall include a list of the medical personnel who performed the daily sick call at the control cells. 13. Quality Assurance Plan. Pursuant to the Order of December 14, 1989, defendants and the Special Officer of the Court shall submit a medical quality assurance plan to the Court within 45 days of this Order, or a longer period as deemed necessary by the Special Officer. The plan shall include a schedule for prompt implementation. Defendants shall implement the plan according to such schedule and shall comply with the plan. 14. Specialty Clinic Access. Within 60 days of this Order, defendants, in consultation with the Special Officer of the Court and any experts whom they may require, shall design and implement a plan to improve access to specialty medical clinics, so that all inmates receive access to such clinics within a time period that is medically appropriate in the judgment of the treating physician. 15. Verification of the Monthly Compliance Report. Defendants shall submit each segment of the monthly compliance report with the signature and printed name of the attesting official. The attesting official shall declare under penalty of

perjury, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief upon reasonable inquiry, that all statements in the pertinent portion of the monthly compliance reports are true and accurate.
16. Expenses of Compliance. The full expenses of all of the foregoing measures shall be borne by the District of Columbia, in accordance with the Court's Order appointing Ms. Lopes as Special Officer, where applicable. 17. Attorneys/ Fees and Expenses. Defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with bringing this motion and with monitoring compliance with the Court's orders and Consent Decree as amended. The parties are directed to negotiate concerning the amount of such fees and expenses.

I O HQfl.

Date

'

Consent to and copies to:

June L. Green United States District Judge

Clare M. Elmendorf, Esquire Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 75«* Washington, D.C. 2Q044
Richard S. Love Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Office of the Corporation Counsel Correctional Litigation Section 1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite NLL-3 Washington, D.C. 20001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of June, 1991, I caused copies of the foregoing Joint Motion for Adoption of Consent Order Resolving Motion for Contempt on Medical and Mental Health Issues and proposed Consent Order to be delivered by first-class, postage prepaid mail to:
Grace M. Lopes, Esq. Special Officer of the Court Suite 400 1130 - 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Clare M. Elmendorf

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t al. , )

) Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 80-2136 Judge June L. Green

JOHN DOE, .e_t al. , Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t al. ,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 79-1725 Judge June L. Green

INMATES OF THE MODULAR

)

FACILITY,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t __l., )

) Defendants. )
) ) INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et. __l . , )

) Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al., )

) Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 90-727 Judge June L. Green
Civil Action No. 86-2128 Judge June L. Green

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia
•• • i * • • • • • • • • • • •••
PC-DC-0008-0016

INMATES OF THREE LORTON

)

FACILITIES,

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et a¿. , )

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 92-1201 Judge June L. Green

CONSENT MOTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF A CONSENT ORDER CONCERNING SYSTEMWIDE MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
Plaintiffs hereby move, with Defendants' consent, for the adoption of the proposed Consent Order attached hereto concerning systemwide medical and mental health care. This motion is filed by undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs in Civil Action Nos. 80-2136, 79-1726, and 90-727, on their own behalf and on behalf of Plaintiffs in Civil Action Nos. 92-1208 and 86-2128, who have given undersigned counsel their authorization.
The issue of Defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders concerning medical and mental health care most recently came before the Court on July 9, 1996. The parties believe that the attached proposed Consent Order appropriately resolves the issues presented at that hearing.

- 2-

It is therefore respectfully requested that the Court enter the attached Consent Order.

Respect f ully/T3ubmitted,

July 26, 1996

Peter^J. Nickles # 53447

Alan A. .P£mberton # 367108

Eric G. Lasker

# 430130

Michael S. Labson # 447867

Covington & Burling

12 01 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

P.O. Box 7566

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 662-6000

Counsel for Plaintiffs in C.A. Nos. 80-2136, 79-1726, and 90727

- 3-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al. ,
Defendants.
JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al. ,
Defendants.
INMATES OF THE MODULAR FACILITY, Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al.. , Defendants.
INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al. , Plaintiffs,
v. MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al. ,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 80-2136 Judge June L. Green
Civil Action No. 79-1726 Judge June L. Green
Civil Action No. 90-727 Judge June L. Green
Civil Action No. 86-2128 Judge June L. Green

Twelve John Does v. D.C. PC-DC-008-017

INMATES _0F THREE LORTCN

)

FACILITIES,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al.., )

)

Defendants. )

)

Civil Action No. 92-1208 Judge June L. Green

CONSENT ORDER This matter concerning Defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders on mental health care and medical care at the Lorton facilities having been brought before the Court on July 9, 1996, and the parties having consented hereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall report to the Court by September 9, 1996, as to whether they have hired an appropriately qualified systemwide medical coordinator. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a hearing on October 9, 1996 at 1:30 p.m., at which time, if Defendants have hired a systemwide medical coordinator, (1) the Special Officer shall report to the Court as to whether in her view the person whom Defendants have hired is qualified to undertake the tasks necessary to improve systemwide compliance with the Court's Orders concerning medical and mental health care, and (2) the new systemwide medical coordinator will report to the Court regarding his or her plans to increase Defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders concerning medical and mental health care. It is

- 2-

FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants have hired a systemwiHe medical coordinator by September 9, 1996, the Special Officer shall report to the Court at such time as she deems appropriate, after consulting with the new coordinator and che parties, as to whether the Court should enter additional orders regarding the powers and responsibilities of the systemwide medical coordinator so as to better enable him or her to improve compliance with the Court's existing Orders. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants have not hired a systemwide medical coordinator by September 9, 1996, the parties shall present proposals at the October 9, 1996 hearing as to how to improve Defendants' compliance with the Court's existing Orders regarding medical and mental health care, including but not limited to how to improve the medical leadership within the Department of Corrections.
SO ORDERED.
June L. Green United States District Judge Dated:
- 3-

Copies to: Alan A. Pemberton Covington & Burling P.O. Box 7566 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 Richard S. Love Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Jonathan M. Smith D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc 1400 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Stuart Adams ACLU National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009 Martin Hacala Ross, Dixon & Masback 601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. North Building Washington, D.C. 20004 Grace M. Lopes, Esq.
Special Officer for the Court 1130 17th Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036
- 4-

—

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the

foregoing Motion for Adoption of Consent Order to be served by

first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 26th day of July,

19 96 upon:

Richard S. Love Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
Jonathan M. Smith D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc 1400 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Stuart Adams • ACLU National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009
Martin Hacala Ross, Dixon & Masback 601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. North Building Washington, D.C. 20004
Grace M. Lopes, Esq. Special Officer for the Court 1130 17th Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036

A"Tan A. P^mberton

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,*.

-- /

FOR THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA ' c

/ELVE JOHN DOES, fit

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 80-2136 Judge June L. Green

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT ORDER REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SANITATION MATTERS Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby jointly move for
the entry of a proposed consent order regarding environmental health and sanitation matters. The parties believe that the measures embodied in the consent order and the agreement - attached as a schedule to the consent order will likely improve environmental health and sanitation conditions at the 1 ^Central Facility and resolve the parties' disagreement about
h scope and application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, . "L^ No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, §§ 801-810 (Apr. 26,
1996), to th jse issues. Accordingly, the parties rf.jpectfully request that the Court approve the proposed consent order and agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
of the Consent Order The consent order would stay the Court's Orders concerning environmental health and sanitation in 60 days in light of Defendants' commitment to take certain steps, which are embodied in a separate agreement between the parties
Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia

PC-DC-008-018

attached to the consent order. Such stay would not take effect or would cease, and the Court's Orders would again become effective, if Defendants failed to comply substantially with that agreement. In approximately two years, the Court's Orders concerning environmental health and sanitation could be vacated upon Defendants' compliance with the agreement and satisfaction of the conditions described therein.
Nothing in the consent order would stay, terminate, or otherwise modify the Court's Orders concerning the procurement of food, kitchen equipment, maintenance and cleaning supplies and equipment, and medical and pharmaceutical supplies, or limit the Court's ability to continue to monitor and enforce Defendants' compliance with such Orders. In addition, Plaintiffs would retain the right to petition the Court for relief concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions that create an imminent threat of harm to the health, safety, or life of an inmate or group of inmates.
The parties believe that it would be appropriate to provide notice to the plaintiff class about the proposed consent order and agreement, and to permit members of the plaintiff class to submit comments to the Court. Counsel for Plaintiffs drafted such a notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and counsel will cause that notice to be posted at the prison simultaneously with the filing of this motion.
- 2-

©

Following the two-week comment period provided for in the notice, the parties would be pleased to appear before the Court to explain the consent order further and answer any questions the Court might have.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the parties request that not sooner than March 13. 1997. the Court approve the proposed consent order attached hereto, after consideration of any comments submitted by members of the plaintiff class.
Respectfully,submitted,

Peter J. Nickles # 53447

Alan A. Pemberton # 367108

Eric G. Lasker

# 430180

Michael S. Labson # 447867

COVINGTON & BURLING

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

P.O. Box 7566

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 662-6000

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated:

JO ANNE ROBINSON Interim Corporation
Counsel, D.C. MICHAEL E. ZIELINSKI Deputy Corporation
Counsel, D.C.
RICHARD S. LOVE # 340455 Special Assistant to the Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth Street, N.W. 10th Floor North Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6248
Counael for Defendants
Dated: 2/W97

- 3-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA

)

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al..

)

Plaintiffs, ) )

v.

)

) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 80-2136 Judge June L. Green

CONSENT ORDER Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Finding that Defendants Are in Violation of the Court's Orders Concerning Environmental Health and Sanitation Conditions and for an Order Requiring Defendants to Adopt New Inspection and Abatement Procedures, Defendants' opposition thereto and Plaintiffs' reply, Defendants' Motion for Termination of Prospective Relief, Plaintiffs' opposition thereto and Plaintiffs' Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, the entire record, and the agreement of the parties, it is ORDERED that 60 days after the date of entry of this Order, the Court's Orders concerning environmental health and sanitation contained in (1) Section VI of the April 28, 1982 Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree; (2) paragraphs 13 through 21 of the August 18, 1983 Consent Decree Amending Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree; (3) Section 6 of the March 4, 1985 Consent Decree Amending Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree; and (4) the portion of the June 14, 1991 Consent Order regarding a preventive maintenance plan

and maintenance personnel, shall be stayed in light of the agreement the parties have entered into regarding environmental health and sanitation matters, attached as Schedule A hereto. It is •
FURTHER ORDERED that such stay shall not take effect or shall cease, and the aforementioned Orders regarding environmental health and sanitation shall remain or again become effective, if Plaintiffs show that Defendants have failed to comply substantially with the agreement attached hereto as Schedule A. In the event that the stay shall not take effect or shall cease, the parties shall retain all rights and defenses as they possessed prior to such time, and shall be permitted to reassert the rights and defenses they raised in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for a Finding that Defendants are in Violation of the Court's Orders Concerning Environmental Health and Sanitation Conditions and for an Order Requiring Defendants to Adopt New Inspection and Abatement Procedures, Defendants' Motion for Termination of Prospective Relief, and the various responses and replies thereto. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the aforementioned Orders regarding environmental health and sanitation shall be vacated if Defendants show that the conditions described in Section III of Schedule A attached hereto have been satisfied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, nothing contained herein shall be
- 2-

@
construed to stay, terminate, or otherwise modify the Court's Orders concerning the procurement of food, kitchen equipment, maintenance and cleaning supplies and equipment, and medical and pharmaceutical supplies, including the Orders of December 19, 1996, October 9, 1996, May 29, 1996, April 22, 1996, February 29, 1996, and February 6, 1996. In addition, notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the Court's ability to continue to monitor and enforce Defendants' compliance with these procurement Orders. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, Plaintiffs shall retain the right to petition the Court for relief concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions that create an imminent threat of harm to the health, safety, or life of an inmate or group of inmates at the Central Facility. In the event that Plaintiffs petition the Court for such relief, notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit Defendants' right to raise such defenses as they may have availab? a.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June L. Green United States District Judge Dated:
- 3-

C:.'••':
Copies to: Alan A. Pemberton, Esq. Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 Richard S. Love, Esq. Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Grace M. Lopes, Esq. Special Officer of the Court 1130 17th Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036
- 4-

SCHEDULE A AN AGREEMENT
The undersigned parties, the plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") and the defendants ("Defendants") in Twelve John Does. et al. v. District of Columbia, et al.. No. 80-2136 (D. D.C.) [hereinafter Twelve John Does!. through their authorized counsel enter into the following agreement (the "Agreement").
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants (the "Parties") wish to ensure that the District of Columbia's Central Facility in Lorton, Virginia (the "Central Facility") is sanitary, habitable and safe;
WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to whether the Court's Orders in Twelve John Does regarding environmental health and sanitation conditions must be terminated in light of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104134 (April 26, 1996);
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to avoid unnecessary litigation;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the Court.'s Orders in Twelve John Does regarding environmental health and sanitation conditions should be stayed upon Defendants' undertaking of certain actions to ensure that the Central Facility is sanitary, habitable and safe; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the Court's Orders in Twelve John Does regarding environmental health and

!,•:"'•
sanitation conditions should remain stayed so long as Defendants continue to undertake certain actions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and covenants contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows: I. Initial Steps
1. Expert Assistance. Defendants shall obtain the assistance of appropriately qualified expert(s) (the "Expert" or "Experts"), to be selected by Defendants in consultation with Plaintiffs and the Special Officer of the Court in Twelve John Does (the "Special Officer"), to help them develop environmental health and sanitation standards and fire safety standards, formulate a housekeeping and preventive maintenance plan, conduct a needs assessment, respond to the needs assessment, and perform other tasks, as described below.
2. Standards. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, Defendants shall develop a set of standards designed to upgrade and maintain the Central Facility as a sanitary, habitable and safe institution. Defendants commit to comply with these standards. Defendants shall develop such standards for all significant areas of environmental health and sanitation, including but not limited to the following: plumbing, water supply and temperature, lighting, heating, ventilation, electrical, radiological equipment, solid waste management, insect and rodent control, housekeeping, mattresses, pharmaceutical services, medical
- 2-

services, industries, noise control, accident and fire prevention and preparedness, food services, milk quality, building maintenance, and personal hygiene. Defendants shall consult with the Special Officer and Plaintiffs in developing such standards and solicit their review and comment.
3. Housekeeping and Preventive Maintenance Plan. Within 150 days of the effective date of the Agreement, Defendants shall develop a housekeeping and preventive maintenance plan to upgrade and maintain the Central Facility as a sanitary, habitable and safe institution. Defendants commit to comply with the plan.
Such housekeeping and preventive maintenance plan shall provide for the staffing and training of staff needed to upgrade and maintain the Central Facility as a sanitary, habitable and safe institution. Such housekeeping and preventive maintenance plan shall further establish a regular inspection procedure to (1) monitor the conditions at the Central Facility for compliance with the standards described in Section 1.2 above; and (2) review Defendants' abatement of deficiencies from one inspection to the next. The regular inspection procedure shall include a scoring system that rates the overall state of the environmental health and sanitation conditions at the Central Facility in comparison to the standards described in Section 1.2 above. Defendants, in consultation with the Expert(s), Plaintiffs and the Special Officer, shall establish what constitutes a passing score for
- 3-

the institution as a whole and for appropriate operational divisions.
Such inspections shall occur at least monthly. Defendants shall provide for sufficient staffing and training of the inspection teams to ensure that they are capable of ascertaining whether the Central Facility is sanitary, habitable, and safe. Defendants shall consult with the Special Officer and Plaintiffs regarding their housekeeping and preventive maintenance plan and provide them a copy of the plan for their review and comment.
4. Personnel Accountability. Defendants shall develop a personnel management system to ensure that assigned staff are adequately performing the task of making the Central Facility sanitary, habitable, and safe. Defendants shall further develop an enforcement system to correct the actions of those individuals not adequately performing their assigned tasks.
5. Independent Inspections. Defendants, in consultation with Plaintiffs and the Special Officer, shall arrange for an independent group of inspectors appropriately qualified in their respective disciplines to conduct periodic reviews of the conditions at the Central Facility and the adequacy of Defendants' own regular inspection and abatement process. Such independent review should be conducted by inspectors not employed by the Department of Corrections of the District of Columbia, and should occur at least annually.
- 4-

A
Such independent inspections should include an overall inspection score for the institution as a whole and for appropriate operational divisions, similar to that described in Section 1.3 above. Within 90 days of the effective date of the Agreement, Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs and the Special Officer which independent group Defendants have selected to conduct such inspections.
6. Procurement. Defendants shall procure the housekeeping, cleaning, and maintenance supplies, equipment and services needed to upgrade and maintain the Central Facility as sanitary, habitable, and safe, and develop a system to ensure that they maintain sufficient stores of such supplies and equipment. This provision shall be of the essence of this Agreement.
7. Needs Assessment. Within 120 days of the effective date of the Agreement, Defendants shall conduct a comprehensive inspection of the Central Facility to assess the current state of the Central Facility in comparison to the basic standards described in Section 1.2 above. Defendants shall report their findings to Plaintiffs and the Special Officer.
8. Initial Response to Needs Assessment. Within 150 days of the effective date of the Agreement, Defendants shall develop a plan to remedy the deficiencies Defendants identified in the comprehensive inspection described in Section 1.7 above. Defendants shall consult with the Special
- 5-

r:--;
Officer and Plaintiffs regarding the plan and provide them a copy of the plan for their review and comment.
9. Interim Compliance with Environmental Health and Sanitation Orders. At the same time that Defendants are undertaking the various steps provided for in this Section, Defendants commit to use their best efforts to comply with the Court's Orders in Twelve John Does regarding environmental health and sanitation, notwithstanding any stay of those Orders. Specifically, during the interim period until Defendants have implemented the measures set forth in Section I of this Agreement, Defendants commit to use their best efforts to satisfy the environmental health and sanitation standards in those Orders, as well as to conduct inspections and remedy violations identified by such inspections pursuant to those Orders. Defendants' failure to use their best efforts to comply with such Orders during such interim period shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. II. Ongoing Requirements
Defendants commit to comply with the requirements outlined in this Section. The Parties recognize and agree that it would be difficult to determine with certainty the damages arising from any breach of the provisions in this Section. The Parties also recognize and agree that any such breach could cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs that cannot be adequately compensated solely through money damages. Therefore, if Defendants fail to comply with the requirements
- 6-

in this section, they shall pay liquidated damages in the amounts specified below for particular requirements. The amounts are intended as damages and are not a penalty.
1. Regular Inspections. Defendants shall conduct regular inspections of the Central Facility, as provided for in the plan described in Section 1.3 above.
For the first twelve months of such inspections, Defendants shall further report the results of each inspection to Plaintiffs and the Special Officer within 15 days of the completion of the inspection. After the first twelve months, Defendants shall report the results of inspections on a quarterly basis for the duration of this Agreement. All inspection reports shall include an overall inspection score, as described in Section 1.3 above.
2. Abatement. Defendants shall abate any defect identified in a regular inspection conducted pursuant to the plan described in Section 1.3 above within 45 days of the completion of the inspection. For a deficiency which Defendants cannot correct within 45 days of the completion of the inspection, Defendants must correct the deficiency within a reasonable time period. If Defendants fail to correct a major deficiency within 45 days of the completion of the inspection, they shall pay liquidated damages of $500 per day per major deficiency for each day of delay, unless such delay is reasonable. A major deficiency is a deficiency that
- 7-

imminently threatens a deprivation of the minimal necessities of civilized life.
3. Procurement. Defendants shall report to Plaintiffs and the Special Officer on the adequacy of their housekeeping, cleaning, and maintenance supplies and equipment at least every six months.
4. Staffing and Training. Defendants shall maintain sufficient staff and conduct adequate training so as to ensure that they substantially meet the standards identified in Section 1.2 above and conduct the inspections provided by Section 1.3 above.
5. Independent Inspections. Defendants shall conduct the independent inspections identified in Section 1.5 above at least annually. Defendants shall provide the results of each independent inspection to Plaintiffs and the Special Officer within 3 0 days following the completion of the inspection. Defendants shall abate any defect identified in an independent inspection within 45 days of the independent inspection. If Defendants fail to correct a major deficiency (as defined in Section II.2 above) within 45 days of the completion of such an inspection, they shall pay liquidated damages of $500 per day per major deficiency for each day of delay, unless such delay is reasonable.
6. Inspections by Plaintiffs' Counsel. Plaintiffs' attorneys may inspect areas of the Central
- 8-

Facility at any time during regular business hours with reasonable notice to Defendants. Ill. Termination
1. Initial Independent Expert Review. Within 1 year of the effective date of the Agreement, the Expert(s) described in Section I.I shall conduct a review of the steps Defendants have taken under Sections I and II and report to Defendants, Plaintiffs, and the Special Officer on whether those steps are sufficient to ensure that the Central Facility becomes and remains sanitary, habitable, and safe (as measured under the standards adopted pursuant to Section 1.2 above). Defendants commit to correct any deficiencies identified by the Expert(s), pursuant to the requirements of Section II.2 above. If the Expert(s) report that the Defendants have not taken sufficient steps to ensure that the Central Facility becomes and remains sanitary, habitable, and safe, the Expert(s) shall return one year later to conduct another review, and once every year thereafter until Defendants receive a passing review.
2. Follow-up Independent Expert Review. If Defendants receive a satisfactory report from the Expert(s) in Section III.l above and receive two or more consecutive passing scores in the independent inspections described in Sections 1.5 and II.5 above, where at least one of the independent inspections occurs after the inspection from the Expert(s), then the Expert(s) shall conduct another review of
- 9-

the steps Defendants have taken (the "Termination Review") and report to Defendants, Plaintiffs, and the Special Officer. If the Expert(s) report that the Central Facility is sanitary, habitable, and safe (as measured under the standards adopted pursuant to Section 1.2 above), and that Defendants have taken steps sufficient to ensure that the Central Facility will likely remain sanitary, habitable and safe, then this Agreement shall terminate and Defendants shall be entitled to apply to the Court in Twelve John Does for termination of the Court's Orders concerning environmental health and sanitation contained in (1) Section VI of the April 28, 1982 Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree; (2) paragraphs 13 through 21 of the August 18, 1993 Consent Decree Amending Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree; (3) Section 6 of the March 4, 1985 Consent Decree Amending Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree; and (4) the portion of the June 14, 1991 Consent Order regarding a preventive maintenance plan and maintenance personnel.
If, after conducting the Termination Review, the Expert(s) report that the Central Facility ia not sanitary, habitable, and safe (as measured under the standards adopted pursuant to Section 1.2 above), or that Defendants have not taken steps sufficient to ensure that the Central Facility will likely remain sanitary, habitable and safe, then Defendants shall correct any deficiencies identified by the Expert(s), pursuant to the requirements of Section II.2 above.
- 10 -

The Expert(s) shall not return to conduct a new Termination Review unless and until Defendants receive two further consecutive passing scores in the independent inspections described in Sections 1.5 and II.5 above. IV. Enforcement.
1. If Plaintiffs believe there has been a material breach of the Agreement, Plaintiffs shall so notify Defendants, and the Parties shall meet and confer regarding the alleged breach. The Parties agree that the Special Officer can make findings related to the enforcement of this Agreement, and such findings shall be presumed correct.
2. Following the meet and confer required by Section IV.1, Defendants shall within 15 days provide to Plaintiffs a statement (1) certifying that the alleged breach has been cured, or (2) denying the alleged breach or stating that it cannot or will not be cured, or (3) admitting the breach and providing a plan to cure the breach.
3. Except in the event of an emergency posing an imminent threat to the life or health cf inmates at the Central Facility, Plaintiffs shall take no further action while awaiting the statement from Defendants required by Section IV.2, provided that if Defendants have not given Plaintiffs such statement within 15 days of the meet and confer, Plaintiffs may immediately proceed to seek relief from a court. In the event of an emergency posing an imminent threat to the life or health of inmates at the Central
- 11 -

- i: •}

@

Facility, Plaintiffs may immediately proceed to seek relief from a court.
4. If the Parties cannot agree to a consensual resolution of the matter, Plaintiffs may (1) seek a remedy for breach of contract under District of Columbia law in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; or (2) seek to vacate the stay of the Court's environmental health and sanitation Orders in Twelve John Does. If the stay of the Court's environmental health and sanitation Orders in Twelve John Does is lifted, this Agreement shall automatically terminate in its entirety at such time.
5. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit Plaintiffs' right to petition the Court in Twelve John Does for relief related to environmental health and sanitation conditions that create an imminent threat of harm to the health, safety, or life of an inmate or group of inmates at the Central Facility. This Agreement shall not terminate if Plaintiffs seek such relief. Any relief Plaintiffs obtain shall be considered separate and apart from this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit Defendants' defenses to any relief Plaintiffs' seek in Twelve John Does. V. Damage Fund.
Any damages Defendants pay under this Agreement shall be paid to a fund to be administered by the Special Officer. The Special Officer shall authorize the expenditure
- 12 -

of such funds on Plaintiffs' behalf as she deems appropriate after consulting with the Parties. VI. Effective Date.
The Agreement shall be effective once all of the Parties have signed the Agreement and the Court in Twelve John Does has entered the consent order to which this Agreement is attached as Schedule A. VII. Modification.
The Agreement may be modified only by a writing signed by all of the Parties.

Peter J. Nickles Alan A. Pemberton Eric G. Lasker Michael S. Labson COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 662-6000

N.W.

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated:

JO ANNE ROBINSON Interim Corporation
Counsel, D.C. MICHAEL E. ZIELINSKI
Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C.
RICHARD S. LOVE Special Assistant to the Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth Street, N.W. 10th Floor North Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6248
Counsel for Defendants
Dated: 2-/5-6// 7

- 13 -

COVINGTON & BURLING
1301 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N. W. P.O. BOX 7 5 6 6
WASHINGTON. DC. 2OO44-7566 iaO2) 662-6OOO

February 26, 1997

PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHAND SANITATION ISSUES IN TWELVE JOHN DOES v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In April 1996, Covington & Burling filed on behalf of the inmates at Central a motion to find Defendants in violation of the Court's Orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions. In response, the Defendants filed a motion to terminate all of those Orders under the recently enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). To resolve these matters, Covington & Burling and the Defendants have drafted a consent order and agreement, which they have submitted to the Court for its approval. Before determining whether or not to approve the agreement, we have asked the Court to consider comments from members of the plaintiff class.

Under the agreement, the District commits to take the following actions:

1. Obtain the assistance of an expert to improve the environmental health andsanitation conditions at Central (including the plumbing, water supply andtemperature, lighting, heating, ventilation, insect androdent control, fire safety, andkitchen maintenance);

2. Follow a housekeeping andpreventive maintenance plan, including conducting regular inspections that score the overall state of the institution;

3. Maintain andtrain appropriate staff, anddevelop a personnel system to hold staff who do not perform their jobs accountable;

4. Conduct inspections by an independent group of qualified inspectors; and

5. Procure needed supplies andequipment.

The agreement would be enforceable as a contract, and the Defendants would be lKole for specified damages for certain violations. Theenvironmental health andsanitation provisions of the Twelve John Does consent decree would be stayed (put on hold) so long as Defendants comply with the agreement. If Defendants fail to comply with theagreement, Plaintiffs candissolve the agreement andreinstate the environmental health andsanitation provisions of the Twelve John Does decree. If the Defendants improve conditions andkeep conditions improved for approximately 2 years, the Court's Orders regarding environmental health andsanitation would be vacated.

Judge Green will keep the power to oversee the food, canteen, andother emergency procurement issues, which arethe subject of separate orders. Plaintiffs could also still seek relief from Judge Green for emergency conditions.

If you wish to submit comments to the Court on the agreement, write to the Honorable June L Green within the next 2 weeks at United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C 20001.

 
 Case 1:79-cv-01726-WBB Document 677 Filed 05/07/2002 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. et al.,
Defendants,

7Y'" ! 7,,~ ~
C.A. No. 80-2136 (WBB)
FILED
MAY - 7 2002

CONSENT ORDER

fMNCYUuA.sY.EDRtSWTIHYtCTTIlNCGOTUORNT, ClERK

The Court has been informed that the correctional facility

that was the subj ect of this lawsuit -- the Central Facility --

was permanently closed in November 2001 as required by the

National Capital Revitalization and Self Government Improvement

Act, D.C. Code § 24-1201, et. seq., and that the inmates formerly

housed at that facility, who constituted the plaintiff class, are

now housed in other facilities under the supervision of the

Federal Bureau of Prisons. Given the closure of this facility,

and the alternative arrangements for the incarceration of the

former plaintiff class, the plaintiff class certified in this

action has ceased to exist. Accordingly, the parties have jointly

moved to vacate all Orders entered herein except for those Orders

regarding the duties of the Special Officer of the Court to assist

and advise the Court regarding the expenditure of the contempt

fine funds that have already been deposited with the Court

pursuant to Orders entered in this civil action.

Upon

consideration of that request and the entire record herein, it is

by the Court this '7/// day of ;tl;: {(

, 2002

L--"'-'---'cJf------

& ,

-

I

,

7 (

Case 1:79-cv-01726-WBB Document 677 Filed 05/07/2002 Page 2 of 2
ORDERED: That all Orders entered herein are vacated, except for those Orders regarding the duties of the Special Officer of the Court to assist and advise the Court regarding the expenditure of the contempt fine funds that have already been deposited with the Court pursuant to Orders entered in this civil action.
URf'fED STATES DISTRICT JUD~
cc: Richard S. Love Senior Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel Equity Division 441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 Alan A. Pemberton Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Karen M. Schneider Special Officer of the Court 1130 17th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036

 
 TN TIIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIK DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOilN DOES Central Facility P.O. So:: ?5 L o rt on , V i rgi ni. a 22079

TWO JOHN DOES District of Columbia Detention
Facility 1901 D Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003

AND ALL OTHERS PRESENTLY INCAR-

)

CERATED IN OR RECENTLY INCARCERATED )

IN BUTTEMPORARILY REMOVED FOR

)

MEDICAL OR PROTECTIVE REASONS FROM )

THE CENTRAL FACILITY OF THE DISTRICT)

OF COLUMBIA REFORMATORY AT LORTON, )

VIRGINIA

)

Plaintiffs,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARION S. BARRY,JR. Mayor, District of Columbia The District Building Suite 520 14th & E Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004
DELBERT C. JACKSON Director, Department of
Corrections District of Columbia 614 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
MARION D. STRICKLAND Superintendent Division of Correctional
Services District of Columbia P.O. Box 2 5 Lorton, Virginia 22 079
SALANDA V. WHITFIELD Administrator Central Facility P.O. Box 25 Lorton, Virginia 22079
ARTHUR GRAVES Assistant Auirur.irjtrator Central Facility P.O. Box 2 5 bun:ua, Virginia .-.^u/y
Twelve John Does v.D.C.

PC-DC-008-001

COMPLAINT Civil Action No.

DAVID P. DECATUR

)

Institutional Major

)

Central Facility

)

P.O. Box 25

)

Lorton, Virginia 22079

')

)

BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI

)

Attorney General

)

Office of the Attorney

)

General

)

Washington, D.C. 20530

)

)

Defendants. )

- 3-
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES
NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT
1. This is a class action brought by inmates at the Central Facility of the District of Columbia Reformatory located at Lorton, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the
0
"Central Facility'1). This complaint charges the defendants with the failure to take sufficient measures to protect inmates at the Central Facility at Lorton from the pain and suffering of actual and threatened physical violence inflicted by others and with the failure to provide adequate and safe living conditions for the inmates at that facility.
JURISDICTION 2. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for money damages, arising under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pendent claims are based on D.C. Code § 24-425, D.C. Code § 24-442, regulations promulgated thereunder and common law negligence. 3. This case arises under the Constitution of the United States, and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1343(3) and 1361. Declaratory relief is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
VENUE 4. This action is brought in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and (e).

- 4-
CLASS ACTION 5. This action is brought by the named plaintiffs on behalf of all inmates at the Central Facility at Lorton pursuant to Rules 23 (a), (b) (1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Members of the class on behalf of whom plaintiffs sue are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 7. There are common questions of law and fact affecting the right of inmates to be free from actual and threatened inmate violence and pervasive risk of harm. 8. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the class, and plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the class. 9. Separate actions maintained by individual members of the class would create a risk of varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the class, and adjudication regarding individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of or impair the interests of other members not parties to the adjudication. 10. Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class plaintiffs represent. Questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is. superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

- 5-
11. Plaintiffs have brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief and money d'amages on behalf of the class comprising all inmates who are presently incarcerated at the Central Facility at Lorton or who recently have been incarcerated at the Central Facility but have been temporarily removed for health or protective reasons.
PARTIES Plaintiffs
12. Plaintiff John Doe is a 26-year-old citizen of t.he United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 12 to 80 years for second degree murder and robbery.
13. Plaintiff John Doe is a 50-year-old citizen of the United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 20 years to life plus 53 years for first degree murder and robbery.
14. Plaintiff John Doe is a 42-year-old citizen of the United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 20 years to life for first degree murder.
15. Plaintiff John Doe is a 22-year-old citizen of the United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 20 years to life for first degree murder.
16. Plaintiff John Doe is a 49-year-old citizen of the United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 4-14 years for armed robbery.

- 6-
17. Plaintiff John Doe is a 30-year-old citizen of the United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 22 to 106 years for armed robbery.
18. Plaintiff John Doe is a 45-year-cld citizen of the United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 8 to 30 years for armed robbery cind aiding and abetting.
19. Plaintiff John Doe is a 27-year-old citizen. of the United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 5 to 15 years for armed robbery.
20. Plaintiff John Doe is a 40-year-old citizen of the .United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 10 to 3 0 years for armed robbery and possession of a pistol.
21. Plaintiff John Doe is a 23-year-old citizen of the United States presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 5 to 15 years for manslaughter and unauthorized use of a vehicle.
22. Plaintiff John Doe is a 29-year-old citizen of the United States presently confined .in the Central Facility at Lorton. He is serving a sentence of 15 years to life for second degree murder and armed robbery.
23. Plaintiff John Doe is a 28-year-old citizen of the United States currently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton. He. is serving sentences of 20 years to life for murder and 5 to 15 years for robbery.

- 7-
24. Plaintiff John Doe is a 30-year-old citizen of the United States currently confined in the District of Columbia Detention Facility, as a result of injuries suffered at the Central Facility. He is serving a sentence of 6 to 18 years for armed robbery.
25. Plaintiff John Doe is a 52-year-old citizen of- the United States currently assigned to the District of Columbia Detention Facility but confined in the Locked Ward of D.C. General Hospital, as a result of injuries suffered at the Central Facility. He is serving a sentence of 4 to 1.2 years for grand larceny and false pretenses.
26. In addition to the individual plaintiffs described above, other members of the plaintiff class include all individuals who are presently confined in the Central Facility at Lorton or who were recently incarcerated in but have .been temporarily removed from that facility for medical or protective reasons.
Defendants
27. Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal corporation and is responsible for the supervision and operation of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections.
28. Defendant Marion S. Barry, Jr. is Mayor of the District of Columbia and is responsible for the direction and control of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections .
29. Defendant Delbert C. Jackson is Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. He is

- 3-

responsible Cox: the overall operation of the District of

Columbia Department of Corrections and each institution

within its jurisdiction, including the Central Facility at

Lorton.

30. Defendant Marion D. Strickland is Super-

intendent for Correctional Services of the District of

Columbia Department of Corrections. He is responsible for

the care and custody of all inmates sentenced to be incar-

cerated at the Central Facility at Lorton.

31. Defendant Salanda V. Whitfield is the Admin-

istrator of and responsible for the operation of the Central

Facility at Lorton.

t

32. Defendant Arthur Graves is the•Assistant

Administrator of the Central Facility at Lorton and is

responsible for the care and custody of plaintiffs incar-

cerated there.

33. Defendant David P. Decatur is the Institutional

Major of the Central Facility at Lorton in charge of security

and is responsible for the care and custody of plaintiffs

incarcerated there.

34. Defendant Benjamin Civiletti is Attorney

General of the United States and has overall jurisdiction

over the inmates confined at Lorton and is responsible for

the protection and security of plaintiffs incarcerated

there.

35. Defendants who are individuals are sued

solely in their official capacities.

36. Substantive allegations contained in paragraphs 38 through 83 are made on information and belief.
37. The Central Facility is the District of Columbia's medium security facility for sentenced adult male felons. It is the largest of the incarceration facilities the District of Columbia maintains at Lorton, Virginia, with a capacity of approximately 1,162 inmates housed almost exclusively in open dormitories.
38. The Central Facility consists of at least 25 open dormitories. With a few exceptions each dormitory is an unpartitioned room, and has a shower room and vestibule area. Each dormitory is intended to house approximately 40 to 60 people, although dormitories that are intended to house approximately 60 people sometimes house over 100. Certain dormitories have a separate room, the "annex", in which is housed an "overflow" of up to 9 or 10 inmates. The Central Facility also has a recreational building where movies are shown. In addition, it has an infirmary, eating and kitchen facilities, a furniture repair shop, a metal shop, a bathhouse, a bakery, a chapel, a baseball field, a central control building, and an administrative or punitive detention unit (often called "the hole").
CAUSES OF VIOLENCE
39. The virtually unchecked violence at the Central Facility is caused by, among other things, insufficiently qualified administrators and correctional officers, ur.derstaffing of correctional officers, inmates' unrestricted

-10-
-- weapor.s • completely inadequate rehabilitative : m d fac: -itios, completely inadequate recreational : and fac~pities, inadequate classification and •-. of- in:.'."-r-es> archaic, poorly constructed and poorly --5 facil: '••ies, serious overcrowding, virtually unchecked •rorvised .~nmate movement, lack of hygienic living -••3 wretched food, lack of a furlough program, lack -•-: releas-: program, the prevalence of drugs and intoxi-"-e luck r'~ adequate security devices, measures and '^>s and *-ae failure to enforce promulgated policies •=dures. respite the fact that defendants have been \i have br'en aware of the chronic and unacceptable .- these j/problems for several years, defendants have -a take sufficient measures to alleviate them.
Inadequate Number, Selection and rfr--> ining of Correctional Officers 40. Th** number of correctional officers staffing " ral Facil i*-y is so inadequate as to create a serious • inuous threat to the safety of both inmates and Officials from both the correctional officers' -I the D<H'ar*j:nent °^ Corrections have stated for some •-.additi'mal correctional officers are needed at Central Facility, but nothing has been done, to he (jan(|tjrous understaffing. Staffing frequently ow the district of Columbia's recognized "critical • number "^ officers on duty during all shifts' and ; faiig ro as few as half that number. Even the minimum" number of correctional officers is insuffiprovii.1t1 adequate security.

-11-
41. On March 18, 1980, Defendant Decatur wrote a memorandum to Defendant Whitficld stating that the then-present "freeze complement" of 279 correctional officers at the Central Facility fell far short of meeting prescribed security requirements and that "to reduce this figure will only tend to create a situation in which we will haphazardly be performing our assignments." Defendant Decatur concluded, inter alia, that a further reduction would have a severe detrimental effect on personnel morale, that perimeter security could be maintained, but that other areas could not be covered; that the complement would lose many of its most talented officers; 'that programs would be discontinued, so that increased idle tima would lead to escalated levels of assaults; and that visiting hours would have to be curtailed, which would further affect the morale of the residents. Since that time, due in part to a decision not to' rehire employees who left voluntarily, the "actual complement" at the Central Facility has fallen as much as forty persons below the "freeze complement." The severity and number of violent incidents have increased due in part to this reduction of personnel. On Saturday, July 26, 1980, there was a further reduction of thirteen correctional officers at the Central Facility, as part of the Central Facility's share in the overall reduction in the number of correctional officers employed by the District of Columbia.
42. In the Central Facility, security in the dormitories consists chiefly of highly infrequent guard patrols. The entrances to certain dormitories are not under

- 12 -
reyular observation by correctional officers because of the faulty placement of observation posts and towers and the presence of obstructions. Many assaults take place in the unguarded and unprotected dormitories and in the shower and bathing areas that are obstructed from the officers' view. In addition, and by way of example, assaults frequently occur when large groups of inmates congregate outside the recreational building during and immediately after the movies when it is dark and difficult to identify an assailant. Other assaults occur at nig'ht upon sleeping inmates, because individuals or groups of inmates are allowed to move freely from dormitory to dormitory and there are no correctional officers stationed in the dormitories.
43. During a typical day shift, which is from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., approximately 40 to 56 correctional officers are on duty at the Facility. These officers must supervise over 1100 inmates. Of the higher complement of 56 officers, approximately 49 are assigned to specific posts such as towers and control centers. There remain seven officers or fewer to patrol the grounds-. Correctional officers are therefore unable or unwilling adequately to control the outbreak of violent confrontations in recreational and other; common areas where groups of inmates gather.
44. The totally inadequate number of officers creates a high degree of fear and anxiety among the officers themselves. They are largely preoccupied with protecting themselves and therefore are impeded from devoting even the most minimal, if any, attention to protecting inmates from assaults.

- 13 -
45. In July, 1980, twelve employees of the District of Columbia employed in correctional facilities operated by the District of Columbia, including four persons employed in correctional and other positions at the Central Facility, brought Civil Action No. 5789-80, Joseph V. Majewski, et al. v. Marion S. Barry, et al., in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, alleging, inter_ alia, that "[u]nderstaffing at correctional institutions has repeatedly surfaced increased tension of inmates, manifested in aggressive and violent behavior directed toward correctional and other support staff." Declaring that they worked in an "already dangerous environment," these plaintiffs alleged that further reductions "will create unsafe and unhealthful working conditions for the staff remaining to operate the facilities of the Department of Corrections." This action has been dismissed on the grounds that these allegations fail to state a cause of action under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of the District of Columbia, and the common-law duty to provide a safe and healthy workplace.
46. Officers are inadequately selected, trained and supervised. Prison officials have -frequently attempted to "cut corners" by employing untrained officers and inexperienced people who are not capable of or qualified to handle potentially violent and dangerous situations. The security problem itself has discouraged qualified people from accepting positions as correctional officers and has caused qualified officers to resign. Low morale and unsafe working conditions have resulted in a high turnover of officers.

- 14 -
Due to inadequate training, qualifications and numbers, staff members of the Central Facility are frequently the objects of assaults by inmates, a situation which exacerbates inmates' fears that the staff cannot protect them.
47. Because of inadequate numbers or training, officers are often unwilling or unable to act promptly to disperse melees that occur in the central, open areas of the Central Facility. This unwillingness or inability increases the level of the injuries that occur in such melees. The officers regularly fail to frisk or adequately to surveil inmates whom they know or have reason to know possess weapons. They are often unwilling or unable to render first-aid assistance to injured inmates.
48. The inmate population is expected to rise to approximately 1300 inmates.
49. Because of inadequate numbers, officers are unable to monitor adequately the activities of visitors in the Central Facility and the permitted group activities of the inmates. At times, permitted and scheduled activities of the inmates are cancelled or curtailed because of the lack of available officers, thereby increasing the levels of frustration that are a major cause of violence.
50. Because of dangerous understaffing, completely inadequate provision of rehabilitative and recreational programs, archaic and unsafe facilities, overcrowding of the inmates and the general level of violence, the morale of correctional officers is very low, thereby further contributing to the iack of security at the Central Facility.

- 15 -
Unrestricted Access to Weapons
51. Inmates in the Central Facility have virtuallyunrestricted access to weapons. A large percentage of the inmate population is armed. The weapons are both professionally made and homemade and include, irrtei: alia, guns, knives, scissors, razor blades, sharpened tools such as screwdrivers, and lead pipes filled with concrete. Inmates who work in the kitchen sometimes obtain knives from the kitchen and either sell or give them to other inmates. Weapons are often smuggled in by visitors. Weapons are also manufactured, inter alia, in the metal shop and the furniture repair shop located in the Central Facility. Weapons also are smuggled into the prison on persons and in vehicles that enter the complex.
52. The prison authorities have not made sufficient efforts to control the flow of weapons at the Central Facility. Although there are weapons searches ("shakedowns"), prisoners usually have advance notice of them. The shakedowns are infrequent, selective and rarely thorough. There is an inadequate number of metal detectors, friskers, and other screening devices for use in the shakedowns. The serious undorstaffing means that there are not enough officers free to conduct frequent and thorough shakedowns. The officers can usually be perceived.preparing for the search on days when searches are conducted, giving inmates an opportunity to hide contraband. Certain correctional officers have been known to provide weapons to inmates. In addition, weapons are buried or hidden in places outside of the dormitories. These weapons are not searched for in shakedowns and consequently are rarely found.

- 16 -
53. In particular, because of a lack of adequate surveillance, the access of inmates to weapons and utensils or materials suitable for weapons taken from the kitchen and from the vocational shops provides the means for assaults against other inmates. Because of a failure to supervise guards to ensure that they enforce existing policies and procedures, visitors also become a source of weapons.
54. The administration of the Central Facility has itself now become a source of weapons. At the 4 o'clock count of inmates on Tuesday, August 5, 1980, each inmate was issued a steel spoon and fork. The forks have three long prongs and are easily capable of being used as blinding or lethal weapons. No official explanation of this step has been given, although correctional officers have casually mentioned to inmates that they now all have weapons. Inmates generally recognize the usefulness of these utensils for acts of violence and both the apprehension and likelihood of serious assaults have increased.
55. Because of the unrestrained violence allowed by the correctional officers and administration of the Central Facility, many inmates find it necessary to provide their own self-protection, thereby contributing to the demand for weapons and the incidence of violence.
Inadequate Classification System
56. The Central Facility fails adequately to maintain or implement an adequate system for identifying and isolating inmates with violent tendencies and those who have committed violent acts on other inmates. Known assailants

- 17 -
within the Facility are not removed from the general population. Inmates who ask for protection are sent to the same facility administrative detention unit ("the hole") with and may be brought back to the dormitories at the same time as those who are threatening them. In other instances, the threatened and the threatener may both be sent to the Maximum Security Facility at Lorton. No effort is made to protect those, such as homosexuals, who are likely to. become the' victims of violence, even when requests for protective action are made by the individual.
57. Although one or tv/o dormitories are ostensibly reserved for older inmates, younger inmates who as a group may be more prone to violence or have life styles different from those of the older inmates are frequently assigned to such dormitories, resulting in antagonisms, fights, and serious, even fatal, injuries. No additional efforts are made to group inmates who have little prison experience or who are otherwise at a disadvantage in protecting themselves. No orientation exists to inform new inmates of the rules of the Central Facility. Inmates who are serving sentences for nonviolent crimes are not separated from those who are serving sentences for violent crimes.
58. inmates are not assigned to a dormitory on the basis of space actually available in that dormitory, but are forced to "find a spot" on their own, that is, make room for themselves, their beds and belongings in the overcrowded dormitory. The result often is physical harm to dormitory newcomers at the hands of the residents of the dormitory, who already have inadequate living space. In addition, the

- 18 -
"find a spot" system of assigning dormitories often results in maximum custody and minimum custody classified inmates being forced to be housed in overcrowded, tense conditions within the same dormitory or right next to each other.
59. Inmates needing protection are often unwilling to request it, because they may eventually be sent to the protective custody unit located in the Maximum Security Facility, whose unsafe conditions have been the subject of a court order granting injunctive relief in Civil Action No. 79-1726, Phillips v. District of Columbia (June 23, 1980) (June L. Green, J . ) . The complete lack of programs and exercise at Maximum, combined with a loss of jobs and participation in programs at the Central Facility, provide further serious disincentives to an inmate's seeking protection.
Lack of Adequate Rehabilitative, Work and Recreational Programs and Facilities, and Arbitrary.Management of Existing Programs
60. A major cause of violence at the Central Facility is the lack of adequate rehabilitative programs and facilities. A large portion of the inmate population has no access to the academic and vocational rehabilitative programs. Access is restricted to inmates within three years of being released, who form a small portion of the total number of inmates at the Central Facility. Even with this restriction there are long waiting lists for programs. Inmates with short sentences of two to six years are often ineligible for the programs because of the rules restricting access. The result is that a large proportion of the inmate population is left idle with nothing productive to do. Confining a large

- 19 -
number of inmates together in a email area with nothing productive to do creates a breeding ground for violence.
Gl. Even thor;e rehabilitative programs that exist are negligently and inadequately run. For example, in the auto mechanics course ao recant model cars are available' to work on, leading to frustration on the part of inmates in the program, who know that they are not being adequately trained for work after their release. There are no programs for training in computer technology, operating heavy construction equipment, office-equipment servicing, or other trades that would be in demand when the inmates are released from Central. Some of the above-mentioned programs were once in existence, but have been eliminated. The existing programs do not keep their participants fully occupied. Such inadequate rehabilitative programs contribute to the frustration, and violence prevalent among the inmates.
62. Work programs, such as grounds-keeping, maintenance, janitorial (squad #33), etc., are assigned to too many inmates for the few tasks available, resulting in too much time with nothing productive to do, creating a condition conducive to violence. Work release and furlough programs are lacking. Such programs existed at one time, but were terminated at the direction of Defendant Civiletti's predecessor Attorney General Saxbe. The lack of such programs adds to tension and the frequency of violence by removing incentives for orderly behavior.
63. The lack of adequate recreational programs and facilities also contributes to the level of violence at the Central Facility which is caused by the lack of productive

- 20 -
things to do for a large-body of inmates' confined for long periods of time in a small space.
64. Counseling and psychological services, which can provide needed outlets for tensions that lead to violence, have been cut back due to the recent reduction in force at the Central- Facility.
65. Negligent and arbitrary operation of programs that might provide minimal self-respect for inmates furtner increases tensions. Custody classifications which determine the degree of restraint1on prisoners during escorted trips from the Central Facility are arbitrarily administered, so that undefined and unarticulated "exceptional circumstances" determine that some prisoners will be under physical constraints and others will not. The staff of the Central Facility refuses to issue receipts for monies inmates earn and place on deposit, so that inmates' funds are not infrequently delayed or found to be lost when requested. Access to relatively well-paying jobs is arbitrarily controlled. No reliable method exists for notifying inmates of the arrival of visitors, so that visits are often missed, and telephone privileges are often unreasonably denied. These and other failures and inequalities in the administration of the Central Facility contribute to • an atmosphere among inmates and between inmates and prison staff in which violence is a constant threat.
Presence of Contraband
66. Illegal drugs and alcoholic beverages, whether smuggled in by visitors or correctional officers, are commonplace and contribute to violence at the Central Facility. Inmates are1 able to manufacture alcoholic beverages within

- 21 -
the confines of the Central Facility. Inmates steal or otherwise obtain yeast, fruit juices and other ingredients from the kitchen, mix them together and allow them to ferment. This mixture, known as "shoots," remains undiscovered as it ferments in the dormitories or other locations, and produces a crude, yet potent, form of homemade wine.
67. The presence of large amounts of contraband money within the Central Facility encourages and facilitates the flow of drugs, alcohol, and weapons into and through Central, thereby contributing to the causes of violence set forth above in paragraphs 40-66.
Archaic and Overcrowded Living Facilities
68. The herding of a large number of inmates into overcrowded single-room and outmoded dormitories creates substantially increased tensions and resulting violence. The packing together of beds, lockers, and personal belongings makes the addition of a new resident in a dormitory under the "find a spot" classification system a cause of melees and violence. New residents have been beaten and their beds and possessions hurled out of the dormitory when they attempted to find places on their own.
69. Dormitories have been constructed in such a way that correctional officers cannot easily observe and prevent incidents of violence.
Medical Care for Injured and Assaulted Inmates
70. There is essentially no provision of medical services when and where injuries to inmates occur, whether caused by assaults by other inmates or not. The MTA(s) on

- 22 -
duty arc unwilling or not required to leave the infirmary to provide medical services to those injured at the scene of the accident or violence. Often the only help to an injured inmate must come from other inmates, who are not trained or qualified, whether in the form of providing on the spot emergency medical care or of moving the injured inmate to the infirmary with the risk of further harm.
71. No physician is on duty at all times in an institution where violence and the resulting injuries and even death are frequent occurrences.
72. If an injury or medical condition is too serious to be handled by the doctor(s) or MTS(s) on duty, the injured inmate must be taken out of the Central Facility to better medical facilities nearby or in the District. If there is no correctional officer available to provide an esco.rt, the injured inmate may be forced to wait until one is available, and thereby not receive adequate and timely medical treatment. Access to medical treatment is frequently inordinately delayed due to the failure to train and supervise personnel who are responsible for providing such access.
73. Follow-up care at the Central Facility for an inmate who has returned following serious medical treatment is often inadequate or nonexistent. Injuries are thereby often exacerbated.
Poor Physical Conditions
74. Most, if not all, of the buildings at the Central Facility are in a shocking state of disrepair. The wretched state of the electrical wiring, windows, plastering, plumbing, inter alia, especially in the dormitories, is such

- 23 -
as to create a genera] atmosphere of anger and frustration that results in violence. Showers serving dormitories of 40-60 residents (more, when there is overcrowding) often do not work -- an especial hardship and source of frustration and violence when the weather is hot. The Central Facility is inadequately maintained, so that dirt and filth are prevalent, a situation which poses severe environmental health hazards to inmates.
75. The food served to the inmates lacks variety and is poorly prepared. Unhygienic conditions abound in the kitchen. Flies breed in improperly disposed of food wastes. Poor food is a major and constant source of frustration and anger for the inmates. This anger leads to violence at the Central Facility.
76. The conditions within the Central Facility described in paragraphs 39 through 75, and other conditions have contributed to and caused a tremendous number of assaults upon inmates. Because of these conditions, violence is a way of life in the Central Facility at Lorton. Inmates are constantly exposed to the harm and threat of the violence that exists at Lorton.
ASSAULTS ON INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
77. In early 1980, Plaintiff John Doe was returning frotr. making a phone call in the phone roon of his dormitory. He was told that someone was looking for him at the front door. He went to the door, but saw no one. After he had turned around, he was struck from behind across the mouth with a pipe or other blunt instrument. He required seven stitches in the infirmary.. He was placed in administrative

- 24
custody (the "hole") foi protection. 'On his return, he found that all of his personal belongings were removed, presumably stolen.
78. On July 13, 1980, at about 10:30 a.m., Plaintiff John Doe was assaulted for the second time that morning/ this time with a lead pipe to the side of the forehead in full view of the correctional officers. It is Plaintiff's understanding that the inmate who struck him with a pipe was the same inmate who had hit him with his fist earlier that morning, also in front of a correctional officer. In neither case was the attack prevented by the officers. Moreover, • no steps were taken to restrain the attacker after the first attack. Such steps might have prevented the second attack. Plaintiff was forced to treat his wound until he was able to make his way to the infirmary. He is now incarcerated at the New District of Columbia Jail. He fears that he will be assaulted again, and reasonably expects to continue his sentence in the Central Facility.
79. On June 14, 1980, Plaintiff John Doe was robbed at knife-point by two other inmates. After making a complaint, he was informed by corrections officers that his life was threatened. On June 21, 1980, he was placed in administrative detention (the "hole"). His alleged assailants were placed in the same cell-block with him. While there, on June 30, 1980, he suffered a back injury for which he received no medical treatment. Upon his release from the "hole" on July 2, 1980, he collapsed and was sent to the Locked Ward at D.C. General Hospital, where he is now incarcerated. He has no use of his legs at the present time as a result of the back injury and failure to provide medical

- 25 -
treatment. He fears for his life, and reasonably expects to continue his sentence in the Central Facility.
DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE OE' INMATE VIOLENCE
80. Defendants are aware or should have been aware of the high level of violence at the Central Facility and its causes for many years. As long ago as December 16, 1974, Defendant Jackson appeared at a meeting of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in which he described the Central Facility as a completely open, dormitory-type housing which was "dilapidated, antiquated, monolithic" and "almost unmanageable . . . administratively as well as occupationally." He characterized the Central Facility as a "monstrosity."
81. Inmate violence was responsible at least in part for a lawsuit against the United States brought by the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia in 1975, in which Lorton was found to be a public nuisance. See Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia v. Unijted_ States, 408 F. Supp. 556 (E.D. Va. 1976).
82. The Department of Corrections' own statistics show approximately 372 reported serious assaults in the Central Facility from 1973 through the first quarter of 1980'. Only the most serious assaults are reported to the Department of Corrections. There is good reason to believe that this statistic understates the number of serious assaults, since inmates are believed not to report most assaults to anyone because they fear retaliation by other inmates or correctional officers. They also cannot count upon the seriously understaffed correctional officers to provide protection from re'taliatipn. Inmates also fear that reporting assaults would bring unwanted notoriety and embarrassment.

- 26 -
83. There are many complaints presently lodged in various courts based on defendants' failure to deal adequately with the problem of violence at the Central Facility. Many more, no doubt, will be filed in the near future. There have been many findings of liability against all or some of the defendants based on inmates' rights to be free from violence at the Central Facility. These actions against defendants relating to the problem of violence at the Central Facility are growing in number.
WRONGS AND INJURIES COUNT I
84. Paragraphs 1 through 83 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged.
85. Defendants-' failure to provide adequate security and protection to plaintiffs has caused them to be exposed to pain and suffering by the constant risk and likelihood of physical violence and is a violation of plaintiffs' right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Each plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and requests compensatory damages according to proof and punitive damages.
COUNT II 86. Paragraphs 1 through 83 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged. 87. Defendants' failure to provide security and protection to plaintiffs has caused them to be exposed to pain and suffering by the constant risk and likelihood of

- 27 -
physical violence, and subjected them to'the deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1983. Each plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and requests compensatory damages according to proof and punitive damages.
COUNT III
88. Paragraphs 1 through 83 are incorporated herein by reference and realleg.ed.
89. Defendants' failure to provide security and protection to plaintiffs and consignment of them to an unsuitable, inappropriate and overcrowded institution has caused them to be exposed to pain and suffering by the constant risk and likelihood of physical violence and is a breach of such defendants' duty under District of Columbia Code Sections 24-442 and 24-425 which require those defendants to provide plaintiffs with safekeeping, care, protection and instruction in a suitable and appropriate institution. Each plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and requests compensatory damages according to proof and punitive damages.
COUNT IV
90. Paragraphs 1 through 83 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged.
91. Defendants' failure to provide security and protection to plaintiffs has caused them to be exposed to pain and suffering by the constant risk and likelihood of physical violence, and is a breach of defendants' common-

- 28 -
law duty of care to plaintiffs and constitutes common-law negligence. Each plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and requests compensatory damages according to proof and punitive damages.
CONTINUING INJURIES
92. Defendants' actions or inactions described in counts I through IV are continuing and will not abate unless this Court orders injunctive and mandatory relief, in addition to compensating plaintiffs monetarily for the harm that has been inflicted upon them by defendants. There will be no adequate remedy at law for defendants' continuing injuries.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
93. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request this Court to grant the following relief:
a. Declare that the actions and inactions of defendants described herein have violated and continue to violate plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, District of Columbia Code §§ 24-425 and 24-442, and constitute common-law negligence;
b. Enjoin defendants from continuing such actions and mandate that defendants take appropriate remedial actions;
c. Award plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages for each plaintiff on each count, according to proof;
d. Award plaintiffs the cost of this suit, including reasonable attorney's fees; and

- 29 -
c. Award p.1 ainLJ 1'ls such TurllK.T relief as Lhc Court may Uccm jusL and proper.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY.

'August

, 1980

Peter J. Nickles
James A. Toupin John H. More
Covington & Burling 888 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 452-6000
Attorneys for P_laintiffs.

 
 Rt*
MAR «too<:
CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION COUNSEL OfBCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, etal., )

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA, etal., )

•

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

Civil Action No. 80-2136
FILED MAR 3 - 1 9 8 2
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT D.'STSICT OF COLUMBIA

Counsel for the parties have advised the Court

that they have agreed to a form and procedures for notifying

class members in the above-captioned action of the proposed

settlement agreement and consent decree in said action.

Upon consideration of the representations of the parties, it

is, by the Court, this

Al r

day of

cXr

, 1982.

ORDERED: That onorbefore March 15, 1982, notice

of the proposed settlement agreement and consent decree,

including a copy of the proposed settlement agreement and

onsent decree, shall be made available to each member of

plaintiffs' class, the form of the notice being that agreed

to bythe parties and attached tothis Order; and, it is,

FURTHER ORDERED: That plaintiffs and defendants

shall have responsibilities in making available the notice

to the class members as follows:

A) Plaintiffs shall be responsible for providing

ancillary secretarial and clerical assistance,

and for mailing the notices by regular mail

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia

! • • • • II

• • • • • • • • ! H I H I IHPB I

PC-DC-008-002

- 2-
(using franked envelopes supplied by the cleric's office) to members of the class who are not presently in the District of Columbia's correctional system; B) Defendants shall be responsible for identifying the present location of members of the class, for providing computer services, for duplicating the notices, for delivering notices to all members of plaintiffs' class who are presently in custody in the District of Columbia's correctional system and are resident outside of the Central Facility, and for posting copies of the notice at various conspicuous locations in the Central Facility. Notification of class members, as specified in the first paragraph of this Order, shall mean actual delivery of the notice to class members in District of Columbia custody and resident outside of the Central Facility, posting at various conspicuous locations in the Central Facility for class members resident in the Central Facility, and mailing by regular mail using franked envelopes supplied by the clerk's office to other class members.
u;
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 80-2136
FILED

AMENDMENTS TO ORDER FOR CLASS NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

JAMES F. DAY'-Y, Clerk

This matter came before the Court on March 3, 1982 through the submission by counsel for plaintiffs and defendants of a joint motion for approval and entry of a consent decree, a proposed order directing that notice be provided to class members, a proposed notice form and a proposed final settlement agreement and consent decree. The order directing notice to the class members on the proposed form was issued on that date. The order provided for notice to class members who are presently housed in the Central Facility through posting at various conspicious points in that institution of a copy of the notice and a copy of the proposed final settlement agreement and consent decree without exhibits. In addition to the posting required by the order, approximately fifty copies of the proposed agreement and consent decree have been distributed to the class representatives and other members of plaintiffs' class and residents of the institution who have participated in the prosecution of the action.
Notice to class members who are not presently housed in the Central Facility but who are presently incarcerated

°°.^.Y;.D.s rict of Columbia PC-DC-008-003

- 2-
within the District of Columbia's correctional system was to be accomplished through delivery to each such person of a copy of the notice and the proposed agreement and consent decree, and notice to class members no longer incarcerated was to be accomplished by mailing a copy of the notice and the proposed agreement and consent decree to each such person's last known address.
The parties have jointly moved to amend the order directing that notice be provided to the class members so as not to require that a complete copy of the 5 9 page proposed final agreement and consent decree be provided to all class members who now reside outside the Central Facility.
The Court agrees with the contention of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants that the provisions of Rule 23(e) do not require delivery of a copy of the proposed final settlement agreement and consent decree to said class members. The notice form attached to this Order, which includes a description of the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, satisfies all requirements of the Rule. It is therefore, this 5th day of March, 1982
ORDERED: That on or before March 15, 1982 notice of the proposed final settlement agreement and consent decree shall be provided to class members as follows:
A) to class members presently incarcerated in the District of Columbia's correctional system but not in the Central Facility, by delivering to such persons a copy of the notice form attached hereto, and B) to class members no longer incarcerated in the District of Columbia's correction system, by mailing

—

_ 3 -

—

a copy of the notice form attached hereto, by regular mail in franked envelopes supplied by the clerk's office, to each such person at his last known address, and it is
FURTHERED ORDERED: That to the extent that the
Order of March 3, 1982, directing that notice be provided • to the class members is inconsistent with the provisions of
this order, it is hereby amended.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al. ,

)

~

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )
)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 80-2136
FILED
«

NOTIFICATION TOCLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk

On August 20, 1980, a class action was filed on your behalf challenging the conditions of confinement at the Central Facility of the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. Filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the complaint named as defendants the District of Columbia and certain officials of the District of Columbia government. The caption of the case is set forth above.
This lawsuit sought three basic forms of relief: (1) an order requiring defendants to improve conditions of security and safety at the Central Facility (2) an order inquiring defendants to refrain from activities that violate the constitutional rights of residents at the Central Facility and (3) an award of money damages to compensate each class member for harm caused by the unacceptable conditions of his confinement.
The Court determined on December 5, 1980 that the case would be maintained as a class action. The members of the class of plaintiffs are all persons who, on August 20, 1980,

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia

•

•• •• •• ^ ™

'C-DC-008-004

- 2-
were residents of the Central Facility of the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. Class representatives who presented the claims on behalf of you and all class members were residents of the Central Facility on August 20, 1980.
The defendants in this action are the District of Columbia Government; Marion S. Barry, Jr., Mayor of the District of Columbia; Delbert C. Jackson, Director of the Department of Corrections; Marion D. Strickland, Superintendent of the Lorton Complex; Salanda V. Whitfield, Administrator of the Central Facility; Arthur Graves, Assistant Administrator of the Central Facility; and David P. Decatur, Institutional Major of the Central Facility.
In pursuing plaintiffs' claims, counsel for plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery, compelling production of documents from all levels of the Department of Corrections, deposing individual defendants and other employees of the Department, interviewing approximately 20 other employees of the Department, meeting with more than 200 members of the class and other residents of the Central Facility not members of the class, filing interrogatories, and employing three experts in the areas of penology and prison security, health and sanitation, correctional psychology and correctional medical services. Each expert inspected the Central Facility and relevant documents. Each interviewed residents and employees of the Department at Central.
After full review of all relevant documentation and consultation with the experts, interviews with residents and review of cases relevant to the issues raised by plaintiffs' claims, counsel for plaintiffs has recommended a proposed

- 3-
final settlement agreement to the members of the class. This agreement would settle all of the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages described above.
The proposed final settlement agreement and consent decree provides that defendants would take the following actions within specified time frames:
I. Twenty-six additional control cells would be constructed within the Central Facility. Doublecelling and commitment in excess of fourteen days in the control cells would occur only in exceptional circumstances.
II. A new cellblock housing eighty persons would be constructed in the Maximum Security Facility.
III. Additional security equipment would be installed at the Central Facility, including metal detectors, hand friskers, an intercom system between the control center and the housing units, a radio intercom system providing tower-to-tower and tower-to-ground communication, an upgraded perimeter surveillance system and additional lighting.
IV. Correctional officer staffing at the Central Facility would be increased to a level of 331 officers.
V. A Receiving & Diagnostic Center would be established at the Jail and all newly sentenced adults would be reviewed and diagnosed regarding proper housing, individualized programs and therapeutic needs. An Orientation Unit would be established at the Central Facility to receive new residents assigned to that institution and assist in integrating them into the general population. A classification and housing
•J..' ...

- 4-
system would be established which would assign each resident to a housing unit matched to his individual needs, and would provide specialized housing for older residents, honor residents, residents with medical problems requiring close proximity to the infirmary, and residents more prone to being victimized. VI. A set of environmental health standards would be established along with a timetable for compliance and regular inspections. The standards cover the areas of housekeeping and maintenance, solid waste management, insect and rodent control, mattresses, numbers of bathroom facilities, pharmaceutical services, radiological equipment, industries, plumbing, water supply, noise control, lighting, heating, ventilation, accident and fire prevention and preparedness, food services, milk quality and personal hygiene. VII. The medical staff would be increased by the hiring of additional doctors, pharmacists, a records clerk and other health services providers such as physicians' assistants, nurses and medical technicians. A psychiatrist also would be hired. Medical equipment and facilities would be upgraded. VIII. Industries, vocational and academic programs would be expanded and improved. For example, a tire retreading operation would be added to the industries program, teachers would be added to the academic program, and instructors would be provided for additional vocational training programs. Additional

- 5-
program space would be sought, volunteer services and the Lorton Transformation Project would be encouraged, and residents would be provided, upon request, with letters of recognition for work performed and training received while at Central. IX. The rated capacity of the institution would be established at a total of 1166 residents. This capacity would be reduced when particular dormitories close for renovation. Failure to bring the actual population down to the rated capacity, or to maintain it at or below that level, could result in the appointment of a Special Master to recommend appropriate steps to the Court. X. Defendants would be required to notify plaintiffs' counsel of the completion of each of the agreement's requirements and to report monthly to plaintiffs' counsel on the progress made in accomplishing the agreement's requirements. Plaintiffs' counsel can enforce the agreement by requesting appropriate judicial action, including holding defendants in contempt of court. XI. Defendants would pay plaintiffs' .counsel's reasonable- expenses in litigating the case, including the payment of expert witness fees. No attorneys' fees or payment for damages have been provided for in the agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, TAKE NOTICE: 1. If you were a resident of the Central Facility on August 20, 1980, you are a member of the class of plaintiffs described above and have been included in the class of persons

- 6-
for whom injunctive relief (an order of the Court as
described above) has been sought. Unless you wrote to the
Clerk of the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia requesting to be excluded from the class on the
claims for money damages, you also are a member of the class
for purposes of damage claims.
2. If you wish to read the entire proposed agree-
ment, a copy is on file with:
Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court- for the
District of Columbia Constitution Avenue and
John Marshall Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 3. If you are a member of the class and have any
comments on the proposed final settlement agreement, you
should mail a letter stating them to:
The Honorable June L. Green U.S. District Judge U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia Constitution Avenue and
John Marshall Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 ATTN: Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 80-2136 This request must be mailed on or before March 31, 1982.
NOTE: Be sure to identify yourself, sign, and write
the name of the case and the trial action n"umfcer on all letters
mailed to this Court.
Dated this 5th day of March, 1982.
JOSE L. GKEEfl U.S. D i s t r i c t JuVlge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of March, 1982, I have caused to be served by delivering to the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, true and accurate copies of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Amendments to Order for Class Notification of Proposed Settlement Agreement, addressed to the following person:
Peter J. Nickles 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,

)

)

)

)

) Civil Action No. 80-2136

)

)

_ ,, _ _

)

FILED

Defendants.

)

>
FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT

APR i S 198Z

The parties hereby agree that the above-titled class action shall be settled on the following terms:
I. CONTROL CELLS The number of existing cells at the Lorton Central Facility (hereinafter "Central" or the "Central Facility") shall be expanded from the present twenty (20) cells to forty-six (46) cells. This expansion shall be accomplished by building onto the existing Control Building, as shown in the attached Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. Defendants shall take the following steps to complete the project within the following time periods to commence with the judicial approval of this Agreement: (1) preparation of plans and specifications —
approximately four (4) months; (2) issuance of contract — subsequent three (3)
to four (4) months; (3) completion of construction — subsequent
approximately ten (10) months. Defendants shall inform plaintiffs' counsel, pursuant to Item X of this Agreement, of any delay in the foregoing dates, and shall confirm in writing the issuance of the contract and the completion of construction. Enforcement of this Item II shall be in accordance with the provisions of Item X.

If)'

Twelve John Does v. D.C.

PC-DC-008-005

- 2-
Defendants state that it is the policy and objective
of the Department of Corrections of the District of Columbia
(hereinafter the "Department") to avoid double-celling in
the control cells and that double-celling will be authorized
only in exceptional circumstances. It is also the Department's
policy and objective to restrict the length of stay of any
individual resident committed to the control cells to fourteen
(14) days, and to authorize exceptions to this policy and
objective only in exceptional circumstances. Defendants
shall incorporate the following provision into Department
Operations Order 5410.2:
"3. Procedures.
C. Double-celling or commitment in excess of fourteen (14) days shall be authorized by the Administrator or an Acting Administrator in writing only in exceptional circumstances in order to preserve life or property or to ensure the orderly operation of the facility.
The Administrator or an Acting Administrator may authorize in writing the doublecelling or commitment in excess of fourteen (14) days of any resident who has been classified for transfer to the Maximum Security Facility until such time as cell space at Maximum permits making the transfer."
Records shall be kept concerning double-celling
and commitments for more than fourteen (14) days, and shall
be made available for inspection by plaintiffs' counsel.
All double-celling and commitments for more than fourteen
(14) days shall be reported on a monthly basis, subject to
Item X of this Agreement; provided that after completion of
the below-mentioned CB-1 at the Maximum Facility, if either
double-celling or a commitment in excess of fourteen (14)
days should occur, defendants shall provide plaintiffs'
counsel with notice of such occurrence within five (51
business days of the event. In any such notice, defendants
shall indicate the reasons for the double-celling or commitment

- 3-
in excess of fourteen (14) days and the steps that are being taken to remedy the situation. If these exceptional circumstances involving double-celling and commitment(s) in excess of fourteen (14) days persist after such notice has been given, plaintiffs shall have the right to enforce this Item I pursuant to the provisions of Item X.

- 4-
II. NEW CELL BLOCK IN THE MAXIMUM FACILITY The old Furniture Repair Shop located in the Maximum Security Facility at Lorton shall be renovated and used as a new cellblock (CB-1) to be comprised of eighty (80) units. The physical layout of the building, as shown on the plans attached as Exhibit 2 to this Agreement, shall be the same as the Maximum Security Facility's CB-3 and CB5. An invitation for bids for the construction of the new cellblock has been issued, and a contract shall be awarded in approximately sixty (60) days from the signing of this Agreement. Construction time for the new cellblock is specified in the bid documents to be two hundred forty (240) days. Defendants shall inform plaintiffs' counsel, pursuant to Item X of this Agreement, of any delay in the foregoing dates, and shall confirm in writing the completion of the cellblock. Enforcement of this Item II shall be in accordance with the provisions of Item X.

\ .1 V
- 5-
III. EQUIPMENT Defendants represent that capital funds are available and will be used to finance the purchase and installation at Central of each of the items listed below: A. Walk-Through Metal Detectors Four (4) additional metal detectors shall be provided at the following locations: 1. Visitors' Entrance 2. Entrance to the Shop Area 3. Entrance to the Industries Plant 4. Entrance to the Garage Area Defendants shall issue a purchase order promptly after judicial approval of this Agreement. Estimated time for receipt of the metal detectors is forty-five (45) days from placement of such purchase order. Installation of the detectors once received shall be accomplished expeditiously. B. Hand Friskers Eight (8) additional hand friskers shall be purchased. These items shall be purchased and put to use promptly following judicial approval of this Agreement. C. Intercom System A two-way communications system shall be installed between all resident housing units and the Control Center . located in the Control Building. Residents, as well as staff, will be able to activate the system to report any problems to the Control Center. Plans and specifications shall be prepared within approximately one (1) month following judicial approval of this Agreement; the contract shall be issued within approximately three (3) months. Estimated time of completion is four (4) months from receipt of the contract.

- 6-
D. Radio Intercom for Towers A tower-to-tower and tower-to-ground communication system comprised of ten (10) units shall be installed. Following judicial approval of this Agreement, the system shall be ordered promptly. It is estimated that sixty (60) days from receipt of the purchase order will be required to complete installation.
E. Perimeter Surveillance System (CC TV and Motion Detection)
The perimeter surveillance system shall be upgraded, including recabling. Defendants shall issue a purchase order promptly upon judicial approval of this Agreement. It is estimated that the work will be completed within sixty (60) days from issuance of the purchase order.
F. Additional Lighting Significant additional lighting shall be provided in the following areas through new installations or refurbishing of existing equipment: between the housing units on the North and South Walks, behind the South Walk, between Dormitories 14 and 21, between Dormitories 19, 22 and 23, between Dormitory 13 and the Old Bakery Building, around the canteen truck adjacent to the Mess Hall, around the Industries Building including the area between the Industries Building and the building known as the "Old Pattern Shop," around the gymnasium, on the south side of the Academic School, at Quarter Post #4, around the Culinary School and Automotive Shop, around the Commissary Building, around the Facilities Management Shops, around the Boiler House, and on the roadway leading to that area. Battery-powered emergency lights shall be installed in the Chapel, Gymnasium, Administration

- 7-
Building, and Visiting Hall. Defendants shall install this additional lighting within ten (10) months of judicial approval of this Agreement.
* ** Defendants shall keep all equipment in operable condition, and shall expeditiously provide replacements for any equipment that is inoperable. Defendants shall inform plaintiffs' counsel, pursuant to Item X of this Agreement, of any delay in the foregoing dates regarding each of the noted items, and shall confirm in writing the completion of each of the listed projects. Enforcement of this Item III shall be in accordance with the provisions of Item X.

-I V h,-
- 8-
IV. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STAFFING
. Defendants shall take immediate steps to increase
the correctional officer staffing from the present level of approximately two-hundred fifteen (215) to the budgeted level of two-hundred sixty-five (265) officers. In addition, defendants commit to seek, through supplemental request(s) for appropriations, sufficient operating funds to hire up to three-hundred thirty-one (331) correctional officers by October 1, 1982.
The parties recognize that the manning of posts as set forth on the attached Post Trick Chart developed by Major Decatur, attached as Exhibit 3 to this Agreement, is the primary goal of any staffing plan and that deviations from the overall complement of 331 correctional officers are to be expected in the normal course of operations. The parties also recognize that some of the officers who actually make up the complement may be unavailable for duty for reasons other than those normally accounted for in the Post Trick Chart formula (such as normal sick leave, annual leave, and absences due to training). The goal of the District of Columbia will be to keep that portion of the actual complement in the category "Not Available for Duty" below 5%. An officer will be considered "Not Available for Duty" when she/he is: (1) absent without leave; (2) on leave without pay; or (3) on compensation time (extended sick leave -resulting from an on-the-job injury). Defendants make the following commitments toward achieving that goal: (a) to make all expeditious efforts consistent with applicable personnel laws and regulations to remove individuals "Not Available for Duty" either from that category or from the actual complement at Central; (b) to take expeditious

- 9-
actions to fill vacancies in the complement at Central as they occur; and (c) to take actions such as reassignments to assure that the percentage of officers "Not Available for Duty" at Central does not substantially deviate from that in the correctional force as a whole.
Defendants shall take the following steps in an effort to meet the staffing objective of having 331 correctional officers in place on or before October 1, 1982. First, on or before March 15, 1982, defendants shall submit a supplemental request for appropriations sufficient to maintain a complement of 331 officers. Second, defendants also shall request funding sufficient to maintain a complement of 331 officers for Fiscal Year 1983. It is understood by the parties that requests for budget authority are based upon a 5% "lapse factor", i.e., an assumption that there will be an average of 95% of authorized positions filled during any budget year.
In filling Central's correctional officer positions, defendants shall use only those persons who meet the current standards of the District for correctional officers (Grades DS-6 through DS-8), as set forth in the job descriptions attached as Exhibit 4 to this Agreement. In addition, defendants shall assign no correctional officer to a post within the Central Facility (i.e. , other than the tower posts and Visitors' Entrance) until and unless such officer shall have successfully completed the Department's training program for correctional officers. Defendants shall keep records concerning the hiring, posting, and qualifications of correctional officers, and shall make such records available for inspection by plaintiffs' counsel.

**>;.'. *
- 10 -
Commencing one month after the date of judicial approval of this Agreement, defendants shall provide plaintiffs' counsel monthly status reports, pursuant to Item X of this Agreement/ on the level of correctional officer staffing, including data adequate to reveal vacancies and officers not - -available for duty.
Enforcement If either of the following two events occurs, and a conference between the parties does not produce agreement, this proceeding shall be reopened and scheduled for trial: (1) defendants are not successful in hiring
sufficient correctional staff to maintain a complement of 265 officers during fiscal year 1982; or (2) defendants are not successful in hiring sufficient correctional staff to maintain a complement of 331 officers during fiscal year 1983.

- 11 -
V. RECEIVING AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTER AND ORIENTATION UNIT
Defendants shall establish a centralized Receiving and Diagnostic Center ("R&D Center") at the Central Detention Facility ("CDF"), and a corresponding Orientation Unit at the Lorton Central Facility.- The R&D Center will provide approximately four (4) to six (6) weeks of review and diagnosis of sentenced adult felons, including the development of information for the purpose of determining the proper institution to which the resident should be assigned, developing individualized programs, and identifying therapeutic needs. A further statement describing the R&D Center and its operation is set forth in a document dated July 1981 entitled "Reception and Diagnostic Center Plan," attached as Exhibit 5 to this Agreement. A sample diagnostic package is attached as Exhibit 6 to this Agreement. Defendants represent that two cellblocks (160 cells) at CDF will be set aside for adult felons if the 1-1/2 cellblocks noted in Exhibit 5 prove to be inadequate. Non-R&D Center inmates shall not be housed in the non-cell areas of the R&D Center except in instances of extreme emergency. The staffing of the R&D Center shall consist of the twenty-six (26) positions set forth in Exhibit 7 attached to this Agreement.
Defendants commit to seek, through re-programming or a supplemental budget request, sufficient additional operating funding to hire up to the twenty-six (26) positions in Fiscal Year 1983. For Fiscal Year 1982, defendants shall transfer the Youth Diagnostic Staff from Youth Center I (consisting of eleven positions) and four (4) to eight (8) positions from other divisions of the Department (not including the Central or Maximum Facilities at Lorton). The

- 12 -
defendants commit also to use their best efforts to employ existing funding for unfilled positions in order to commence hiring promptly additional personnel to meet the staffing goal of twenty-six positions by October 1, 1982.
The creation of the R&D Center is primarily dependent upon the opening of the Occoquan Facility, which will result in a reduction of the present CDF population through the transfer of sentenced misdemeanants to the Occoquan Facility. It is currently contemplated that approximately fifty (50) to one hundred (100) CDF residents will be moved to the Occoquan Facility in March/April, 1982 and that up to four hundred (400) CDF residents will be moved to the Occoquan Facility by mid-summer 1982. The plans for the Occoquan Facility are funded and firm. Operation of the R&D Center shall commence with the availability of the designated space at CDF.
The Orientation Unit at Central shall be located in the areas currently designated as Dormitories T-25 (living space for new residents assigned to the Unit) and T-26 (office space for the Orientation Unit staff and visiting area). The Orientation Unit shall be kept isolated from the other parts of the Facility and provided with 24-hour correctional officer coverage in the living area at all times. The Unit shall have its own fenced-off recreation area to which only residents of the Orientation Unit will have access. Defendants commit to take all steps necessary to preclude mixing of new residents assigned to the Orientation Unit with the general population at Central, other than that resulting from attending meals, going on conducted tours of Central, or going to the Infirmary.
As set forth in general terms in a memorandum prepared by former Assistant Administrator Graves and attached

.1 V*,-

- 13 -

as Exhibit 8 to this Agreement, the orientation for each new resident at Central shall last approximately one (1) to four (4) weeks, it being understood that in certain cases the orientation afforded a resident may vary depending on that resident's particular needs, provided that the integrity of the orientation system is insured. The Graves memorandum (Exhibit 8 to this Agreement) sets forth the staffing that shall be provided at the Orientation Unit in addition to correctional officers: two (2) correctional treatment specialists and one (1) administrative aide.
It is expected that the Orientation Unit will be opened contemporaneously with the full opening of the R&D Center at CDF, that is, in the mid-summer of 1982.
It is understood by the parties that the major objective of the R&D Center and the Orientation Unit is to insure appropriate diagnosis and classification for programs, treatment, and housing of individual residents. The parties also recognize that it is necessary, in light of the establishment of the R&D Center and the Orientation Unit, for the Department to develop and to maintain current status reports on the present resident population at Central. Defendants shall insure that the current status of each resident at Central is reviewed by appropriate personnel so that standardized reports can be prepared on or before August 1, 1982, as to the suitability of each resident's then-current classification, housing, program, and therapy commitments. A sample reporting form is attached as Exhibit 9 to this Agreement. Defendants commit to making any reassignments or.other changes in housing or programs that are suggested by these reports.
Defendants shall establish and maintain a classification and housing system that will insure that each resident

. -I V i i -

- 14 -

of Central will be assigned to a housing unit that is matched to his individual needs. In order to implement such a
system, defendants shall establish categories of residents
that require specialized housing that are acceptable to plaintiffs' counsel. At a minimum, these categories shall include older residents, residents professionally diagnosed as more prone to being victimized and therefore requiring additional supervision (subject to the staffing provided in the Post Trick Chart), residents with medical problems requiring close proximity to the Infirmary, and honor residents. Defendants shall establish and maintain a sufficient number of separate dormitories to accommodate the above categories of residents.
Defendants shall establish a Classification and Housing Committee, consisting of members of the correctional staff, classification and parole staff, and psychological services staff. The Classification and Housing Committee shall assign to the appropriate housing unit (1) each new resident on the basis of the diagnosis prepared by the R&D Unit, supplemented by interviews by the staff of the Orientation Unit, and (2) each current resident of Central on the basis of the aforementioned reclassification to be completed by August 1, 1982. Defendants shall establish and maintain a system of records that will enable plaintiffs' counsel to monitor the assignment of residents to housing units.
The Classification and Housing Unit shall also assign new residents and current residents on the basis of the aforementioned reports and diagnoses to the appropriate work squads, vocational training, academic schooling and/or treatment programs. Except to the extent otherwise provided for in this Item V, defendants shall inform plaintiffs' counsel, pursuant to Item X of this Agreement, of any delay

- 15 -
in the foregoing dates, and shall confirm in writing the completion of each project and the commencement of full operation of the R&D Center and the Orientation Unit. Enforcement of this Item V shall be in accordance with the provisions of Item X.

- 16 -
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SANITATION . A. Standards The following standards, codes and provisions shall
govern the specified environmental health and sanitation concerns within the Central Facility. Standards, codes and provisions specified below shall not be limited in their application to the subject headings under which they appear. Where standards, codes or provisions are stated to be based upon a ratio or number of residents, compliance shall be determined by reference to the rated capacity of the particular structure, as set forth in Item IX of this Agreement. Where standards, codes or provisions conflict, the more stringent requirement shall control. Where standards of the American Public Health Association and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers ("ASHRAE") are referenced, only the specified editions of the standards shall apply. Where District of Columbia codes, rules and regulations are referenced, all future revisions thereof shall apply to the Central Facility as they apply to other preexisting structures.
1. Housekeeping and Maintenance - American Public Health Association, Standards for Health Services in Correctional Institutions 1 VI.C.6. Housekeeping (1976) (hereinafter cited as "APHA").
A written housekeeping plan for all areas of the facility's physical plant shall provide for daily housekeeping and regular maintenance by assigning specific duties and responsibilities to staff and inmates.
The facility shall have a written plan for preventive maintenance that is reviewed and updated annually. All plumbing, industrial, radiological, water supply, lighting, heating, ventilation, electrical and other facilities governed by the standards.

- 17 -
codes, and provisions specified herein shall be maintained in good working order.
2. Solid Waste Management - APHA fl V L B . 3. Solid Wastes.
3. Insect and Rodent Control - APHA f VI.D.3. Vermin Control.
4. Mattresses - Each mattress shall be provided with a cleanable, non-toxic, and flame retardant cover.
5. Plumbing Facilities (Numbers of) - APHA 5 VI.E.2. Bedding.
6. Pharmaceutical Services - D.C. Code, tit. 2, ch. 20. See also Item VII of this Agreement.
7. Radiological Equipment - D.C. Rules and Regulations, tit. 8 (Health Regulations), ch. 2, pt. 10.
8. Industries - U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act Standards.
9. Plumbing - D.C. Rules and Regulations, tit. 5C-2 (Plumbing Code). Where the D.C. Plumbing Code is inapplicable, the principles stated in National Sheriffs Association, Sanitation in the Jail 29-30 (1974) shall apply.
10. Water Supply - Commonwealth of Virginia Waterworks Regulations - Public Drinking Water Supply.
11. Noise Control - Acoustics shall insure noise levels which do not interfere with normal human activities (range not to exceed 65 to 70 decibels in daytime and 40 to 45 decibels in night for non-industrial areas).
12. Lighting - A minimum of 30 foot-candles of light shall be provided to each bunk for reading purposes and to all bath and personal grooming areas. A minimum of 10 foot-candles of light shall be provided in all other residential areas. Lighting shall be measured in accordance with the most recent

'.,*. -I'
- 18 -
standards developed by the American Society of Illuminating Engineers.
13. Heating - D.C. Rules and Regulations, tit. 5-G (Housing Code), ch. 2, art. 240, §" 2407.
1-4. Ventilation a) An exhaust fan ventilation system has been
installed in dormitories 2-13 and will be installed in the remaining dormitories as they are renovated.— When in operation in a dormitory, the mechanical ventilation system shall provide a minimum of 10 cubic feet of air per minute per resident meeting the quality criteria set forth in ASHRAE Standard 62-73, Standards for Natural and Mechanical Ventilation (1973).
b) The parties understand that heating considerations make operation of the ventilation system unfeasible when the temperature falls below a certain level. The parties agree that within four (4) months of judicial approval of this Agreement, the ventilation system shall be in operation for the maximum time feasible consistent with the heating and ventilation systems now in place in the renovated dormitories and scheduled for installation in the dormitories which will be renovated. In determining what is feasible, proposed changes to current operating procedures shall be evaluated by weighing the cost and the amount of additional ventilation provided by the change. Additional ventilation shall be provided whenever the marginal cost is not substantially disproportionate to the marginal gain.
c) The parties will continue their efforts to ascertain whether through modification of the ventilation system or other means, mechanical ventilation can be increased or provided at all
V Mechanical ventilation will be provided in dormitories 20 and 24, but not necessarily by an exhaust fan system.

- 19 -
times without installation of a new combined forced-air heating and ventilation system. If efforts to attain the necessary expertise within the District of Columbia government or through cost-free outside sources within three (3) months of judicial approval of this Agreement are unavailing, this effort shall include consultation with an expert in ventilation for a sum not in excess of $1,000 within six (6) months of judicial approval of this Agreement. Defendants shall make their best efforts to effect any reasonable measures ascertained. In determining what is reasonable, proposals shall be evaluated by weighing the cost and the amount of additional ventilation provided by the change. Additional ventilation shall be provided whenever the marginal cost is not substantially disproportionate to the marginal gain. Implementation of such measures, if any, shall be effectuated in conformance with a schedule which shall be established through agreement of the parties in consultation with the independent expert referenced in Part C below based upon funding, procurement, and other considerations.
15. Accident and Fire Prevention and Preparedness D.C. Rules and Regulations, tit. 5A-1 (Building Code); D.C. Rules and Regulations, tit. 7 (Fire Department Fire Prevention Code); D.C. Rules and Regulations, tit. 5B-2 (Electrical Code); APHA 5 VI.C.5. Accident Prevention.
The facility shall have in effect and provide to all supervisory personnel written copies of a plan for the protection of all persons in the event of fire and for their evacuation to areas of refuge and from the building when necessary. All employees and residents shall.be periodically instructed and kept informed respecting their duties and recommended actions under the plan.

- 20 -
16. Food Services - D.C. Rules and Regulations, tit. 8 (Health Regulations), ch. 6;-1 APHA 1 VIIA. Nutrition.
In addition, defendants shall undertake construction of physical barriers and implementation of security procedures to prevent unauthorized access from the food service area to the •food preparation area.
17. Milk quality - Milk quality shall meet the requirements of D.C. Rules and Regulations, tit. 8 (Health Regulations), Ch. 6.
18. Personal Hygiene - APHA f VI.E.I Personal Hygiene. A minimum of two clean towels shall be provided to each resident each week.
District of Columbia laws and regulations cited above have been adopted for their substantive requirements. Where they allow a District of Columbia official to grant a waiver or variance, such waiver or variance shall be granted only with good cause explained in writing, and shall in no case endanger the health or safety of the residents. The Director, Department of Housing and Community Development, shall determine the safety of electrical wiring under article 110-40 of the Electrical Code by the same standard used to determine the safety of electrical wiring in other buildings under his jurisdiction.
B. Timetable for Compliance. The facility shall meet the above standards, codes, and
provisions within three months of judicial approval of this Agreement, with the following exceptions:
*/ The parties agree that part III of the Anatomy of Inspection Tn a Food Protection Program, appended hereto as Exhibit 10, provides a valuable elaboration on the D.C. Health Regulations, and recommend its use as an inspection guide.

- 21 -
1. Dormitories 1 and 14 through 25 shall meet the standards for lighting, ventilation, plumbing, plumbing facilities (numbers of) and electrical wiring as the planned renovation of each of those dormitories is completed.— Renovation of said dormitories shall be completed within three .(3) years of judicial approval of this Agreement. Renovation of dormitories 15 through 18, and 24 (Building R-3), shall be completed according to the schedule hereto attached as Exhibit 11. A schedule for renovation of the remaining dormitories within three (3) years shall be developed within three (3) months of judicial approval of this Agreement and incorporated in this Agreement, and renovation shall be completed according to that schedule. Defendants shall inform plaintiffs' counsel, pursuant to Item X of this Agreement, of any delay in the renovation schedules and will confirm in writing the completion of renovation in each dormitory.
2. If defendants choose to use individual lamps to meet the requirement of 30 foot-candles of illumination at bunk level, that particular lighting requirement shall be met within (6) months of judicial approval of this Agreement in dormitories 2 through 13.
3. Additional plumbing fixtures required by application of Part A-5 above in dormitories in which renovation has been completed (numbers 2-13) shall be installed on the following
V Installation of ventilation and additional plumbing facilities in dormitory 24 may not be completed during the general renovation of dormitory 24. If that is the case, dormitory 24 shall meet all of the above standards, codes and provisions in all environmental health areas aside from ventilation and plumbing facilities (numbers of) at the time the general renovation of dormitory 24 is completed, and shall meet ventilation provisions within two years, and plumbing facilities (numbers of) provisions within 19 months.

- 22 -

schedule: commencing six (6) months following judicial approval of this Agreement, the requisite number of fixtures shall be installed in said dormitories with a dormitory being completed every thirty (30) days thereafter. Each of these dormitories shall meet the plumbing fixtures (numbers of) standard when • installation in that dormitory is completed.
4. Mattress covers or mattresses meeting the requirements of Part A-4 above shall be procured and distributed in an orderly fashion within six (6) months of judicial approval of this' Agreement.

5. See paragraphs b) and c) of Part A-14 above.

*

*

*

The parties may agree to defer renovation of dormitories

or other items involving construction to avoid scheduling conflicts

with other projects to be performed pursuant to this Agreement.

I

Defendants are not currently aware of any aspects of

1 compliance with the standards, codes, and provisions specified in

\ Part A above, which cannot be attained under the timetable and

I within available budgetary resources (operational and capital

funding) or budgetary resources which are expected to become

available in conjunction with the execution of this Agreement.

However, the time frame under which this Agreement was negotiated

did not allow defendants comprehensively to inspect and to evaluate

the extent to which actual conditions at the Central Facility are

in compliance with the standards, codes and provisions, or to

assess precisely the financial resources which would be necessary

to bring the various items into compliance. If the initial inspec-

tion required by Part C below results in findings of non-compliance

with particular standards, codes, or provisions which would require

corrective actions at costs in excess of the expenditures reasonably

anticipated by defendants to be initially required by

- 23 -
those standards, codes, or provisions, defendants may propose deferral of compliance deadlines for those standards, codes, or provisions and the parties will meet to discuss any such proposals. Provided that: absent "the parties' agreement, this paragraph shall in no way limit defendants' obligation to bring the Central Facility into compliance with the standards, codes, and provisions specified herein according to the deadlines specified herein and to maintain such compliance so long as the Central Facility is in operation.
C. Inspection and Sanctions. A team of inspectors, comprised of a physician; a
registered nurse; a pharmacist; an environmental health and sani\ tation specialist; a dietician; a fire marshal; OSHA, plumbing, \ building, and electrical inspectors; and any other inspectors / required shall inspect the Central Facility every three (3) ( months to determine the state of compliance with the standards, \ codes, and provisions cited herein. The team shall be comprised
of employees of the District of Columbia who are not employees of the Department of Corrections. The team shall be directed by an expert independent of both parties who shall be selected by the agreement of both parties. The defendant shall reimburse the independent expert for his services. The parties shall make their best efforts to keep the independent expert's fees to the minimum consistent with effective discharge of his duties as herein described. To the extent practical, the independent expert shall further those efforts by advising the parties in advance of the anticipated expenses for particular duties. The independent expert may consult freely with representatives of both parties.
The independent expert shall select the members of the team with the aid of appropriate persons employed by the District

- 24 -
of Columbia. In his discretion, the independent expert may determine that the participation of some of the team members enumerated above is unnecessary. The independent expert, with the aid of the team members, shall develop a set of checksheets listing potential conditions of non-compliance which will guide the team members •in their inspections. As he deems appropriate, the independent expert will join the team members in on-site inspections. At the time of the first inspection, the independent expert shall review the housekeeping and maintenance plans prepared by defendant pursuant to this Agreement and modify those plans as necessary to effect the housekeeping and maintenance standards and provisions specified herein. At the time of the second inspection, the independent expert shall assess defendant's compliance with the provisions contained in paragraphs b) and c) of Part A-14 above.
Following their inspections, the team members shall forward their findings promptly to the independent expert. Following receipt of these findings, the independent expert promptly shall issue a list specifying each condition found not in compliance with any of the standards, codes, or provisions cited herein, including a specific reference to the standard, code or provision, or portion thereof; where appropriate, a description of the corrective action that is recommended or required to alleviate the condition; specification of the time period within which the deficient condition shall be brought into compliance; and specification of the date on which any reinspections, in addition to inspections regularly scheduled, will take place. The independent expert shall issue lists of the same kind for any deficiencies noted during reinspections. The independent expert may defer portions of regularly scheduled inspections as a result of reinspections.
In addition to the lists described above, the independent expert shall issue reports summarizing and commenting upon

- 25 -
the results of each regular inspection and the reinspections conducted since the last regular inspection and stating whether Central as a whole was found to be in substantial compliance with the standards, codes, and provisions cited herein at the time of the regular inspection. These reports will incorporate the results of Virginia inspections of water supply, which will not be independently assessed while it remains under Virginia's jurisdiction.
The initial inspection shall begin three (3) months after the judicial approval of this Agreement. Once two (2) consecutive inspections result in a finding that the facility is in substantial compliance, the next inspection shall take place six (6) months later. If that inspection results in a finding that the facility is in substantial compliance, the next inspection shall take place one year later. Inspections shall then take place annually unless an inspection results in a finding that the facility is not in substantial compliance. Upon such a finding, the independent expert may establish a more frequent regular inspection cycle. If at any time the regular inspections conducted pursuant to this Agreement occur less often than every three (3) months, the Department of Environmental Services ("DES") will conduct food service inspections every three (3) months, except that any regular inspection conducted pursuant to this Agreement may substitute for a DES inspection. The DES inspections shall include testing of milk quality for compliance with milk quality standards specified herein.
All lists of deficiencies and 'reports issued by the independent expert shall be sent to counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs may request defendants to provide a written explanation for a deficiency and a description of steps which

- 26 -
have been taken and will be taken to remedy the deficiency. Defendants shall respond to such a request within two (2) weeks. Defendants may, after conferring with plaintiffs, seek appropriate relief from the Court from erroneous or oppressive deficiency notices or compliance directives. For any deficiency or deficiencies raising significant health or safety concerns, plaintiffs at any time may seek appropriate relief from the Court, including enforcement of any provision of Item VI of the Agreement as a Consent Judgment, determination that the District of Columbia and the Department are in Contempt of Court and the imposition of sanctions, appointment of a Master to supervise compliance with Item VI of the Agreement or any of its provisions, or appointment of a Magistrate to enforce compliance with Item VI of the Agreement or any of its provisions.

- 27 -
VII. MEDICAL SERVICES A. Staff Defendants agree that they will maintain the staff of
the Lorton Medical Services at its present level and will hire the following additional personnel:
1. A sufficient number of licensed medical doctors (M.D.'s) so as to bring the total licensed physician staff assigned to Lorton to five (5) full-time physicians, including the Chief Medical Officer.
2. A sufficient number of licensed Physician's Assistants (P.A.'s), Registered Nurses (R.N.'s), and Medical Technical Assistants (M.T.A.'s) so as to bring the total of such staff assigned full-time to Lorton to eighteen (18) . The decision whether the additional personnel, hired pursuant to this paragraph shall be P.A.'s, R.N.'s, or M.T.A.'s shall be left to the discretion of the Assistant Director for Health Services, who shall confer with the Chief Medical Officer at Lorton.
3. One (1) full-time clerk typist. 4. Two (2) full-time licensed pharmacists. 5. One (1) full-time records clerk. 6. One (1) additional staff member whose functions will be determined by the Chief Medical Officer at Lorton. Defendants will make available discretionary funds of $25,000, in addition to any other such funds presently made available, to be used to create and fill a position for such additional staff member. Defendants commit to seek, through re-programming or a supplemental budget request, funding in Fiscal Year 1983 for the positions numbered 4, 5 and 6 above, which are not currently funded.

- 28 -
Defendants agree to post the remaining above-listed positions promptly upon judicial approval of this Agreement and to leave the positions posted until at least one appropriately qualified applicant, as determined by the Chief Medical Officer at Lorton, is found. The selecting official for all above-listed positions shall be the Assistant Director for Health Services; the interviewing and recommending official shall be the Chief Medical Officer at Lorton. If at the end of three (3) weeks from the date the positions are initially posted no suitably qualified applicants have been identified, the parties will meet to discuss steps to be taken to facilitate the filling of the still-open positions. Such steps will include but not be limited to examination of the appropriateness of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the position description and/or the DS level. Qualified applicants will be selected and placed in position as soon as possible.
Defendants agree that the provision of psychiatric care to the residents of the Central Facility is an essential element of meeting those residents1 health care needs. Accordingly, defendants commit to use their best efforts to promptly secure through detailing, re-assignment, or other means the full-time services of a qualified board certified clinical psychiatrist to serve the needs of the residents under the care of the Lorton Medical Services. In the event said efforts are unsuccessful, defendants commit to seek, through re-programming or a supplemental budget request, funding in Fiscal Year 1983 for a full-time psychiatric position. Defendants will in the interim use their best efforts to maintain or increase current psychiatric services available at Lorton through a personal services contract or other means.
If defendants are unable to make provisions by November 1/ 1982, to have a full-time board certified clinical psychiatrist

'

-,

•

- 29 -
assigned to the Lorton Medical Services, the parties will seek to agree to procedures to ensure that a full-time board certified clinical psychiatrist will be assigned to the Lorton Medical Services promptly. If the parties are unable to agree on such procedures by December 1, 1982, plaintiffs have the right to reopen this proceeding and the Court will promptly schedule trial on the issues in the Complaint insofar as they relate to the provision of psychiatric services to the residents at Lorton.
B. Equipment Defendants further agree that they will make the follow-
ing improvements in the medical equipment at Lorton: 1. Effective thirty (30) days from judicial approval
of this Agreement, defendants will ensure that an automobile or station wagon in good repair is assigned to the Infirmary at all times for medication runs and patient transport.
2. Defendants will procure six (6) new wheelchairs for the Lorton Infirmary within ninety (90) days of judicial approval of this Agreement.
3. Defendants will repair or replace, as necessary, the optometrist's equipment at the Lorton Infirmary. This work will be completed within ninety (90) days of judicial approval of this Agreement.
C. Facilities Defendants further agree that they will complete the
following improvements in the medical facilities at Lorton within ten (10) months of judicial approval of this Agreement:
1. Defendants will install sinks with hot and cold running water in the examining rooms in the Lorton Infirmary.

- 30 -
2. Defendants will place the whirlpool bath at the Lorton Infirmary in its own room, attach its drain, repair its circulating unit and pump, and otherwise ensure that it i-s in good working order.
3. Defendants will undertake all general maintenance necessary at the Infirmary, including but not limited to repairs to the roof, tiling, repainting, general cleaning, and extermination.
The parties may agree to defer items involving construction to avoid scheduling conflicts with other projects to be performed pursuant to this Agreement.
D. Contract-Management Services It is understood by the parties that the objective of
the D.C. Department of Corrections is to retain an outside, independent organization to provide contract-management services for the medical needs of the Lorton population. In the event that the provision of medical services at Lorton shall be contracted out to an independent organization, defendants agree that the terms of the contract shall provide for a level of care by qualified medical personnel commensurate with that provided for in this Agreement and shall ensure that the medical care provided to the residents at Lorton shall be adequate in all respects. The request for bids and the proposed contract shall be presented to plaintiffs for review, and no contract shall be signed until plaintiffs have had ten (10) working days in which to review it. If plaintiffs believe that the signing of the contract will adversely affect the level of medical care with which they are being provided, they may request from the Court within the above-mentioned period

•*>.-
- 31 of ten (10) working days an order enjoining signing of the contract or requiring that the contract be modified before it is signed. The signing of a contract for medical services by defendants shall not relieve them of their obligation to provide adequate medical care to the residents at Lorton.

- 32 -
VIII. PROGRAMS The parties reaffirm their view expressed in the
Agreement of Principles that the paramount aim of the programs at Central is to provide the resident population with a structured environment, to eliminate idleness, and to prepare for eventual release from the institution. The - objective of the program provisions of the Settlement Agreement is to occupy productively each resident at Central for a significant portion, preferably six (6) hours, of each day. In light of this objective, defendants commit to work in a continuing effort to develop and to expand the institutionallyoperated programs at Central and to expand and to improve the work squad activities at Central. Defendants also commit to ensure that the agreed-upon staffing levels of the Classification and Parole Office and the Psychological Services Unit are maintained in order to coordinate program needs and to provide necessary counseling and other services.
The specific commitments to which the parties agree are detailed below. The listing of commitments is not intended to limit the efforts of defendants in expanding program opportunities at Central; rather, the listing provides a minimum outline for program expansion. Defendants commit to exert their best efforts to develop further institutionally-operated programs in addition to those programs that currently operate at Central and those noted below.

- 33 -
A. Industries 1. Night Shift at Furniture Repair Shop Defendants commit to begin operation of a night
shift at the Central Furniture Repair Shop within thirty (30) days of the hiring of a furniture upholstery foreman to supervise the operation of the night shift. The foreman position was posted on July 29, 1981, and posting was closed on August 14, 1981, without filling the position in guestion. Defendants commit to repost that position within two (2) weeks upon judicial approval of this Agreement and to close the posting within three (3) weeks of the posting of the position. If at the end of this three- (3-) week period a suitable foreman is not identified the parties shall meet to discuss steps to be taken to hire a foreman, including but not limited to examination of the appropriateness of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the position description and/or the DS level. A furniture upholstery foreman shall be hired within three (3) weeks of the final closing of the posting for that position. Defendants shall ensure that all other necessary changes are made in the operation of the Furniture Repair Shop to permit the planned expansion, including but not limited to the hiring of any other necessary personnel and identifying any necessary additional storage space within thrity (30) days of the hiring of the furniture upholstery foreman.
The parties agree that the second shift at the Furniture Repair Shop shall employ forty-five (45) to fifty (50) residents initially and shall expand to employ seventyfive (75) residents within one year. If defendants are unable to expand the second shift in order to employ seventyfive (75) residents within one year, they shall.notify

- 34 -
counsel for the plaintiffs and specify all efforts made toward the planned expansion. Upon agreement by both parties that all reasonable efforts have been made, a minimum number of employees less than seventy-five (75) shall be established.
2. Tire Retreading Shop Defendants commit to begin operation of a tire retreading shop within twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months of judicial approval of this Agreement. Necessary steps to begin operation of the new tire retreading shop at Central shall begin immediately and shall include, but not be limited to, obtaining the equipment with which to operate the tire retreading shop from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, ensuring adequate space in which to operate the tire retreading shop, hiring three (3) shop supervisors, an additional truck driver, and if necessary an additional accountant and/or procurement officer. If the shop area designated for the tire retreading shop is the building known as the "old pattern shop" defendants shall submit to counsel for plaintiffs plans for renovation of that building within four (4) months of judicial approval of this Agreement; to renovate that building within fourteen (14) months after judicial approval of this Agreement; to establish security provisions for the old pattern shop building including officer staffing, a fence surrounding the building, and use of walk-through or hand-held metal detectors; to include the old pattern shop area in a lighting survey and to install additional lighting where necessary in accordance with the findings of the lighting survey; and to find a suitable storage area for the equipment and materials

- 35 -
currently stored in the old pattern shop. If a building other than the old pattern shop is to be used to house the tire retreading shop, defendants shall submit plans for construction or renovation of that building within three (3) months of judicial approval of this Agreement.
3. Apprenticeship Program a. Upholstery Apprenticeship Program
Defendants commit to begin operation of an upholstery apprenticeship program within thirty (30) days of the hiring of an instructor for that program. Defendants also commit to exert their best efforts toward hiring an upholstery apprenticeship instructor as promptly as possible. Toward that effort defendants shall promptly post that position and close the posting within three (3) weeks. If defendants are unable to identify an instructor within the agreed-upon three- (3-) week period/ counsel for plaintiffs shall be notified immediately and the defendants shall repost the position for an additional three- (3-) week period. If at that time a suitable instructor is still not identified, the parties shall meet to discuss steps to be taken to hire an instructor, including but not limited to the examination of appropriateness of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the position description and/or DS level. An upholstery apprenticeship instructor shall be hired within three (3) weeks of the final closing of the posting for that position.
The upholstery apprenticeship program shall begin with a minimum of eight (8) resident participants, and shall be expanded to at least fifteen (15) participants within the first year of operation.

- 36 -
b. Printing/Silk Screen Apprenticeship Program Defendants commit to begin immediately to enter into discussions with the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council in order to determine the requirements for receiving Apprenticeship Council Certification for a printing/silk screen apprenticeship program. Within sixty (60) days of judicial approval of this Agreement, defendants shall submit to counsel for plaintiffs a report detailing the requirements for certification, the changes, if any, that would have to be made to the printing/silk screen shop in order to establish an apprenticeship program, and the cost of making such changes. Defendants also commit to exert their best efforts toward establishing an apprenticeship program in printing/ silk screen, including but not limited to acquiring any additional machinery in order to meet apprenticeship equipment standards and to hiring or to reassigning an eligible instructor. Defendants further commit to exert their best efforts to establish the apprenticeship program within six (6) months after judicial approval of this Agreement. The apprenticeship program shall begin with at least the minimum number of resident participants as established by the Apprenticeship Council and shall be expanded to at least fifteen (15) participants within the first year of operation. Defendants shall report upon the progress of their efforts in establishing the printing/silk screen apprenticeship program in their monthly reports pursuant to Item X of this Agreement.
c. Additional Apprentice Programs Defendants shall immediately begin to study the feasibility of establishing additional apprenticeship

- 37 -
programs through an examination of the currently-operated industries shops as well as the tire retreading shop and discussions with the Apprenticeship Council. Within ninety (90) days of judicial approval of this Agreement defendants shall submit to counsel for plaintiffs a report detailing the feasibility of establishing additional apprenticeship . . programs, as well as identifying problem areas. Within thirty (30) days of the submissions of that report, the parties shall meet to discuss the feasibility of establishing additional apprenticeship programs and to develop a schedule for beginning additional apprenticeship programs. Defendants, following a determination of feasibility, further shall exert their best efforts toward establishing additional apprenticeship programs in the industries shops at six (6) month intervals. Feasibility will be measured by an examination of apprenticeship standards, the ability to hire or to reassign an instructor, the market for the product(s) involved, the profit-potential for the market involved, and agreement between the parties as to the appropriateness of an apprenticeship program in the industries areas involved.
4. Additional Sales Defendants commit to exert their best efforts to develop additional sales in all industries and to hire additional necessary personnel. A brief description of these efforts shall be included in the monthly reports to be submitted by defendants to counsel for plaintiffs. Further, the chief of industries shall meet with counsel for plaintiffs to provide additional details concerning sales efforts and the current sales status at any mutually agreed-upon time.

- 38 -
Defendants commit to continue to exert their best efforts to enter into a formal agreement with the Federal Bureau of Prisons providing that Chapter 307 of Title 18, U.S. Code (specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 4122(e)(l), 4123 and 4124 (1969)) shall apply to the industrial program of the Department. Such an agreement would provide that the several federal departments and agencies and all other government institutions of the United States shall purchase the products made by the Department's industries program in the same manner and to the same extent that products of the Federal Prison Industries Incorporated are purchased, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 4124 (1969), pertaining to purchase of prison-made products by federal departments. A proposed draft agreement by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons and approval of the proposed draft by the Department, subject to acceptance by the Office of the Mayor, are attached as Exhibit 12 to this Agreement.
Defendants also commit to exert their best efforts to have the Department's industries listed as a mandatory source in the Federal Procurement Manual (FPR (1974). and amendments), the relevant portions of which are attached as Exhibit 13 to this Agreement.
Defendants shall report upon the progress of these efforts in their monthly reports pursuant to Item X of this Agreement.
5. Profit-making and Program Level The parties acknowledge that the operation of the industries programs at Lorton is dependent upon the profitmaking and self-sufficiency objectives of the Correction Industries Program, and that all programs must be maintained and established in a profit-making' framework. Within that

- 39 -
framework defendants will exert their best efforts toward maintaining all currently-operated industries at present levels or at expanded levels and to develop the additional industries programs described within this Agreement as well as any other industries programs to be developed at a later date.
If in the future defendants propose to terminate any industries program operating at that time or to reduce the operation of any industries program to be developed under the terms of this Agreement, defendants commit to submit to counsel for plaintiffs a report detailing the reasons for the proposed termination or change in operation. If counsel for plaintiffs is not in agreement with the proposed termination, the parties shall meet to discuss the proposal, and if the parties are unable to resolve that dispute, the matter may be presented to the Court for consideration in accordance with the terms of Item X of this Agreement.
In an effort to maintain continuously the industries programs at maximum operating levels, defendants commit to post positions for staff hiring promptly upon notification that a staff position will become vacant. Defendants shall list all notifications of future vacancies in staff positions, currently vacant staff positions, and posted staff positions for the industries area in the monthly reports to be submitted to counsel for plaintiffs.
6. Security In accordance with the terms of Item III of this Agreement, defendants shall install a walk-through metal detector within an estimated ninety (90) days of judicial approval of this Agreement. Additionally, defendants

- 40 -
commit that correctional 'officers shall use hand-held metal detectors to search residents leaving the industries area as soon as the correctional officer complement at the Central Facility reaches three hundred (300) or by October 1, 1982, whichever is sooner. Additionally, a sufficient number of officers consistent with overall security requirements shall be posted at the entrance/exit to the industries area at the times of the day when large number of residents pass through the industries gates. Those times of the day include but are not limited to the beginning of the work day at industries, the break in the work day immediately proceeding the noon meal and count time, the recommencement of the work day, and the end of the work day at industries. Correctional officer coverage consistent with overall security requirements shall also be provided for the entrance and exit times of the furniture repair night shift.
Defendants also commit to investigating the feasibility of installing a surveillance camera on the walk outside the industries area.
B. Vocational Training 1. Carpentry Vocational Traning Program and Dry Wall Vocational Training Program Defendants commit to begin operation of a carpentry
vocational training program and a dry wall vocational training program within thirty (30) days of the hiring of an instructor for each program. The dry wall instructor position was initially posted in mid-December 1981 and posting was closed at the end of December 1981. The position shall be reposted promptly and reposting shall be closed within three (3) weeks. If a suitable individual for the dry wall instructor position is identified within the reposting period, defendants

- 41 -
commit to fill the instructor position by no later than three (3) weeks after the reposting is closed. If no suitable individual is identified during the posting period, the parties shall meet to discuss steps to be taken toward hiring a dry wall instructor, including but not limited to examination of the appropriateness of the duties and respon- - sibilities outlined in the position description and/or the DS level.
The carpentry instructor position was posted on February 15, 1982 and posting shall be closed within three (3) weeks of that date. If a suitable carpentry instructor is not identified within the posting period, counsel for plaintiffs shall be notified immediately and the position shall be reposted for an additional three- (3-) week period. If a suitable individual for the carpentry instructor position is identified within a posting period, defendants commit to fill the instructor position by no later than three (3) weeks after the posting is closed. If no suitable individual is identified during the second posting period, the parties shall meet to discuss steps to be taken toward hiring a carpentry instructor, including but not limited to examination of the appropriateness of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the position description and/or the DS level.
Both the carpentry and dry wall vocational training programs shall be maintained at a minimum level of fifteen (15) residents. Whenever the number of resident participants in either program drops below fifteen (.15) , the vacancy or vacancies shall be filled immediately after the completion of the standard classification selection.
Defendants shall include information on the status of the carpentry and dry wall programs and the number

- 42 -
of resident participants in each program in the monthly reports to be submitted to counsel for plaintiffs.
2. Additional Vocational Training Programs Defendants commit to expend their best efforts toward expanding the vocational training programs currently operating at Central. Further, the Department commits to request funding for additional vocational training programs at Central, to attempt to obtain additional vocational program space, and to request funding to hire additional vocational training instructors beginning in fiscal year 1984 and to continue in future years, consistent with other budgetary needs of the Department. It is understood that matters involving safety, security and medical care will have a superseding priority. 3. Additional Program Space Defendants commit to conduct a study concerning the feasibility of developing additional program space for the vocational training program and the academic school. The feasibility study shall address the possibility of renovating the "old bakery building" by vocational training students, residents and/or outside contractors. It shall also address the possibility of erecting a prefabricated building at the Central facility or of developing any other program space. The study shall consider among other things what use could be made of the old bakery building or other structure with expenditure of the following amounts: $100,000; $150,000; and $200,000, and time periods within which the space could be developed. The feasibility study shall be completed within six (6) months of the signing, of this Agreement. At that time the parties shall meet to discuss a plan for expanding the vocational training and academic school space at Central including examination of other capital expenditure items addressed in this Agreement. If the parties are unable

_ 43 -

to agree to such a plan, the issue will be presented to the Court for resolution, the Court to be guided in its discretion by program needs and the fiscal constraints of the District of Columbia provided that the Court will in no case order funds to be expended in excess of $200,000.

C. Academic School

1. Additional Staff

Defendants commit to post the following staff

positions for the academic school in addition to those

positions already filled:

a. a basic/secondary education instructor;

b. a librarian;

c. an administrative aide; and

d. a special education teacher.

By March 30, 1982, defendants commit to post the librarian

and administrative aid staff positions. Defendants commit

^

to use their best efforts to secure funding for the basic/secondary

education instructor and the special education teacher and to

post promptly and to fill those positions once such funding

is secured. For each of the above-listed positions, the

posting shall be closed within a three-(3-) week period. If

defendants are unable to identify an appropriate individual

to fill a position in question within the three- (3-) week

period, counsel for plaintiffs shall be notified immediately

and defendants shall repost the position for an additional

three- (3-) week period. If at that time a suitable individual

is not identified, the parties shall meet to discuss steps

to be taken to hire a suitable individual, including but not

limited to an examination of the appropriateness of the

duties and responsibilities outlined in the position descrip-

tion and/or DS level. Each above-listed position shall be

filled within three (3) weeks of the final closing of the

posting for each position.

- 4.4 -
2. Link with Receiving and Diagnostic Center Defendants commit to reevaluate the adequacy of the academic school program at six- (6-) month intervals after the R&D Center becomes operational in order to determine whether expansion of the academic school program is necessary. A summary report of the academic needs of Central Facility designees identified at the R&D Center shall be submitted to counsel for plaintiffs at the above-noted six- (6-) month intervals. Defendants commit to exert their best efforts toward expanding the academic school program in accordance with the findings of the R&D Center reports. 3. Volunteer Services Defendants commit to continue to provide full support to volunteer programs providing academic instruction and/or tutoring for Central residents. 4. Additional Program Space As outlined in Item VIII(C)(3) of this Agreement, Defendants commit to complete a feasibility study concerning the development of additional program space for the vocational training program and the academic school. Defendants also commit to exert their best efforts toward identifying suitable space to house and to expand the libraries (general library and law library) at the Central Facility.
D. Classification and Parole 1. Additional Staff Defendants commit to hire one administrative
aide in addition to the C&P staff currently employed at Central. That position shall be posted by March 30, 1982, and the posting shall be closed after a three- (3-) week period. If defendants are unable to identify an appropriate individual to fill the administrative aide position within the three- (3-1 week period, counsel for plaintiffs shall

- 45 -
be notified immediately and defendants shall repost the position for an additional three- (3-) week period. If at that time a suitable individual is not identified, the parties shall meet to discuss steps to be taken to hire a suitable individual, including but not limited to the .appropriateness of the duties and responsibilities outlined __ in the position description and/or DS level. The position shall be filled within three (3) weeks of the final closing of the posting of each position.
It is further understood by the parties that regardless of potential reductions in population levels, the number of C&P officers serving the Central population shall at a minimum be maintained at thirteen (13) C&P officers for the general population, two 12) C&P officers for the Orientation Unit, and three (3) supervisory correctional treatment specialists. If the population at Central is reduced to the level required in Item IX of this Agreement by September 1, 1982, or if there are significant reductions in the population level by that date, defendants will not be required to increase the number of C&P officer staff. If, however, significant progress is not made in reducing population levels, defendants commit to hiring one (1) additional C&P officer to serve the Central Population. That position shall be posted promptly in accordance with Item VIII(J)(2) of this Agreement.
2. Reports for Currently-Incarcerated Residents Currently-incarcerated residents shall be screened and provided with individualized program plans in accordance with the standard classification report attached as Exhibit 8 to this Agreement. These standardized reports shall be completed for each resident who does not receive diagnostic screening at the R&D Center on or before August 1, 1982.

- 46 -
3. Program Follow-Up Defendants commit that CSP officers shall periodically review each resident's file, at a minimum at six- (6-) month intervals, to ensure that the recommendations made by the R&D Center or in, a currently-incarcerated resident's standard classification report are being met.
' E. Psychological Services Unit 1. Additional Staff Defendants commit to post by March 30, 1982, a
position for a psychologist in addition to the five (5) psychologists already on board to provide psychological services at Central. Defendants posted an administrative aide position and the posting was closed on February 13, 1982. For the psychologist position the posting shall be closed after a three- (3-1 week period. If defendants are unable to identify an appropriate individual to fill a position in question within a three- (3-) week period, counsel for plaintiffs shall be notified immediately and defendants shall repost the position for an additional three- (3-) week period. If at that time a suitable individual is not identified, the parties shall meet to discuss steps to be taken to hire a suitable individual, including but not limited to examination of the appropriateness of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the position description and/or DS level. Each above-listed position shall be filled within three (3) weeks of the final closing of the posting for that position.
Defendants further commit that no resident shall be employed in a position in which he has access to the confidential psychological records of any residents.

- 47 -
2. Volunteer Efforts Defendants commit to exert their best efforts to obtain volunteer students, clinical residents, interns, or professors, studying or teaching psychology, psychiatry, or social work at local universities to provide therapy to the residents at Central. Defendants further commit to provide complete cooperation with the efforts and needs of students and professors participating in providing psychological services to the residents at Central. Defendants shall submit a report to counsel for plaintiffs within six (6) months of the signing of this Agreement detailing the progress of its efforts in involving local universities in providing psychological services. Thereafter, defendants shall include updates concerning their efforts in this regard in the monthly reports to be submitted to counsel for plaintiffs. F. Work Squads Defendants commit to continue to reduce the number of residents assigned to fifty (50) squad and to assign two (.2) officers to supervise the work of that squad; to ensure that each resident assigned to each squad is occupied for at least four (4) hours per day at his work squad, with the exception of time spent at school or other institutional activities; to maintain complete records of resident attendance and activities at each work squad; and to exert their best efforts toward developing additional work squads to operate at Central. Any changes or developments concerning work squads shall be addressed in the monthly reports to be submitted to counsel for plaintiffs. Additionally, every ninety (90) days defendants shall submit to counsel for plaintiffs a

- 48 -
report detailing the number of residents assigned to each work squad, the number of residents attending each work squad, the number of work hours expended by each work squad and the work performed by each work squad.
G. Office of Volunteer Services Defendants commit to support the efforts of
the Office of Volunteer Services, to include but not be limited to the following:
(11 drug and alcohol treatment programs; (.2) tutoring and teaching programs; (31 efforts to obtain eight (8) PLATO
systems for the Central Facility and to provide space in which the PLATO systems can be used by residents in a reasonable and beneficial manner consistent with the purposes of the systems; (4) support for a visual arts program to be administered through the Hubert H. Humphrey Arts Scholarship Fund to include classes in ceramics, leather manufacturing and tailoring. This support shall include but not be limited to complete support for efforts to obtain additional funding and provision of adequate program space without displacing any currentlyfunctioning programs. (J5) support for and provision of space in which to operate a reentry program to provide services to residents including but not limited to social skills training,

- 49 -
special academic tutoring, job placement assistance, establishing a residence in the community, in-patient services in the community, stress management training, drug counseling in the community, money management and mental health treatment; (.6) support to all volunteer services provided by students, clinical interns, residents, professors and others organized by the Office of Volunteer Services for programs at Central, including but not limited to the academic school, the psychological services unit, and the dentistry and medical services; (7) provision of best efforts support for a management skills program planned to train staff at Lorton.
H. Letters of Recognition Defendants commit to provide to residents of
Central prior to release letters and/or certificates that identify the nature of work, amount of time performing such work, and training skills received while incarcerated at Central. These letters and/or certificates shall address achievements made in any program at Central, including but not limited to industries, vocational training, academic school and/or work squad whether or not the resident has completed a specific training program. In connection with the objective of providing residents with recognition of the work or other institutional activities performed at Central,

- 50 -
defendants commit to maintain in every resident's institutional file an accurate record listing at a minimum each activity in which a resident has participated, and the length of participation, duties, responsibilities and/or accomplishments. The letters of recognition and/or certificates shall be made available to a resident upon request "and the defendants commit to take adequate steps to ensure that each resident is aware of the availability of such a letter and-/or certificate within thirty (30) days prior to his release from Central.
I. Lorton Transformation Project Defendants commit to endorse and to cooperate
with the efforts of the Lorton Transformation Project to secure funding from private foundations or other grant sources. Defendants also commit to continue to permit the Lorton Transformation Project to operate at Central and to expand its program efforts. Additionally, defendants shall continue to provide an office location at Central during day-time program hours for the Lorton Transformation Project. Defendants shall exert their best efforts to provide an office location during the evening- and weekendprogram hours, considering the office needs of other programs operating at Central, on a space-available basis during times that the Lorton Transformation Project director or other employee is present, and at other times upon approval of the Central Administrator.
J. Program Levels, Staffing, Reporting Requirements and Non-Compliance 1. Program Levels Defendants commit to maintain all currently-
operating programs at maximum resident participation levels

- 51 -

and to maintain all programs detailed in this Agreement at

maximum resident-participation levels. If at any time

defendants propose to terminate or to reduce participation in

a particular program or programs, they shall notify counsel

for plaintiffs. Before such termination or reduction occurs,

defendants commit to meet with counsel for plaintiffs to

"discuss the reasons for the proposed termination or reduction.

If the parties are unable to agree that the proposed termina-

tion or reduction is reasonable, the dispute shall be submitted

to the Court in accordance with the terms of Item X of this

Agreement.

Defendants commit that implementation of the

program requirements set forth in this Agreement shall not

result in the displacement or reduction of any programs

currently operating at the Central Facility.

2. Staffing

Defendants shall exert their best efforts to

/

ensure that staff levels for all programs are maintained at

current levels with the addition of all staff outlined in

Item VIII of this Agreement. Defendants shall inform

counsel for plaintiffs in their monthly reports of all

vacancies in program staff positions and of defendants'

efforts toward filling those vacancies. Except for staff

vacancies in the industries area for which defendants

commit to post as soon as they receive notice that a position

will become vacant (Item VIII (A)(5)), defendants commit

to post a position promptly upon that position becoming

vacant. Posting shall be closed within a three- (3-) week

period and if a suitable individual to fill that position is

identified, the position shall be filled within an additional

- 52 -

three (3-) week period. If a suitable individual is not identified, then the position shall be reposted within two (2) weeks following the closing of the initial posting. Reposting shall be closed within three (3) weeks and

defendants shall immediately notify counsel for plaintiffs and reevaluate their hiring efforts, including but not

• - limited to examination of the position description and/or DS level. If defendants are unable to fill a position in four (4) months, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the terms of Section X of this Agreement.

Defendants further commit to maintain a policy

of supporting the highest salary level for staff positions that the duties and responsibilities of those positions justify.
Attached as Exhibit 14 to this Agreement is a copy of the Residency Exemption Reinstatement Act of 1982, D.C. Act 4-150 CFeb. 9, 1982). (to be codified at D.C. Code

S§ 1-608.1-1-609.1 (1981 ed.)) which in part permits the District of Columbia to hire as employees individuals who do

not live within the District of Columbia at installations not located within the geographic bounds of the District of Columbia. This provision should facilitate the hiring of qualified individuals at Central. In case of amendment of the relevant sections of this Act, defendants shall immediately notify counsel for plaintiffs and shall advise counsel for plaintiffs of any recruitment problems being

encountered by the Department in the absence of the exemption from the District of Columbia residency requirement for

Lorton employees.

,

- 53 -
3. Reporting Requirements Unless otherwise provided in Item VIII of this Agreement, defendants shall include a description of all program changes that occur at Central in the monthly reports to be submitted to counsel for plaintiffs. 4. Non-Compliance If defendants fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Item X of this Agreement.

- 54 -

IX. POPULATION LID

It is understood by the parties that the elements of

this Agreement rest fundamentally on the number of residents

committed to the Central Facility. The parties have agreed upon

a rated capacity of 1166 for the resident population at Central.

This rated capacity for the institution is premised on the basis

of sixty (60) square feet per resident for sleeping space and an

additional thirty-five (35) square feet per resident for day room

space. It is recognized that the agreed rated capacity will be

adjusted to reflect any renovations that may close dormitories or

convert living space to bathroom space in the future, any

transfer of residents out of T-26 for the creation of an

Orientation Unit at Central, or other such changes in available

living space. The parties have agreed on the following rated

capacities for individual dormitories:

Dormitory

Rated Capacity

1

33

2

41

3

41

4

41

5

41

6

41

7

34

8

34

9

41

10

41

11

41

12

41

13

41

14

46

15

67

16

67

17

67

18

67

19

37

20

23

21

46

22

39

23

40

24

53

25

62

26

41

TOTAL

1166

- 55 -
To implement the objective of limiting population to
r
the rated capacity, and recognizing that the number of residents committed to Central is a matter over which defendants have little or no control, it is agreed as follows: Pursuant to Item X of this Agreement, Plaintiffs will be provided from this date forward with monthly reports of the population levels at the Central Facility sufficient to show the number of residents in each dormitory. If on September 1, 1982, defendants have not achieved the agreed rated capacity, adjusted as appropriate, then representatives of the parties will meet to discuss reasonable projections of the Department for resident population at Central through March 15, 1983, and what steps defendants are prepared to take to reduce the population to rated capacity.
If that conference between the parties does not produce a program reasonably projected to achieve the rated capacity by March 15, 1983, the parties shall appear promptly before the Court to discuss the level of the resident population and reasonable projections for the resident population for the remainder of 1983. Upon hearing the views of the parties on the matter, the Court may, in its discretion, appoint a Special Master to review the issues raised by the level of the resident population and the impact of that level on the other elements of this Agreement. The Court, in its discretion, may request that the Master present recommendations prior to March 15, 1983, as to steps to be taken to reduce the population and to modify__the finaX_Sett 1 eme.iLLAgxe.ement_so that its objectives may be achieved. The Master may consult freely with representatives of "Both parties.
This same procedure shall be followed by the parties if at any time after March 15, 1983, the population level at

- 56 -
Central should exceed the agreed rated capacity for a substantial period of time. It is further understood that if the Central population falls below the agreed rated capacity for a substantial period of time, the parties may meet at defendants' request to renegotiate any appropriate provisions of this Agreement.

- 57 -
X. NOTICE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT
1. Notice and Reporting Defendants shall notify plaintiffs' counsel upon the completion of each of the foregoing requirements and shall prepare monthly reports to be submitted to plaintiffs' - counsel describing the progress made in accomplishing each item listed in this Agreement. In addition/ defendants shall transmit to plaintiffs' counsel Assault Reports, Incident Reports, and Injury Reports for Residents and Staff. Plaintiffs' counsel shall have continuing access to Contraband Reports. Plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel shall meet from time to time to modify any of the reporting requirements mentioned above or in any of the other Items of this Agreement to reflect the completion of or compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 2. Enforcement Notwithstanding and in addition to other procedures for enforcement established by other Items of this Agreement, if counsel for plaintiffs determines through a review of the monthly reports or through any other means that the District of Columbia has failed to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, counsel for plaintiffs shall notify the District of its determination. Within two (2) weeks of receipt of such notification, the District shall respond to counsel for plaintiffs either with a fully explained denial of non-compliance or with an explanation for non-compliance and a plan to correct the non-compliance. If counsel for plaintiffs is not satisfied with the response, the parties shall meet within three (3) weeks of the initial notification

-58 -
to discuss the reasonableness of the District's non-compliance or denial of non-compliance and to determine whether the parties can agree to a plan to correct any non-compliance. If the parties are unable to,resolve a dispute as to noncompliance within six (6) weeks of the initial notification, "either party may apply to the Court for assistance. Should counsel for plaintiffs determine that there is imminent danger to the health or safety of the residents, counsel for plaintiffs may seek assistance from the Court at any time.
Upon application from either party, the Court in its discretion may enforce any provision of this Agreement as a Consent Judgment, may determine that the District of Columbia is in Contempt of Court and impose appropriate sanctions, may appoint a Master to monitor and/or supervise compliance with this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may appoint a Magistrate to monitor and enforce compliance with this Agreement or any of its provisions.

- 59 -
XI. COSTS AND EXPERT FEES Defendants shall pay the reasonable costs of plaintiffs in conducting this litigation and negotiating this Settlement Agreement, as well as the fees of experts retained to assist in litigation, to testify at trial up to the date of the signing of this Agreement, and to assist in negotiating the Final Settlement Agreement. Defendants understand that plaintiffs may incur additional expenses and fees (e.g., for duplicating, telephone calls, and postage) in the time period prior to the Court's Order approving the entry of a Consent Decree, and shall pay such reasonable costs and fees,

Peter J.I Michael S^Bernstein Catherine W. Brown Jane M. Kramer John H. More
Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W P. 0. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 662-6000

IA
adith W." RogerS Corporation Couni D.C. John H. Suda, Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Michael E. Zielinski, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C.
The District Building 14th and E Streets, N.W. Suite 329 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 727-6337

Counsel for Plaintiffs Dated March 3, 1982

Counsel for Defendants

Entered as the Court's Consent

Decree this J £ ^day of A,lr,\,

1Q9B8-27 .

' M

 
 '

Twelve John Does v. D.C.

• • HV V H

•• • • • •

• • • • H i l l !••• H B

VHH • WBBB VM*«V

PC-DC-008-006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
y

I

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al. )

Plaintiffs v.

) - ) Civil Action No. 80-2136

DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA, etal. )

' ' .- -

Defendants

)

APR 28 1982

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND JUDGMENT -,„,< ui5 DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

This action isbefore the Court onme*t*n of-th*S*~

parties, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, for approval and entry of the attached Final

Settlement Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") as this

Court's Consent Decree, to settle all claims for declaratory

and injunctive relief and damages in the above-titled class

action.

This isa class action seeking declaratory and

injunctive relief and damages, plaintiffs having filed the

complaint onAugust 20, 1980. The complaint charged

defendants with violating plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment right

to befree from cruel and unusual punishment, defendants'

statutory duties under SS24-425 and 24-442 ofthe D. C. Code,

and defendants' common law duty of care byfailing adequately

to protect persons entrusted tothe defendants' care and

resident at the Lorton Central Facility and by failing to

afford such residents living conditions that meet

constitutionally and statutorily required standards. The

complaint also charged defendants with responsibility for the

resulting high level of violence at Central and other physical

and psychological damages to inmates.

\J>
Plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 23, 1980. The Court certified the class on December 5, 1980, as consisting of "all persons, who on August 20, 1980, were residents of the Central Facility of the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia."
In pursuing plaintiffs' claims, counsel .-for plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery, compelling production of documents from all levels of the Department of Corrections, deposing individual defendants and other employees of the Department, interviewing approximately 20 other employees of the Department, meeting with more than 200 members of the class and other residents of the Central Facility not members of the class, filing interrogatories, and employing three experts in the areas of penology and prison security, health and sanitation, correctional psychology and correctional medical services. Each expert inspected the Central Facility and relevant documents. Each interviewed residents and employees of the Department at Central. After consultation with these experts, interviews wth residents and review of cases relevant to the issues raised by plaintiffs' claims, counsel for plaintiffs has recommended this compromise settlement to plaintiffs.
Counsel for defendants has conducted discovery, including production of documents, interrogatories directed to the plaintiffs' class representatives, and interviews with employees of the Department and other officials of the District of Columbia and has reviewed all of the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. On the basis of this consultation and review, counsel for defendants has recommended this compromise settlement to defendants.

Members of the class have been duly notified of the proposed compromise settlement, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court has received and considered comments from twenty-two class members regarding the settlement. Ten contained inquiries about damage awards. Considering the number of class members and their demonstrated willingness to petition the Court, it is evident that the vast majority of plaintiffs accept the settlement. Counsel for both sides have a wealth of experience from the Lorton maximum security case. Extensive discovery in this action has enabled counsel to develop a remarkably detailed agreement. The notice procedures have been more than adequate. This settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the plaintiff class and the District of Columbia.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the parties' final settlement agreement, the comments received by the Court from plaintiff class members, the entire record in this action, and after a status conference in this action on April 28, 1982, it is by the Court
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED That the attached Final Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties, through their respective counsel, be approved and entered as this Court's Consent Decree resolving the above-titled class action; FURTHER that this action is dismissed, except as set forth in the specific provisions of the Agreement, any party may apply at any time to the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or for such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate for the

construction of, implementation of, or enforcement of compliance with this Consent Decree or any of its provisions. Plaintiffs have reserved the right to request reasonable attorneys' fees and costs arising from such further actions.

April 28, 1982

A r\
I JUNE L.
U. S. DISTRICT JUDG4

 
 Twelve John Does v. D.C.

PC DC-008-007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. Defendants.

DEC 171990
Clerk, U.S. District Court District of Columbia
C.A. No. 80-2136 (June L. Green, J.)

MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF CONSENT DECREE AMENDMENT ON NEW MODULAR 200 UNIT After lengthy negotiations, defendants and plaintiffs have agreed to the attached proposed modification to the consent decree to address the impact and ramifications of the new Modular 200 Unit currently being constructed within the existing fence line of Lorton Central Facility. Plaintiffs, with the authorization of counsel for defendants, respectfully submit the proposed amendment to the consent decree for the Court's consideration and move for its adoption by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 14, 1990

Peter J. N i c k l e s / 4 53447

Alan A. Pemberton

# 367108

Clare M. Elmendorf

# 421183

COVINGTON & BURLING

1201 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

P.O. Box 7566

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 662-5464

Counsel for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED DEC IT 1990

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al.,

)>

C!*rk, U.S. District Court District of Columbia

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et jal. , )

Defendants.

)

C.A. No. 80-2136 (June L. Green, J.)

CONSENT DECREE AMENDING FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE OF APRIL 28, 1982, THE AMENDED DECREE OF AUGUST 18. 1983 AND THE AMENDED DECREE OF MARCH 4. 1985
The parties to this action, having determined that the Settlement Agreement, as amended, should be modified, in the best interests of both the Plaintiffs and Defendants, to make provisions for the addition of a new modular, 200-bed, single cell housing unit (hereinafter referred to as the "Modular 200 Unit") within the existing fence line of the Lorton Central Facility ("Central") and without prejudice to Plaintiffs' ability to seek remedies for noncompliance with the provisions of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, the imposition of contempt fines, jointly move for entry of this Consent Decree to amend the Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree of April 28, 1982 (the "Settlement Agreement"), the Amended Decree of August 18, 1983 (the "1983 Amended Decree") and the Amended Decree of March 4, 1985 (the "1985 Amended Decree") in the following respects:

- 2-
1. Physical Characteristics and Construction a. Defendants have commenced construction of
a new modular housing unit within the existing fence line of the Central Facility. As currently designed, the new facility will contain 200 individual cells or rooms. Construction of the Modular 200 Unit shall be generally in accordance with the architectural drawings and specifications reviewed by the Special Officer of the Court on April 19, 1990. The design shall be modified to accommodate the line of sight problem identified in the April 19, 1990 meeting with the Special Officer. No other significant modifications of the design depicted in those drawings and specifications shall be permitted without the advance express written agreement of Plaintiffs. The Modular 200 Unit shall be fully subject to the provisions and requirements of the Settlement Agreement, as amended, except as specifically otherwise provided herein.
b. Prior to housing any inmates in the Modular 200 Unit, Defendants shall certify that they have provided and readied for occupancy two double-wide trailers adjacent to the Modular 200 Unit for staff offices and diagnostic evaluation activities. The two trailers shall remain in place for such purposes as long as the Modular 200 Unit performs Reception and Diagnostic ("R&D") functions, as provided for below, or until Defendants obtain the advance express written agreement of Plaintiffs to permit the removal of such trailers. No advance express agreement is necessary to replace existing trailers with comparable trailers. Such trailers shall be

- 3-
fully subject to the provisions of Article VI of the Settlement Agreement, as amended, governing environmental conditions of the Central Facility. If the Modular 200 Unit is opened in two stages, with up to 100 inmates being housed on one side of the Unit during the initial stage, then only one trailer will be required for the duration of the initial stage.
2. Population Limit a. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that, for
so long as the Modular 200 Unit is used for R&D functions, as provided below, Defendants shall not house more than one inmate in a single cell or room. Accordingly, if Defendants fully construct the Modular 200 Unit, the maximum capacity for the Modular 200 Unit shall be two hundred (200) inmates. If the Modular 200 Unit ceases to be used for R&D functions, the population limit shall remain at 200 inmates unless and until Defendants make a showing to the Court that a different limit is appropriate in light of the objectives of the Settlement Agreement, as amended. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as creating a presumption that a population limit of 200 should continue to be imposed following the termination of R&D functions at the Modular 200 Unit.
b. The population limit of 200 inmates at the Modular 200 Unit will be enforced as per the Court's Order of June 29, 1989 and will be subject to any subsequently entered orders relative to the Settlement Agreement, as amended,

- 4-
unless future orders specifically exempt the Modular 200 Unit from their coverage.
3. Use of Facility a. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that the
Modular 200 Unit shall be used exclusively for Reception and Diagnostic ("R&D") testing, evaluation and classification for the Lorton Reservation unless and until the 800-bed Correctional Treatment Facility currently under construction is completed and operational. The content of the R&D processing shall comply with the provisions of Article V of the Settlement Agreement, as amended. A sample diagnostic package shall be appended as Exhibit 1 to this Consent Decree, once the diagnostic package has been agreed upon by the parties and approved by the Special Officer.
b. Plaintiffs and Defendants further agree that the Modular 200 Unit shall not cease to be used as the R&D center unless and until all of its R&D functions are transferred to the aforementioned 800-bed Correctional Treatment Facility, provided that Defendants may, at a future date, seek to obtain the consent of Plaintiffs to a proposal for the phased transfer of Reception and Diagnostic functions, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with 30 days' notice prior to any such transfer.
c. If the Modular 200 Unit is converted to a
use other than for R&D purposes, then as a precondition to the
continued use of the Modular 200 Unit, Plaintiffs and

- 5-
Defendants shall agree on such matters as modified staffing requirements, inmate access to programming and industries and any other matter requiring adjustment due to the change in use of the Modular 200 Unit, within at least 30 days prior to the cessation of R&D functions, provided that Defendants may, at a future date, seek to obtain the consent of Plaintiffs to a proposal for the phased transfer of Reception and Diagnostic functions, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The Parties shall submit such agreement to the Court for approval. Should the parties fail to reach such an agreement, either party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
d. Defendants shall not move or transfer an inmate from the Modular 200 Unit to the general population at Central unless and until all R&D testing and evaluation for that inmate has been completed. For as long as the Modular 200 Unit is used for R&D purposes, no inmate shall be housed in the Modular 200 Unit for longer than 60 days. Defendants shall provide in their monthly compliance reports to Plaintiffs' counsel a certification that no inmate was housed at the Modular 200 Unit for longer than 60 days, and that no inmate was moved or transferred to the general population at Central prior to the completion of all R&D testing.
e. For so long as the Modular 200 Unit is used for R&D purposes, Defendants shall house only inmates undergoing R&D testing in the Modular 200 Unit, provided that Defendants may, at a future date, seek to obtain the consent of Plaintiffs to a proposal for the phased transfer of

— 6—
Reception and Diagnostic functions, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
4. Reception and Diagnostic Staffing a. The Reception and Diagnostic staffing of
the Modular 200 Unit shall consist of the 26 positions set forth in Exhibit 2 attached to this Consent Decree.
b. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a certified listing of all the names and positions of the R&D staff for the Modular 200 Unit seven days before inmate occupancy of the Modular 200 Unit. In the event that all the required R&D positions are not filled prior to inmate occupancy of the Modular 200 Unit, Defendants shall not house any inmates in the Modular 200 Unit unless and until all required R&D positions are hired, trained and available for duty. If a filled position subsequently becomes vacant, Defendants shall immediately commence to use best efforts to fill the vacant position within 60 days. Vacant positions may be filled through new hires, reassignment, lateral transfer, detailing staff, temporary hires or in a case of last resort, through the limited use of overtime, provided however that under no circumstances will overtime hours be used to cover more than five non-clerical positions, nor will staff be detailed from other consent decree required positions.
5. Correctional Officer Staffing a. Defendants shall ensure that at all times
there shall be one officer in «ach control center and two

- 7-
officers providing floor coverage for the Modular 200 Unit. Defendants shall place on duty sufficient relief officers to meet the requirements of this paragraph, and Defendants shall either certify in their monthly compliance reports to Plaintiffs' counsel that they have complied with this requirement, or explain in that report why they have failed to comply with this requirement.
b. Defendants shall ensure that officers are always available at all times for escort duty. Escort officers shall not be drawn from the officers assigned to the control center nor from the officers providing floor coverage.
c. Defendants shall ensure that a total of four officers will be on duty at the Modular 200 Unit at all times, and the total correctional staff complement for the Lorton Central Facility will be increased by 23 officers to 419 officers.
d. Correctional officer staffing shall be in accordance with the post trick chart appended as Exhibit 3.
e. Defendants shall not house any inmates in the Modular 200 Unit unless and until all required officers are hired, trained and available for duty. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a certified listing of all the names and job titles for all staff of the Modular 200 Unit seven days before inmate occupancy commences. If the Modular 200 Unit is opened in two stages, with up to 100 inmates being housed on one side of the Unit during the initial stage, then the requirements of this Paragraph will require two officers

- 8-
be on duty at all times and the total correctional staff complement be increased by 12 officers for the duration of the initial stage.
6. Food Service a. Food for the Modular 200 Unit shall be
prepared by the Central Dining Facility and transported in insulated food trays by an enclosed food truck. The insulated food trays shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications listed in Exhibit 4. Defendants agree to obtain sufficient insulated food trays so as to be able to serve three meals a day to 200 inmates and have replacements for breakage. Regardless of the above measures, Defendants commit to take all actions necessary to serve food at the temperatures required by the health and sanitation standards of Article VI of the Settlement Agreement, as amended. The food service for the Modular 200 Unit shall be fully subject to the provisions of Article VI of the Settlement Agreement, as amended, governing environmental conditions of the Central Facility.
b. Defendants shall hire four food stewards in addition to the 12 food stewards required in the 1983 Amended Decree, Paragraph 20.
7. Medical Services a. The Central Facility Infirmary, also re-
ferred to as Health Services Unit #2, shall add the following medical staff to address the Modular 200 Unit's medical needs:

- 9-
two licensed physicians' assistants, one medical record technician, one part-time dentist (twenty hours a week), one dental assistant and one clerk typist.
b. Due to the lack of space for a medical clinic in the Modular 200 Unit, Defendants shall cause sick call rounds to be performed daily for the entire population of the Modular 200 Unit, by either licensed physicians' assistants or medical doctors. Defendants shall include a certified list of who performed the daily sick call at the Modular 200 Unit in their monthly compliance reports to Plaintiffs' counsel. A sample certification form is attached as Exhibit 5. Plaintiffs may seek any remedy for noncompliance with this section, including the imposition of contempt fines.
c. Medication will be dispensed at the Central Facility pharmacy. Inmates at Modular 200 Unit requiring medication either (i) will be transported to the Central Facility pharmacy to receive medication as often as is medically necessary or (ii) will receive medication from the licensed physician's assistant or physician performing sick call at the Modular 200 Unit.
d. Defendants shall not house any inmates in the Modular 200 Unit unless and until all required medical personnel listed above are hired, trained and available for duty. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a certified listing of all the names and job titles for all medical staff positions listed above seven days before inmate occupancy commences. If the Modular 200 Unit is opened in two

- 10 -
stages, with up to 100 inmates being housed on one side of the Unit during the initial stage, then the requirements of this Paragraph will include one licensed physicians' assistant, one part-time dentist and one clerk typist for the duration of the initial stage. If a filled position subsequently becomes vacant, Defendants shall immediately commence best efforts to fill the vacant position within 60 days. Vacant positions may be filled through new hires, reassignment, lateral transfer, detailing staff, temporary hires or in a case of last resort, through the limited use of overtime, provided however that under no circumstances will overtime hours be used to cover more than two positions, nor will staff be detailed from other positions required by the consent decree. Defendants shall notify plaintiffs' counsel prior to any reassignment, lateral transfer, temporary or permanent detailing or resignation of the two licensed physicians' assistants assigned to Modular 200. If a licensed physicians' assistant position becomes vacant, defendants shall notify plaintiffs' counsel of the identity of the licensed physicians' assistant subsequently hired. Plaintiffs may seek any available remedies for noncompliance with this section, including the imposition of contempt fines.
8. Mental Health Services Defendants shall provide appropriate and ade-
quate mental health care to the inmates of the Modular 200 Unit.

- 11 -
9. Recreation Defendants shall provide every inmate access to
outdoor recreation at least two times a week, barring unusual circumstances. Defendants shall include in their monthly compliance reports to Plaintiffs' counsel all instances where inmates are provided access to outdoor recreation fewer than two times a week.
10. Religious Services Defendants shall make their best efforts to
ensure that every inmate of the Modular 200 Unit has access to appropriate religious services.
11. Law Library Access Upon an inmate request for a law library aide,
one shall be provided within 24 hours of the request. The inmate law library aides shall be paid inmate positions and shall be required to have completed either a legal research or paralegal course. Further, any requested legal materials shall be provided within a reasonable time from the request.
12. Telephones Legal telephone calls will be arranged within
24 hours of request. All other telephone calls will be arranged by diagnostic and case work staff, and telephone access shall not be unreasonably denied.
13. Showers Residents at the Modular 200 Unit shall be
permitted to have showers at least three times a week.

- 12 -
14. Remedies Plaintiffs may seek any and all available reme-
dies for noncompliance with any section of this consent degree, including, but not limited to, the imposition of contempt fines.
15. Miscellaneous Provisions a. The provisions of this Consent Decree are
intended to amend the Settlement Agreement, the 1983 Amended Decree and the 1985 Amended Decree. To the extent that this Consent Decree contradicts the above, this Consent Decree shall govern. In all other respects, except as specifically provided otherwise, the Settlement Agreement, the 1983 Amended Decree and the 1985 Amended Decree shall continue in effect and shall apply to the Modular 200 Unit.
b. If any one or more of the provisions of this Consent Decree shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid or unenforceable, then such provision or provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions of this Consent Decree and shall in no way affect the validity or

- 13 -
enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Consent Decree.

Peter J. N i c k l e s # 5 3 4 4 7 Alan A. Pemberton #367108 Clare M. Elmendorf #421183

Herbert 0. Reid, Sr., Corporation Counsel, D.C.
by: Richard S. Love, Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. #340455

COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 662-6000

Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Corporation Counsel
1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
Dated: l,?/w I9<D

(202) 673-7007 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS Dated:

Entered as this Court's Consent Decree this / V day of

nbe/

1990.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 14th day of December,
1990, I caused copies of the foregoing Motion for Adoption of
Consent Decree Amendment on New Modular 200 Unit to be
hand-delivered to:
Kathryn R. Monaco, Esq. Special Officer of the Court Room 306 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004
Richard S. Love, Esq. Chief, Correctional Litigation
Section D.C. Department of Corrections Room NLL-3 1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
I also certify that on this 14th day of December, 1990, I
caused copies of the foregoing to be sent by first-class mail,
postage prepaid, to the following:
Edward Koren, Esq. ACLU National Prison Project Suite 340 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
John M. Facciola, Esq. Assistant United States Attorney Judiciary Center, Room 4122 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
John R. Mooney, Esq. Beins, Axelrod & Osborne Suite 300 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
Clare M. Elmendorf

 
 Twelve John Does v. D.C.

PC-DC-008-008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

) Civil Action No. 80-2136

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, etal.,

|

Defendants

*

FILED
DEC 20 1982

ORDER

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT T OF COLUMBIA

The Court having considered plaintiffs1 motion for an order declaring defendants in non-compliance with the Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree (the "Consent Decree") entered by this Court on April 28, 1982, and defendants' response thereto, the Court on this ^j day of December, 1982, hereby finds and declares that defendants are in non-compliance with the Consent Decree with respect to the following:
> (a) failure to install expeditiousiy the four walk-through metal detectors and the dormitory intercom system; (b) failure to reach the staffing objective of a complement of 331 correctional officers by October 1,1982; (c) failure to commence operation of a Receiving & Diagnostic Center by mid-summer 1982, or to hire necessary, staff by October 1, 1982 for the full operation of the Receiving & Diagnostic Center;

- 2-

(d) failure to establish an Orientation Unit at

Central by mid-summer 1982, or to commence conversion of

Dormitories #25 and #26 into a location for the Orientation Unit;

(e) unilateral alteration and extension of the

timetable for renovation of Dormitories #16 through #18, and

failure to complete the renovation of Dormitory #24 by May 31,

1982 and Dormitory #16 by December 7, 1982;

(f) failure to prepare a schedule for renovating

dormitories other than #15 through #24 by July 31, 1982;

(g) circumvention of the role assigned to the

Chief Medical Officer at Lorton in hiring medical personnel;

(h) delay in posting most of the program staff

positions, failure to hire a carpentry or dry wall vocational

instructor, basic/secondary education teacher, or administrative

aide, and failure to inform plaintiffs of vacancies in program

staff positions; and

'

(i) failure to complete a feasibility study

concerning the development of additional space for vocational

training and the academic schools by October 30, 1982.

These findings having been made, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. That defendants implement fully and in a timely

fashion all of the provisions of the Consent Decree;

2. That defendants shall be assessed $ )foQ, for each

day of non-compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree

after the date of this Order, except that, for purposes of this

- 3-
Order, defendants shall not be assessed such fines if, with respect to the obligations imposed by the Consent Decree, they:
(a) install all walk-through metal detectors required by Item III of the Consent Decree by May 15, 1983;
(b) install the dormitory intercom system required by Item III of the Consent Decree by May 15, 1983;
(c) install additional lighting required by Item III of the Consent Decree by March 1, 1983;
(d) reach a correctional officer complement (as defined by Item IV of the Consent Decree) of 331 by March 1, 1983;
(e) assemble the first diagnostic team for the Receiving & Diagnostic Center required by Item V of the Consent Decree and complete the team's two-week training period by January 3, 1983;
(f) start receiving and diagnosing the first sentenced felons in the Receiving & Diagnostic Center by January 3, 1983;
(g) complete the hiring and training of all Receiving & Diagnostic Center personnel by February 1, 1983, and commence full operations of the Receiving & Diagnostic Center by that date;
(h) establish an interim Orientation Unit and commence operations by February 3, 1983 (in time to orient the first inmates processed by the Receiving & Diagnostic Center as required by Item V of the Consent Decree);

- 4-
(i) complete the conversion of Dormitories #25 and #26 for the Orientation Unit by April 15, 1983;
(j) adhere to a modified renovation schedule for Dormitories #16 through #18 to be negotiated and agreed to by the parties pursuant to Item VI of the Consent Decree; provided, however, that plaintiffs expressly preserve their right to move for a contempt citation for failure to complete the dormitory renovations pursuant to the schedule established by Item VI of the Consent Decree, in.the event that parties cannot agree on a modified renovation, schedule;
(k) prepare a schedule for renovating Central dormitories other than #15 through #24 by January 1, 1983;
(1) inform by letter within seven days all persons involved in making personnel decisions for the Lorton Medical Services that no one is to be hired for or assigned to the Lorton Medical Services until after the Chief Medical Officer at Central has given his express written approval;
(m) remove from the Lorton Medical Services staff any personnel assigned to that staff since the date of the Consent Decree without a prior interview by and the express prior approval of the Chief Medical Officer at Lorton, including the individuals identified as "X" and "Y" in defendants1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' filed December 3, 1982, if the Chief Medical Officer requests in writing within six-months of the date of this Order that he or

- 5-
she be removed, and fill any vacancies created as a result in accordance with Item VII of the Consent Decree;
(n) provide plaintiffs by December 30, 1982, with a complete and accurate listing of all staff positions in the program area, including industries, vocational training, the academic school, the psychological services unit and the classification and parole office;
(o) inform the plaintiffs in each monthly compliance report of all vacancies in any program staff positions;
(p) make additional- efforts, including the use of local advertising, in attempting to hire a qualified individual for each program staff position that is not filled within three weeks of the initial posting for a position; and <
(q) report to this Court and to plaintiffs on the feasibility of developing additional program space for vocational training and the academic school by January 31, 1983.
3. That, in the event defendants continue to be in non-compliance with major provisions of the Decree as of March 1, 1983, the Court shall appoint, pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Special Master to administer the Central Facility; and
4. That defendants shall pay plaintiffs1 counsel their attorneys1 fees and costs associated with litigating this motion and monitoring defendants1 compliance with the Decree.

- 6-

The Court makes no findings at this time as to whether defendants are or are not in compliance with aspects of the Consent Decree not specifically addressed' herein.

Dated:

0
UNI ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19*2*

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al.,

)

) Plaintiffs, )
)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

) Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 80-2136

CONSENT DECREE AMENDING FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE

The parties to the above-captioned case, having determined that the Settlement Agreement should be modified, in the best interests of both the plaintiff class and defendants, to provide for an increased commitment on the part of defendants to remedy existing population, construction, environmental, and other problems at Central and to create a graduated system of sanctions to be applied in the event of defendants' failure to do so, jointly move for entry of this Consent Decree to amend the Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree (the "Settlement Agreement") and this Court's Order of December 17, 1982, as amended on February 1, 1983 (the "December Order") in the following respects:
1. All walk-through metal detectors required.by Item III of the Settlement Agreement shall be installed in good working order according to the following schedule:

Twelve John Does v. D.C.

PC-DC-008-009

- 2(a) the three detectors in separate
structures by September 15, 1983.
(b) the malfunctioning detector in the Visitors' Entrance Building shall be replaced by a new detector, now on order, within 10 days following delivery which is scheduled for August 18, 1983.
2. The dormitory intercom system required by Item III of the Settlement Agreement shall be installed and in good working order within 90 days of the receipt of equipment now on order from Germany. The projected delivery date for the intercom system is December 31, 1983.
3. The additional security lighting required by Item III of the Settlement Agreement shall be installed and in good working order by September 30, 1983.
4. The contract for the expansion of the Control Cells at Central required by Item I of the Settlement Agreement shall be issued no later than September 29, 1983, and the construction shall be completed and the cells ready for occupancy by August 1, 19 84. The District further commits to supply funding to accelerate the contract work if the project falls behind schedule.
5. The old Furniture Repair Shop in the Maximum Security Facility shall be converted into an 80-unit cellblock as required by Item II of the Settlement Agreement and be ready for occupancy by September 30, 1983.

- 36. The correctional officer complement (as defined by Item IV of the Settlement Agreement) shall be maintained at all times at the.level of 331 officers, with no more than 17 of such officers not available for duty, by September 15, 1983. 7. The critical minimum level of correctional officers on each shift shall be maintained at all times. No correctional officers shall be assigned to other institutions unless all posts specified on the trick chart attached as Exhibit 3 to the Settlement Agreement are manned, except in an emergency such as a major disturbance. 8. Every resident transferred to Central henceforth shall first have been fully processed by the Receiving & Diagnostic Center ("R&D Center") located at the Central Detention Facility (the "CDF"), as described in Item V and Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Settlement Agreement, with the sole exception of residents who previously have been fully processed by the Receiving and Diagnostic Center. For all residents who were previously excluded from R&D Center processing pursuant to the provisions of Exhibit 5, the diagnostic process shall be modified consistent with the pertinent considerations in individual cases, such as length of sentence. 9. Every resident introduced into the general population at Central henceforth shall be processed by the Orientation Unit at Central, as described in Item V and Exhibit 8 of the Settlement Agreement, with the sole exception

- 4of residents who previously have been fully processed by the Orientation Unit.
10. Defendants shall certify by September 15, 19 83, that all new residents transferred into Central after July 1, 1983, who will be residents of Central after September 15, 1983, have been fully processed by the Orientation Unit.
" 11. Defendants shall produce by November 15, 1983, an appropriate diagnostic package equivalent to the package contained in Exhibit 6 to the Settlement Agreement, for each new resident transferred into Central after July 1, 1983, who will reside in Central after November 15, 1983. However, for residents who were previously excluded from R & D Center processing pursuant to the provisions of Exhibit 5 of the Settlement Agreement, the diagnostic process and package shall be modified consistent with pertinent considerations, such as length of sentence.
12. The former Dormitory 2 6 shall be devoted to use as office space for the Orientation Unit, and its use as a dormitory for sleeping and living shall cease, by September 15, 1983.
13. In order to assure compliance with the environmental health and sanitation standards established in Item VI of the Settlement Agreement, defendants shall immediately designate a team of no less than four employees of the Department of Corrections and the Department of General

- 5Services, none of whom were detailed at Central prior to August 12, 1983. None of the environmental team members will be counted towards the fulfillment of any other staffing requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement, the December Order, or this Consent Decree. The primary responsibility of each team member shall be to correct deficiencies at Central, including specifically those itemized in the March 1983 inspection report. The team will be supplemented with additional Department of General Services and Department of Corrections employees and contractors as needed to effectuate timely correction of any deficiencies presently noted or which may be noted in future inspections.
14. The environmental team identified above, supplemented as needed, shall correct each of the deficiencies identified in the March 1983 inspection report according to the schedule set forth in Appendix I to this document. Appendix I itemizes deficiencies which defendants will correct within 30 days, within 90 days, and in more than 90 days (but without delay), and deficiencies for which defendants shall seek waivers. Upon denial of such a waiver request defendants shall provide a schedule which will expeditiously accomplish the correction of the deficiency noted, unless further modification of the Settlement Agreement is obtained from the Court. Correction of each of the deficiencies noted in Appendix I constitutes a separate commitment of defendants; failure to correct any one by the specified

- 6deadline shall result in the assessment of monetary penalties in accordance with paragraph 25 of this Consent Decree.
15. Defendants shall certify compliance by January 10, 1984 with the following portions of Item VI of the Settlement Agreement:
a) Ventilation b) Accident and Fire Prevention and Preparedness c) Plumbing d) Solid Waste Management e) Housekeeping and Maintenance f) Pharmaceutical Services g) Industries Defendants' certification shall be based upon those deficiencies identified in the March 1983 inspection report and subsequent inspection reports. Defendants shall provide appropriate documentation confirming said compliance. 16. Defendants shall complete additional dormitory lighting and certify compliance with the dormitory lighting provisions of the Settlement Agreement within 60 days of receipt of lighting fixtures which are presently on order and projected for delivery on September 30, 1983. Defendants shall provide appropriate documentation of said compliance. 17. Defendants shall prepare a report on or before September 15, 1983, which will itemize interim measures which could be taken to improve ventilation and availability of plumbing fixtures in the dormitories which

- 7are to be renovated in the future. Defendants' and plaintiffs' counsel shall then negotiate the precise measures which should be implemented and the locations in which those efforts should be taken. Defendants are committed to expeditiously implementing interim measures in said dormitories on a cost effective basis.
18. Absent evidence of extraordinary circumstances, defendants shall request no waiver or variance of D.C. laws and regulations pursuant to Item VI of the Settlement Agreement after October 15, 1983, as to items identified in previous inspection reports.
19. Physical barriers shall be erected to prevent unauthorized access from the dining hall and food service area to the food preparation and storage area by December 31, 19 83.
20. Defendants shall maintain 12 steward positions to work in the Central food service and preparation area, all of which shall be presently filled. In the event of any vacancies in said positions, defendants shall promptly fill them through reassignment or recruitment and hiring of replacements.
21. Defendants shall complete the improvements in the medical facilities required by Item VII of the Settlement Agreement by October 30, 1983.
22. An upholstery apprentice program as required by Item VII of the Settlement Agreement shall be commenced by September 15, 1983.
23. The tire retreading shop building, referred to in Item VIII of the Settlement Agreement, shall be completed by April 30, 1984. Thereafter defendants shall

- 8-
expeditiously commence operation of that program which is
projected to be accomplished within 60 days following
completion of the building.
24. By November 15, 198 3, defendants shall iden-
tify (and request reprogramming, if required) and commit
$200,000 for the conversion of the Old Bakery Building into
additional program space. Said conversion shall thereafter
be expeditiously executed and is expected to be completed
within six months after the funding is transferred to the
District's Department of General Services.
25. Defendants shall be automatically assessed a
penalty of $250 per day for each day during which they are
in non-compliance with any one or more of the above provi-
sions of this Consent Decree (other than paragraphs 8 or 9)
after the date of this Consent Decree, except that:
a) non-compliance with the thirty-day deadline for correcting all deficiencies designated with the letter "A" in appendix I shall result in the assessment of a penalty of $50 per day for the first thirty days of non-compliance, and $250 per day for each day of non-compliance thereafter; and
b) non-compliance with paragraphs 8 or 9, supra, shall result in a penalty of $250 for each resident transferred improperly, said penalty to be assessed in addition to any other penalties assessed under this paragraph.
26. Defendants shall reduce the total population
of Central to the adjusted rated capacity established in
Item IX of the Settlement Agreement. The individual cap-
acity of Dormitory 25 shall be readjusted to reflect its

- 9recent renovation, and the total capacity adjusted accordingly. Dormitory 24B shall be given a rated capacity in accordance with the formula incorporated in Item IX, but shall not be counted toward the total capacity unless it is in substantial compliance with all the environmental health and sanitation standards enumerated in Item VI of the Settlement Agreement by October 1, 1983.
27. Defendants shall be automatically assessed the following per diem penalties commencing ninety (90) days from the signing of this Consent Decree for failure to bring the population of Central to within 5% of the adjusted rated capacity in effect:
(a) $1,000 per day for the first thirty (30) days;
(b) $5,000 per day for the next sixty (60) days; and
(c) $10,000 per day thereafter. 28. In the event that defendants are in full compliance with the above paragraphs 26 and 27 for a period of ninety (90) days or more, the automatic fines of paragraph 27 shall no longer be applicable and the sanctions of the Settlement Agreement shall be the only applicable sanctions for exceeding adjusted rated capacity. 29. Paragraph number 3 of the December Order is hereby modified by deleting the first two lines thereof and the date "March 1, 1983," and substituting in lieu thereof

- 10 the following: "Unless defendants are in substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement, as amended by the December Order and this Consent Decree, as of January 15, 1984".
30. Defendants shall not oppose the imposition of any monetary penalty under the terms of this Consent Decreeon any ground other than substantial compliance with its terms.
31. The provisions of this Consent Decree are intended to supersede the Settlement Agreement and December Order only to the extent specifically provided for herein, and otherwise the Settlement Agreement and December Order shall continue in effect.
32. Defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel $1211.87 as reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in monitoring defendants' compliance and negotiating this Consent Decree.
33. Any monetary penalties assessed pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree shall be used to improve the conditions for the residents at the Central Facility and shall be in addition to any funds required to bring the institution into compliance with the Settlement Agreement,

-lithe December Order and this Consent Decree.

Peter J. Nickles Michael S. Bernstein Catherine W. Brown John H. More
Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 662-6000
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Judith W. Rogers, Corporation Counsel, D.C.
John H. Suda, Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.
Michael E. Zielinski, .Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C.
The District Building 14th & E Streets, N.W. Suite 329 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 727-6337
Counsel for Defendants

Dated

Entered as the Court's Consent

Decree this

day of

1983.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Twelve John Does v. D.C.

'— ——

mm v H H

BBii • • • • • BHIIV

«•

•• •

PC-DC-008-010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et a1., Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. ,
Defendants.
JOHN DOE, , et al. , Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t aj^. , Defendants.

FILED
AUGj 3 1986
JAMES F. DAVEY, Cferk
Civil Action No. -79 172G •
Civil Action No. 79-1726

ORDER

Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for an

order establishing maximum population levels at Occoquan I,

II, and III, the memorandum in support thereof, the arguments

of counsel, evidence presented at the hearing of August 13,

1986, and the entire record in this case, it is, by the

Court, this / ^

day of August, 1986

- 2-

I. ORDERED that no later than October 6, 1986, the populations of Occoquan I, II, and III, and of each dormitory therein shall not exceed the following:

OCCOQOAN I

Housing Unit Capacity

Dorm C Dorm D Dorm F Dorm G Dorm I Dorm J-l Dorm J-2 Q Block

68 68 Closed 68 40 52 60 18
370

OCCOQDAN II

Housing Dnit Capacity

Dorm A Dorm R-l Dorm R-2 Dorm L Dorm M Dorm N Dorm 0 Q Block

61 71 71 68 68 68 Closed 18
425

OCCOQDAN III

Housing Dnit

Capacity

Dorm 1

82

Dorm 2

82

Dorm 3

82

Dorm 4

82

Dorm 5

35

363

and it is further; ORDERED that, if the District exceeds the population lid set forth above for any housing unit or for any facility, the District shall immediately notify the court and counsel for the plaintiffs of the violation and of the steps to be taken, in good faith to ensure that, no later than 30 days from the date of the violation, the population of the

- 3-
housing unit or facility returns to the levels prescribed above; and it is further
ORDERED that if, after 30 days, the District has not achieved compliance with the population lids prescribed above, a conference with the court shall be scheduled as soon as practicable to determine how best to achieve these levels.
II. The population of Occoquan I, II, and III and of each dormitory therein, computed at 85 square feet per resident shall be;

OCCOQUAN I

Housing Onit Capacity

Dorm C Dorm D Dorm F Dorm G Dorm I Dorm J-l Dorm J-2 Q Block

76 76 Closed 76 40 58 67 18
411

OCCOQOAN II

Housing Dnit Capacity

Dorm A Dorm R-l Dorm R-2 Dorm L Dorm M Dorm N Dorm 0 Q Block

68 79 79 76 76 76 Closed 18
472

OCCOQUAN III

Housing Unit

Capacity

Dorm 1

92

Dorm 2

92

Dorm 3

92

Dorm 4

92

Dorm 5

39

407

- 4-
and it is; ORDERED that if after October 6, 1986, the population of any housing unit or any facility exceeds the limit prescribed above, the District shall immediately notify the court and counsel for the plaintiffs of the violation; and it is further; ORDERED that the District shall develop a release program consistent with sound penological practice and the public interest, designed to reduce the population of each housing unit and of each facility to the levels set above. If the population levels described above are not met no later than ten days after the violation occurred, the District shall order the release of inmates until those limits are met.
June L. Green United States District Judge
V Dated: (\l > P (^ K/ ?k

 
 Twelve John Does v. D.C.

PC-DC-008-011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et_ al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t aj.. , )

)

Defendants.

)

C.A. No. 80-2136 (June L. Green, J. )

PLAINTIFFS1 MOTION TO MODIFY THE CONSENT DECREE'S OFFICER STAFFING REQUIREMENT
Plaintiffs request the Court to order the Special Officer and defendants to meet and submit to this Court a new officer staffing plan in light of the impact of the continued non-functioning of the dormitory intercom system and the addition of Dormitory 26, as discussed in the Special Officer's report on staffing of August 23, 1989. Plaintiffs further request that the Court order that, if defendants and the Special Officer are not able to submit a mutually agreeable plan within 30 days of this Court's order, the Consent Decree shall be modified to require the defendants to maintain 373 officers available for duty. A memorandum of

- 2-

points and authorities in support of the motion and a proposed

order are attached.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 7, 1989

Peter J. Nifckles

# 53447

Alan A. Pemberton

# 367108

COVINGTON & BURLING

1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

P.O. Box 7566

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202)662-6000

Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

-I hereby certify that on this 7th day of November,

1989, I caused copies of the foregoing Motion to Modify the

Consent Decree's Officer Staffing Requirement, the Memorandum

in Support and proposed order to be hand-delivered to:

Richard S. Love, Esq.
Chief, Correctional Litigation Section
D.C. Department of Corrections Room NLL-3 1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

Paul A. Quander, Jr., Esq.
Deputy Director D.C. Department of Corrections 1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

I also certify that on this 7th day of November, 1989, I

caused copies of the foregoing to be sent by first-class mail,

postage prepaid, to the following:

Edward Koren, Esq.
ACLU National Prison Project Suite 340 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
John M. Facciola, Esq. Assistant United States Attorney Judiciary Center, Room 4122 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

John R. Mooney, Esq. Beins, Axelrod & Osborne Suite 300 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Kathryn R. Monaco Special Officer of the Court Room 306 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004
0

Clare M. Elmendorf

 
 Twelve John Does v. D.C.

•

Wl

• •••• •«••

•••••• • •

•• •

••

••

••

PC-DC-008-012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, f_t al., )

)

Defendants.

)

C.A. No. 80-2136 (June L. Green, J.)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO MODIFY THE CONSENT DECREE'S OFFICER STAFFING REQUIREMENT
On June 8, 1989, the Court ordered the Special Officer to prepare a report concerning the degree to which changes in the officer staffing levels at the Central Facility ought to be required in light of (i) the increased population at Central since the opening of the Prince Georges' County modular dormitory (Dormitory 26), and (ii) the failure of the dormitory intercom system. On August 23, 1989, the Special Officer filed her report (cited herein as "Staff Report").
The Special Officer recommends that 373 officers be available for duty to insure the safety and proper supervision of the inmates as contemplated by the original Decree. This number would put one officer in every dormitory for 24 hours a day coverage, and includes relief officers to cover meal times. This is in accord with the Consent Decree's recognition that "manning the posts ... is the primary goal of any staffing plan." Decree at 8. The Special Officer's plan

- 2-
also provides for proper staffing for medical transport, escorts for visiting, and search and check point security.
The Decree, as amended, bases the required staffing levels in part on the assumption that the dormitory intercom system will be operational. As the Court is well aware, however, the intercom system has been inoperative for many months, and is unlikely ever again to be operational. Even if the system could be made operational, as the Special Officer's report notes, the dormitory intercom system has proved in practice to have inherent flaws that prevent its ever being an effective means of promoting inmate security.
The addition of Dormitory 26 impacts officer staffing "when there are not enough staff available for all posts." Staff Report at 9. Since Dormitory 26 is always covered by two officers, during times of shortage those two officers may not be deployed elsewhere. Depending on how many officers are absent, this lack of flexibility may become critical. Id.
The purpose of the officer staffing requirement of the Decree is to establish a safe environment for both inmates and staff. Current staffing levels are simply not sufficient to achieve this fundamental purpose. The Infirmary records indicate that inmate on inmate violence continues at the Central facility. Staff Report at 12. While the inmates frequently report that the injuries were caused by "falling" or "running into walls", the nature of the injuries belie such reports. ^d. The open barracks style of the dormitory buildings, when left essentially unsupervised by officers as

- 3-
they are at present, with critical posts unfilled and no intercom backup, are a breeding ground for inmate violence. The staff shortages created by the opening of Dormitory 26 and the failure of the dormitory intercom system, the Special Officer concludes, create a compelling need to station at least one officer in each dormitory for each shift. Staff Report at 13. Ms. Monaco's recommended staffing plan would provide such officer coverage.
Because the Decree presently expresses a requirement for officer staffing that is based on assumptions that have been rendered obsolete by changed circumstances, making it impossible to achieve the chief principal purpose of the Decree with the present requirement, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court direct the Special Officer and defendants to meet and present a staffing plan to provide increased security, and in the absence of a mutually agreed staffing plan, to order that the Decree be modified to provide that a minimum of 373 officers be available for duty.
The Court has inherent power to modify a decree, regardless of "whether the decree has been entered after litigation or by consent." United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114 (1932) ("Swift"); see System Federation v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 650-51 (1961). A consent decree may be modified upon a showing that there has been a change in facts or a change in law, and that modification is necessary to achieve the original purposes of the consent decree. Ruiz v. Lynaugh, 811 F.2d 856, 860 n.7 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing 11 Wright &

- 4-
Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2961, at 604-05 (1973)). While Swift establishes a strict standard for modifying a consent decree,- the subsequent decision in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244 (1968) ("United Shoe") limits Swift to the context of a defendant trying to modify a decree when the purposes of the litigation "have not been fully achieved." United Shoe at 248. United Shoe encourages the district courts to modify consent decrees "to achieve the required result." Id. at 249, 252.
As noted in Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 861 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1988), a number of courts of appeals and academics have advocated "a more flexible standard" for consent decree modification in institutional reform litigation. Twelve John Does at 298; see New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 969-70 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 915 (1983). The Court in Twelve John Does appeared to take the position that material changes in law or circumstances may be sufficient to allow modification of a consent decree. Id.
Plaintiffs submit that the failure of the dormitory intercom system and the addition of Dormitory 26 are material changes in circumstances justifying a modification of the Consent Decree in order to achieve the purposes underlying the
1/ According to Swift, "[n]othing less than a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions" justifies modifying a decree. Swift at 119.

- 5-
original Decree. As the Special Officer's report demonstrates, the current level of staffing is inadequate to provide the expected level of security contemplated by the Consent Decree, and this inadequacy is due to the failure of the dormitory intercom system and the added population brought about with the opening of Dormitory 26.
Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court order the defendants and the Special Officer to meet and to provide to the Court within 30 days an officer staffing plan that provides a level of security necessary to address the concerns in the Special Officer's report. Plaintiffs request that the Court order that, if defendants and the Special Officer are not able to submit a mutually agreeable plan within 30 days, then the Consent Decree shall be modified to require defendants to maintain 373 officers available for duty, pursuant to the Special Officer's report of August 23, 1989.

- 6-
***** Plaintiffs therefore request the Court to enter the attached proposed order concerning the officer staffing levels at the Lorton Central facility.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 7, 1989

Peter J. Nickles

# 53447

Alan A. Pemberton

# 367108

COVINGTON & BURLING

1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

P.O. Box 7566

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202)662-6000

Counsel for Plaintiffs

 
 Twelve John Does v. D.C.
PC-DC-008-013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

C.A. No. 80-2136 (June L. Green, J.)

ORDER Upon consideration of Plaintiffs1 Motion to Modify the Consent Decree's Officer Staffing Requirement, the memorandum in support thereof, the opposition thereto, and of the entire record in this case, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted. This Court finds, as documented in the Special Officer's Report of August 23, 1989, that the failure of the dormitory intercom system and the addition of Dormitory 26 is a material change of circumstances and has necessitated higher staffing levels to ensure proper security and supervision at the Lorton Central Facility. It is ORDERED that defendants and the Special Officer shall meet and submit a new officer staffing plan to the Court within 30 days of the date of this Order. The plan shall provide for a level of security necessary to promote the principal purpose of the Consent Decree and shall address the concerns raised in the Special Officer's Report. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if defendants and the Special Officer are not able to submit a mutually agreeable plan within 30 days, then the Consent Decree shall be modified upon the expiration of the 30-day period to require, within 60 days of the date of the modification, that defendants maintain 373 correctional officers available for duty at the Central Facility.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

June L. Green United States District Judge

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES , f_t al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 80-2136

ORDER

Counsel for the parties have advised the Court

that they have agreed to a form and procedures for notifying

class members in the above-captioned action of the proposed

settlement agreement and consent decree in said action.

Upon consideration of the representations of the parties, it

is, by the Court, this

day of

, 1982.

ORDERED: That on or before March 15, 1982, notice

of the proposed settlement agreement and consent decree,

including a copy of the proposed settlement agreement and

consent decree A shall be made available to each member of

plaintiffs' class, the form of the notice being that agreed

to by the parties and attached to this Order; and, it is,

FURTHER ORDERED: That plaintiffs and defendants

shall have responsibilities in making available the notice

to the class members as follows:

A) Plaintiffs shall be responsible for providing

ancillary secretarial and clerical assistance,

and for mailing the notices by regular mail

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia PC-DC-008-019

- 2-
(using franked envelopes supplied by the clerk's office) to members of the class who are not presently in the District of Columbia's correctional system; B) Defendants shall be responsible for identifying the present location of members of the class, for providing computer services, for duplicating the notices, for delivering notices to all members of plaintiffs' class who are presently in custody in the District of Columbia's correctional system and are resident outside of the Central Facility, and for posting copies of the notice at various conspicuous locations in the Central Facility. Notification of class members, as specified in the first paragraph of this Order, shall mean actual delivery of the notice to class members in District of Columbia custody and resident outside of the Central Facility, posting at various conspicuous locations in the Central Facility for class members resident in the Central Facility, and mailing by regular mail using franked envelopes supplied by the clerk's office to other class members.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia
• • • III I W H t l • HBII • • • • • • • • • « • • •
PC-DC-008-020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., • )

~

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

~ ~ ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 80-2136
FILED
MAR 3 .

NOTIFICATION TO CLASS MEMBERS

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COUftT

OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

On August 20, 1980, a class action was filed on your behalf challenging the conditions of confinement at the Central Facility of the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. Filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the complaint named as defendants the District of Columbia and certain officials of the District of Columbia government. The caption of the case is set forth above.
This lawsuit sought three basic forms of relief: (1) an order requiring defendants to improve conditions of security and safety at the Central Facility (2) an order requiring defendants to refrain from activities that violate the constitutional rights of residents at the Central Facility and (3) an award of money damages to compensate each class member forharm caused by the unacceptable conditions of his confinement.
The Court determined on December 5, 1980 that the case would be maintained as a class action. The members of the class of plaintiffs areallpersons who, on August 20, 1980,

- 2-
were residents of the Central Facility of the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. Class representatives who presented the claims on behalf of you and all class members were residents of the Central Facility on August 20, 1980.
The defendants in this action are the District of Columbia Government; Marion S. Barry, Jr., Mayor of the District of Columbia; Delbert C. Jackson, Director of the Department of Corrections; Marion D. Strickland, Superintendent of the Lorton Complex; Salanda V. Whitfield, Administrator of the Central Facility; Arthur Graves, Assistant Administrator of the Central Facility; and David P. Decatur, Institutional Major of the Central Facility.
In pursuing plaintiffs' claims, counsel for plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery, compelling production of documents from all levels of the Department of Corrections, deposing individual defendants and other employees of the Department, interviewing approximately 20 other employees of the Department, meeting with more than 200 members of the class and other residents of the Central Facility not members of the class, filing interrogatories, and employing three experts in the areas of penology and prison security, health and sanitation, correctional psychology and correctional medical services. Each expert inspected the Central Facility and relevant documents. Each interviewed residents and employees of the Department at Central.
After full review of all relevant documentation and consultation with the experts, interviews with residents and review of cases relevant to the issues raised by plaintiffs1 claims, counsel for plaintiffs has recommended the proposed

>% w
final settlement agreement, hereto attached, to the members of the class. This agreement would settle all of the claims for declarative and injunctive relief and damages described above.
NOW, THEREFORE, TAKE NOTICE: 1. If you were a resident of the Central Facility on August 20, 1980, you are a member of the class of plaintiffs described above and have been included in the class of persons for whom injunctive relief (an order of the Court as described above) has been sought. Unless you wrote to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia requesting to be excluded from the class on the claims for money damages, you also are a member of the class for purposes of damage claims. 2. If you are a member of the class and have any comments on the proposed final settlement agreement, you should mail a letter stating them to: The Honorable June L. Green U.S. District Judge U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia Constitution Avenue and
John Marshall Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 ATTN: Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 80-2136 This request must be mailed on or before March 31, 1982.
NOTE: Be sure to write the name of the case and the trial action number on all letters mailed to this Court.
Dated this 3 X day of / M a re L 1982.
Vs — \ JUNE L. U.S. District Ju

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of March, 1982, I have caused to be served by delivering to the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, true and accurate copies of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Order for Class Notification of Proposed Settlement Agreement, addressed to the following person:
Michael Zielinski, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel The District Building 14th & E Streets, N.W. Suite 329 Washington, D.C. 20004
MICHAEL S. BERNSTEIN

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 'COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. ,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 80-2136

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiffs, the class of residents of the Central Facility, and defendants, the District of Columbia, et al., by their respective counsel, jointly move the Court, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for approval and entry of the attached Final Settlement Agreement as the Court's Consent Decree resolving the above-titled class action, after such notice to the class as the Court shall direct.
jectfully submitted,

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia
PC-DC-008-021
March 3, 1982

Peter J. Michael Catherine W. Brown Jane M. Kramer John J. More
Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 662-6000
Counsel for Plaintiffs
udith W. Rogers,/^ Corporation Counsel, D.C.
John H. Suda, Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C.
Michael E. Zielinski, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C.
The District Building 14th & E Streets, N.W. Suite 329 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 727-6337
Counsel for Defendants

 
 District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 1 of 137

APPEAL, CONSOL
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:80-cv-02136-WBB

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al v. DC, et al Assigned to: Judge William B. Bryant Demand: $0 Lead case: 1:79-cv-01726-WBB (View Member Cases) Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Violation 5th & 8th Amendme

Date Filed: 08/20/1980 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Special Master GRACE M. LOPES

Special Master
KAREN M. SCHNEIDER Special Officer of the Court

represented by Karen M Schneider 1130 17th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES

represented by Brian J.H. Lederer 3003 Van Ness Street, N.W. Suite #W228 Washington, DC 20008 (202) 244-1715 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Gordon Lasker SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH 1350 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-5843 Fax: (202) 682-1639 Email: elasker@spriggs.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kemi Marlene Morten Reed 3709 Southeast 18th Place Cape Coral, FL 33904 (941) 549-4448 Fax: (941) 549-3351

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 2 of 137

Plaintiff
JOHN DOES and all others similarly situated

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2494 (202) 662-5394 Fax: 202-778-5394 Email: pnickles@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ralph M. Muoio COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 (202) 662-5216 Fax: 202-778-5216 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Arnold Pemberton COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 (202) 662-5642 Fax: 202-778-5642 Email: apemberton@cov.com
Clare E. Kindall ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, STATE OF CONNECTICUT 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 231-1323 TERMINATED: 12/15/1992 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian J.H. Lederer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eric Gordon Lasker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Kemi Marlene Morten Reed (See above for address)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 3 of 137

Plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL Plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM
Plaintiff NORMAN MINOR
Plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY

LEAD ATTORNEY
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Ralph M. Muoio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Clare E. Kindall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2001
represented by EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM R02433-135 ALLENWOOD UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY High Security P.O. Box 3500 White Deer, PA 17887 PRO SE
represented by NORMAN MINOR LORTON REFORMATORY Central Facility P.O. Box 25 Lorton, VA 22199 Fax: AREA CODE (202) PRO SE
represented by LAVANCE GREENE-BEY DC 156-344 LORTON REFORMATORY Central Facility P.O. Box 25 Lorton, VA 22199 Fax: AREA CODE (202) PRO SE

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 4 of 137

Plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL
Plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY
Plaintiff ALONZO W. BOLDEN-BEY V. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

represented by WALTER BROOKS-EL LORTON REFORMATORY Central Facility P.O. Box 25 Lorton, VA 22199 Fax: AREA CODE (202) PRO SE
represented by RAYMOND QUIGLEY DC 194-838 NORTHEAST OHIO CORRECTIONAL CENTER CCA/NE 2240 Hubbard Road Youngstown, OH 44505 PRO SE
represented by Jacques Philippe Lerner OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C. 441 Fourth Street, NW 6th Floor, South Washington, DC 20001-4600 (202) 724-6646 Email: jacques.lerner@dc.gov TERMINATED: 10/25/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Paul A. Quander, Jr. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Suite 4211 Washington, DC 20530 LEAD ATTORNEY
Richard Stuart Love OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C. 441 Fourth Street, NW 6th Floor Washington, DC 20001-4600

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 5 of 137

Defendant MARION S. BARRY, JR.
Defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON Director, D.C. Dept. of Corrections

(202) 727-6295 Email: richard.love@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Utiger Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth Street, NW Suite 600S Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6532 Fax: (202) 727-0431 Email: robert.utiger@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael Edward Zielinski SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Office of Hearings and Appeals 501 West Ocean Boulevard Suite 6420 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 980-4190
represented by Jacques Philippe Lerner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul A. Quander, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Utiger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Edward Zielinski (See above for address)
represented by Jacques Philippe Lerner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 6 of 137

Defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND Superintendent, D.C. Division of Correctional Services
Defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD Administrator, Central Facility, Lorton, VA

Paul A. Quander, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Utiger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Edward Zielinski (See above for address)
represented by Jacques Philippe Lerner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul A. Quander, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Utiger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Edward Zielinski (See above for address)
represented by Jacques Philippe Lerner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul A. Quander, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Utiger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 7 of 137

Defendant ARTHUR GRAVES Assistant Administrator, Central Facility, Lorton, VA
Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL
Movant COVINGTON & BURLING

Michael Edward Zielinski (See above for address)
represented by Jacques Philippe Lerner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul A. Quander, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Utiger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Edward Zielinski (See above for address)
represented by Jacques Philippe Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Michael Facciola U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Room 1810 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-7280 TERMINATED: 10/23/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Utiger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 8 of 137

Movant THERESA GREEN

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Gordon Lasker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Edward Zielinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/18/1989
11/21/1989 11/22/1989
11/24/1989 11/28/1989
11/28/1989 11/29/1989 11/29/1989 11/29/1989

#

Docket Text

ALL PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE ARE BEING FILED AND DOCKETED IN CA 79-1726. ALL DOCKET ENTRIES PRIOR TO 11/18/89 WILL BE FOUND ON THE PAPER DOCKET. (ajr) (Entered: 11/18/1989)

REPLY by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to response to schedule a hearing (jda) (Entered: 11/21/1989)

372 MOTION by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 12/5/89 to file a response to plaintiffs' motions for findings of contempt and to adopt the Special Officer's findings of fact and to modify the Consent Decree (jda) (Entered: 11/24/1989)

MOTION by defendants JAMES F. PALMER, MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for protective order (jda) (Entered: 11/28/1989)

373 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 12/5/89 to file a response to plaintiffs' motions for findings of contempt and to adopt the Special Officer's findings of fact and to modify the Consent Decree [372-1] by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (jda) (Entered: 11/30/1989)

374 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : defendants' response to motion to shorten time to respond to plaintiffs' discovery requests due 11/27/89 in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (jda) (Entered: 11/30/1989)

MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for compensation ; Affidavit (jda) (Entered: 11/30/1989)

RESPONSE by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion for protective order [3-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv02128 (jda) (Entered: 11/30/1989)

375 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : dismissing, as moot, plaintiffs' motion

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 9 of 137

11/30/1989
12/01/1989 12/05/1989 12/08/1989
12/11/1989 12/12/1989 12/12/1989 12/12/1989 12/12/1989 12/14/1989

to document production request; directing parties to appear in Courtroom 7 on 12/15/89 at 10:00 for hearing on plaintiffs' motion to review defendants' plan to address the Court's previous orders in this matter (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/01/1989)
376 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for protective order [219-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv02128, 1:79-cv-01726; staying the depositions of William M. Plaut and Walter Ridley noticed for 11/30/89 and 12/1/89, until further order of this court; status hearing set for 3:00 12/4/89 in chambers (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/01/1989)
DEPOSIT by Corporation Counsel for defendant into the Registry of the Court $3609.75 pursuant to Court's Order of 11/7/89 in CA 80-2136 (jda) Modified on 12/04/1989 (Entered: 12/04/1989)
377 RESPONSE by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 to plaintiffs' motions for finding of contempt and imposition of sanctions on environmental, medical and mental health issues, and to modify the consent decree's Officer Staffing Requirement (jda) (Entered: 12/06/1989)
379 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay to Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $2,921.97 for services and expenses; payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund established by DC; directing DC to pay $2,921.97 to Clerk of Court by 12/21/89 to return balance to $20,000.00 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (cjp) (Entered: 12/15/1989)
378 REPLY by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES and TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136to response to motion for finding of contempt and imposition of sanctions response [377-1] by defendant (mf) (Entered: 12/14/1989)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green : reporter: Gloria Williams (cjp) (Entered: 12/15/1989)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green : reporter: G Williams (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
380 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion of plaintiff for Court's adoption of Special Officer's Reports as the Court's Findings of Fact on Environmental Health, Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
381 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' motion to Modify Consent Decree's Officer Staffing Requirement; allowing 45 days from date of this Order for defendants and Special Officer to submit a new officer staffing plan to the Court (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
382 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : adopting the Special Officer's Reports as to the Court's Findings of Fact on Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton; setting forth time tables, directing defendants to take certain actions

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 10 of 137

12/15/1989
12/18/1989 12/18/1989 12/18/1989 12/21/1989
12/21/1989 12/21/1989
12/21/1989 12/29/1989 01/02/1990 01/10/1990 01/16/1990 01/18/1990

regarding Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton Central; directing that full expenses of all foregoing measures shall be borne by the District of Columbia; defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with this motion (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Motion by plaintiff for hearing on "A Plan" for implementation of the Court's Order of 6/30/89 Order heard; Plaintiff shall submit agreed upon Plan by 12/19/89; defendant shal submit supplemental submission by 1/24/89 in CA 862128 reporter: G Williams (jda) (Entered: 12/19/1989)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for compensation (jda) (Entered: 12/19/1989)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for an increase in fees (jda) (Entered: 12/19/1989)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco; Special Officer to expend funds ; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 12/19/1989)
383 ORDER by Judge June L. Green in CA 86-2128: directing the entry of Agreed Plan as partial satisfaction of the Court's requirement that defendants submit a plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions found by the Court (N) (jda) Modified on 12/22/1989 (Entered: 12/22/1989)
384 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [171] by Special Officer (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/27/1989)
385 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the total sum of $2,622.50 for services and $1,097.50 for services of the investigative assistant [15-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/27/1989)
386 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for an increase in fees [16-1] of the Special Officer (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/27/1989)
DEPOSIT in CA 79-1726 by defendant DC into the Registry of the Court $2,921.97 pursuant to Court's Order of 12/8/89 (jda) (Entered: 01/03/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendants JAMES F. PALMER, MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 of declaration of Renfield Carter (jda) (Entered: 01/03/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 of certification and Department of Corrections, Service Order; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 01/11/1990)
387 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 in response to Court's Order of 12/14/89; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 01/17/1990)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer to purchase office equipment (jda) (Entered: 01/19/1990)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 11 of 137

01/18/1990 01/18/1990
01/18/1990
01/23/1990 01/24/1990 01/25/1990
01/25/1990 01/26/1990 01/26/1990
01/26/1990 02/02/1990 02/05/1990 02/05/1990 02/06/1990

MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer to expend funds (jda) (Entered: 01/19/1990)
389 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Special Officer to purchase certain equipment and present receipts to Clerk of Court for reimbursement or in the alternative, present this order to appropriate DC officials to purchase said equipment and present receipts to Special Officer who will submit said receipts to Clerk of Court [26-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 01/26/1990)
390 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion of Special Officer to make one disbursement of $31,480.00 as soon as possible after date of this Order and equal disbursement of $29,500.00 on 4/1/90, 7/1/90 and 10/1/90 [27-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 01/26/1990)
388 MOTION by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for attorney fee against defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 ; Affidavit (1); Exhibits (11) (ks) (Entered: 01/25/1990)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for compensation ; Affidavit (jda) (Entered: 01/26/1990)
391 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the total sum of $4,333.20 for expenses of Special Officer; said payment shall be made from the $20,000.00 fund established by DC (N) (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
392 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to pay plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $34,810.77 in 1:80-cv-02136 [388-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by parties in 1:86-cv-02128 of supplemental agreed plan for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to specific provisions of plaintiffs' proposed plan for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
393 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 pursuant to Court's Order of 12/12/89; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
DEPOSIT by DC into the Registry of the Court $13,500 pursuant to joint stipulation filed 1/16/90 (jda) (Entered: 02/05/1990)
394 MOTION by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 2/23/90 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for award of attorney's fees and costs (jda) (Entered: 02/06/1990)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for compensation ; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 02/07/1990)
395 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 of memoranda

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 12 of 137

02/07/1990
02/07/1990 02/07/1990
02/13/1990 02/15/1990 02/15/1990 02/16/1990 02/16/1990 02/20/1990

pursuant to Court's Order dated 12/14/89 (jda) (Entered: 02/07/1990)
396 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that the Clerk of the Court pay Kathryn R. Monaco the total sum of $5,429.10, said total includes $4,274.60 for services and expenses of the Special Officer and $1,154.50 for the Services and expenses of the investigative assistant as stated in said motion; Said payment is to be made from the $20,000.00 fund established by the District of Columbia on or about 1/1/89 pursuant to an order by this Court (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/09/1990)
397 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 2/23/90 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for award of attorney's fees and costs [36-1] by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 response to motion due 2/23/90 (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/09/1990)
398 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : in 1:86-cv-02128, supplementing Court's Order of 6/30/89 as follows: (1) defendants shall provide prisoners with 20 ft. candles of light in living areas, including prisoners in lower bunks of double bunks (2) By 4/1/90, defendants shall begin implementing a plan to assure that sleeping prisoners are protected from unnecessary risks of contracting airborne disease, etc., further ordered that if, within 90 days of entry of this Order, defendants fail to comply with the terms of the Court's Order of 12/21/89 as supplemented by this Order sanctions shall automatically be assessed against the defendants in the following amounts: $1,000 per violation per day for any unexcused violation of the provision concerning fire safety or personal safety, and $500.00 per violation per day for any unexcused violation of the provisions concerning environmental health of health care ; Attachment (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/10/1990)
REPLY by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to response by defendants [34-1] to specific provisions of plaintiffs' proposed plan for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order; Attachments (4) (jda) (Entered: 02/14/1990)
MOTION by defendant USA in 1:79-cv-01726 to modify Court Ordered population limit and for expedited response and hearing ; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 02/15/1990)
MOTION by defendant JAMES F. PALMER, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to amend Court Ordered population limit and for expedited response and hearing (jda) (Entered: 02/16/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer, Kathryn R. Monaco to transfer funds (jda) (Entered: 02/20/1990)
399 ORDER by Judge George H. Revercomb: directing plaintiffs to respond to defendant's motion for modification of Court Ordered Population Limit and to expedite response and hearing by 2/20/90; setting a hearing on this motion for 2/21/90 at 10:30 (N) (jda) Modified on 02/22/1990 (Entered: 02/22/1990)
RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to modify Court Ordered population limit and for expedited response and hearing [43-1]

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 13 of 137

02/20/1990 02/21/1990 02/21/1990 02/21/1990
02/22/1990 02/22/1990 02/22/1990 02/23/1990 02/26/1990 03/02/1990 03/06/1990
03/08/1990

by USA in 1:79-cv-01726; Attachments (5) (jda) (Entered: 02/20/1990)
MEMORANDUM by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 in opposition to motion to amend Court Ordered population limit and for expedited response and hearing [44-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; Attachments (2) (jda) (Entered: 02/20/1990)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Motions by defendants to modify court order population limits at DC Department of Corrections' Occoquan and Maximum Security Facilities heard and denied [43-1] [44-1] reporter: C Gansle (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
400 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying defendants' motions to modify court ordered population limits at the Department of Corrections' Occoquan and Maximum Security Facilities [43-1] [44-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
401 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that the Clerk transfer one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) from the funds available when a treasury bill matures on 2/22/90 to the checking account of the Special Officer as trustee of the Lorton fund, it is further ordered that any remaining sum after the transfer be re-invested by the Clerk of the Court [46-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
TRANSCRIPT (Excerpt) filed for dates of 2/21/90 reporter: C Gansle (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
402 MOTION by parties in 1:80-cv-02136 for order (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
REPLY by defendant JAMES F. PALMER, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to response to defendants' opposition to specific provisions of plaintiffs' proposed plan for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
RESPONSE by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to modify CourtOrdered population limit and for expedited response and hearing; Attachments (5) (fiat) GREEN, J. (jda) (Entered: 02/27/1990)
403 ORDER by Judge June L. Green in CA 80-2136: vacating the Court's Order of 1/25/90, directing defendants to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the sum of $30,000.00 (N) (jda) (Entered: 03/01/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer, Kathryn R. Monaco to transfer funds (jda) (Entered: 03/05/1990)
404 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer funds [561] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk to transfer Two Hundred Thousand dollars ($200,000.00) from funds when a C.D. matures on 4/16/90, to the checking account of Special Officer as trustee of Lorton fund; directing Clerk of Court to re-invest any remaining sum after the transfer (N) (ks) (Entered: 03/07/1990)
405 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to modify fire

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 14 of 137

03/14/1990
03/22/1990
03/29/1990 04/02/1990
04/03/1990 04/04/1990 04/04/1990 04/04/1990 04/04/1990

alarm and smoke detection system and to provide a schematic of each dormitory; directing defendants to increased the number of hours a psychiatrist provides service at the facility and to provide certain numbers of officers at Occuquan; denying remainder of specific provisions requested in plaintiffs' proposed plan filed 12/14/89 and 12/19/89; seting sanctions of $1,000.00 per violation per day for each unexcused violation of provisions re: fire safety or personal safety and $500.00 per violation per day for each unexcused violation of any other provision of these orders if defants fail to comply, within 60 days of this Order, with the terms of the 6/30/89 Order as supplemented (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/12/1990)
406 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [591] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing the Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer the sum of $7,360.65 for services and expenses of Special Officer and services and expenses of investigative assistant; payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund established by D.C. (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/19/1990)
407 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : vacating Court's Order of 3/14/90 directing payment of certain expenses; directing the Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $7,360.65 for services and expenses , and directing the District of Columbia to pay the Clerk of Court $13,482.30 by 4/5/90 to reimburse the $20,000.00 fund (Perpetual Savings Acc't #50071687); directing the District of Columbia to pay $7,360.65 to the Clerk of Court by 4/5/90 to reimburse fund (Perpetual Savings Acc't #50072702) (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/27/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $20,000.00 of the Lorton Fund (ajr) (Entered: 03/30/1990)
408 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $20,000.00 of the Lorton Fund [62-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 to the Lorton Art Program, Inc.; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $20,000.00 from Lorton Fund, Perpetual Savings Bank account #50072602 to the checking account of Special Officer and the Special Officer shall make one disbursement of $20,000.00 as soon as possible after this order (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/03/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 of documents pursuant to implementation of Order of 6/30/89. Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 04/04/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to vacate Order of 3/6/90 , and for order directing transfer of funds (ajr) (Entered: 04/04/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 04/04/1990)
MOTION by Special Master Kathryn Monaco to amend order [29-1] (ajr) (Entered: 04/04/1990)
DEPOSIT by plaintiff into the Registry the sum of $13,482.30 pursuant

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 15 of 137

04/05/1990
04/05/1990
04/05/1990 04/20/1990 04/20/1990 04/20/1990 04/24/1990 04/24/1990 04/24/1990

to Order of 3/27/90 (ks) (Entered: 04/06/1990)
409 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : modifying Court's Order of 3/6/90, to require Clerk of Court to transfer $200,000.00 from maturing certificates of deposit to checking account of Special Officer on or about 6/15/90 instead of 4/16/90; directing Clerk of Court to re-invest remaining sums from maurint certificates of deposit; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $30,000.00 from Perpetual Savings Bank account #50072602 to the checking account of Special Officer (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/06/1990)
410 AMENDED ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Special Officer to purchase office equipment and present receipts to Clerk of Court for reimbursement from $20,000.00 fund established to pay Special Officer's fees and expenses or the Special Officer should present this Order to the appropriate D.C. officials to purchase said equipment and present receipts to the Special Officer, who, after review, will submit them to the Clerk of Court for payment; directing D.C. to pay Clerk an amount equal to expenditures for said equipment in order to return balance in this fund to $20,000.00; this payment be D.C. shall be amde within 14 days of payment by the Clerk (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/06/1990)
411 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay to Kathryn Monaco the sum of $9,733.10 for services and expenses as Special Officer; payment shall be made from $20,000.00 fund pursuant to Order of 9/1/89; directing D.C. to pay $9,733.10 to Clerk of Court to return balance of fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/06/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 04/20/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $1500.00 of the Lorton Fund for supplies for the inmate council (ajr) (Entered: 04/20/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $125,000.00 of the Lorton Fund as follows: $100,000.00 for a Bonding Initiative Program, $10,000.00 for inmate tutoring, $15,000.00 for an intake program Exhibits (3) (ajr) (Entered: 04/20/1990)
412 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $125,000.00 of the Lorton Fund as follows: $100,000.00 for a Bonding Initiative Program, $10,000.00 for inmate tutoring, $15,000.00 for an intake program [73-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Special Officer to make the disbursements as soon as possible after the date of this order (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/25/1990)
413 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : dircting the Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $2,935.34 for services and expenses of Special Officer; payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund; directing D.C. to pay $2,935.34 to the Clerk of Court by 4/30/90 to return balance on deposit in fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/25/1990)
414 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $1500.00 of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 16 of 137

05/09/1990 05/11/1990
05/14/1990 05/16/1990 05/24/1990 05/25/1990 05/29/1990 05/31/1990
05/31/1990

the Lorton Fund for supplies for the inmate council [72-1] in 1:79-cv01726 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/25/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC of $2,935.34 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 4/24/90 (ajr) (Entered: 05/10/1990)
MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 to amend order directing defendants to modify fire alarm and smoke detection system and to provide a schematic of each dormitory; directing defendants to increased the number of hours a psychiatrist provides service at the facility and to provide certain numbers of officers at Occuquan; denying remainder of specific provisions requested in plaintiffs' proposed plan filed 12/14/89 and 12/19/89; seting sanctions of $1,000.00 per violation per day for each unexcused violation of provisions re: fire safety or personal safety and $500.00 per violation per day for each unexcused violation of any other provision of these orders if defants fail to comply, within 60 days of this Order, with the terms of the 6/30/89 Order as supplemented [58-1], order [58-2] (ajr) (Entered: 05/14/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for transfer of $175,000.00 from the fund maintained by the Clerk of Court to the Speical Officer's checking account for the Lorton Fund (ajr) (Entered: 05/15/1990)
415 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for transfer of $175,000.00 from the fund maintained by the Clerk of Court to the Speical Officer's checking account for the Lorton Fund [78-1] in 1:79-cv01726 directing that the transfer of funds be made on or about 6/15/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/17/1990)
416 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing parties to confer to attempt to reach an agreement on attorneys' fees and costs issues , and status hearing set for 1:30 6/25/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/30/1990)
MOTION by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to modify the plan for implementation of 6/30/89 Order (ajr) (Entered: 05/30/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 05/30/1990)
417 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of Court to pay to Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $10,604.37 for services and expenses of Special Officer , payment to be made from the $20,000.00 funds extablished pursuant to Court's order of 9/1/89 , and directing DC to pay to the Clerk of Court by 6/14/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 the sum of $10,604.37 to return the balance on deposit to this fund to $20,000.00; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/03/1990)
RESPONSE by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 motion to modify the plan for implementation of 6/30/89 Order [80-1] by DC (ajr)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 17 of 137

06/01/1990
06/12/1990 06/13/1990
06/19/1990 06/19/1990 06/20/1990
06/21/1990 06/21/1990 07/09/1990 07/13/1990 07/18/1990

(Entered: 06/05/1990)
418 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to modify the plan for implementation of 6/30/89 Order [80-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 directing the Agreed Plan, Part A, Environmental Health, Section 1: Hygienic Facilities be modified to include the following ratio: one water closet per 8 prisoners with up to one half substitution with urinals; one lavatory (sink) per 8 prisoners and one showerr per 15 prisoners (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/05/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $35,000.00 of the Lorton Fund for a staff person to operate the Bonding Initiative Program, and to order the transfer of funds to the Special Officer's checking account Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 06/14/1990)
419 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $35,000.00 of the Lorton Fund for a staff person to operate the Bonding Initiative Program, and to order the transfer of funds to the Special Officer's checking account [86-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of Court to transfer $35,000.00 from the Registry of the Court to the Special Officer's checking account as soon as convenient. The special Officedr shall pay to the United Black Fund for the Bonding Initiative Program and shall pay all previously ordered amounts as soon as possible (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/19/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC into the Registry of the Court of $10,604.37 pursuant to order of 5/31/90 (ajr) (Entered: 06/20/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 06/21/1990)
420 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $3,686.27 for services and expenses of the Special Officer , directing the District of Columbia to pay $3,686.27 to the Clerk of Court by 7/5/90 in order to return the balance on deposit to fund to $20,000.00 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/25/1990)
SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 2:00 7/30/90 ; (ks) (Entered: 06/21/1990)
421 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : continuing status hearing, re-set for 2:00 7/30/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/25/1990)
DEPOSIT by the defendants into the Registry of the Court of $3,686.27 pursuant to Order of 6/20/90 (ajr) (Entered: 07/10/1990)
STATUS REPORT filed by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco. Exhibits (5) (ajr) (Entered: 07/13/1990)
MOTION Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 07/19/1990)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 18 of 137

07/20/1990 07/24/1990
07/24/1990
07/26/1990 07/30/1990 08/02/1990 08/27/1990 09/05/1990 09/07/1990 09/10/1990
09/11/1990

MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for leave to pay experts Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 07/23/1990)
422 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to pay to Kathryn Monaoc the sum of $17,852.94 for services and expenses of experts hired by the Special Master from the Fund; directing District of Columbia to reimburse Fund $17,852.94 to reimburse Fund (Perpetual Savings Bank Acct. No. 50072602) by 8/4/90 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/25/1990)
423 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $15,666.57 for services and expenses of Special Officer and investigative assistants and experts from the Fund; directing District of Columbia to reimburse Fund $15,666.57 in order to return its balance to $20,000.00 by 8/4/90 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/25/1990)
RECORD ON APPEAL of SEALED MATERIAL (6) envelopes returned from U.S. Court of Appeals USCA#87-5254 (ela) (Entered: 07/26/1990)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 1:00 10/10/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; reporter: G. Slodysko (ajr) (Entered: 08/01/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC into the Registry of the Court of $195.00 pursuant to order of 4/5/90 (ajr) (Entered: 08/03/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation--for $12,105.15, including $4,972.65 for Special Officer's services and expenses, $632.50 for investigative assistant, and $6,500.00 for expert consultant Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 08/28/1990)
424 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : setting forth instructions and a time schedule for defendants; directing that this Order is without prejudice to plaintiff's right to seek further relief to seek to enforce this Order by future petitions to the Court (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/07/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant D.C. of $15,666.57 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 7/24/90 (ajr) (Entered: 09/10/1990)
425 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation--for $12,105.15, including $4,972.65 for Special Officer's services and expenses, $632.50 for investigative assistant, and $6,500.00 for expert consultant [96-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $12,105.15 for services and expenses of special Officer, the investigative assistant and the expert consultant, payment is to be made from fund established by D.C.; D.C. shall pay $12,105.15 to Clerk of Court by 9/24/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 in order to return fund to balance of $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 09/12/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to transfer $64,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to the Special Master's checking account (ajr) (Entered: 09/12/1990)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 19 of 137

09/12/1990 09/24/1990
09/27/1990 10/02/1990
10/09/1990
10/10/1990 10/12/1990

426 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer $64,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to the Special Master's checking account [97-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerki of Court to transfer $64,000.00 from the Registry of the Court to special Officer's checking account as soon as convenient; directing Special Officer to pay $34,125.00 to Unfoldment, Inc. and 425,000.00 to D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services as soon as possible. (N) (ajr) (Entered: 09/17/1990)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order adopting the Special Officer's Reports as to the Court's Findings of Fact on Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton; setting forth time tables, directing defendants to take certain actions regarding Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton Central; directing that full expenses of all foregoing measures shall be borne by the District of Columbia; defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with this motion [14-1], order [14-2] (ajr) (Entered: 09/24/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation of $5,439.58 ($4,904.58 for services and expenses and $535.00 for services of the investigative assistant) (ajr) (Entered: 09/28/1990)
427 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation of $5,439.58 ($4,904.58 for services and expenses and $535.00 for services of the investigative assistant) [101-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $5,439.58 for services and expenses of Special Officer and the investigative assistant; payment to be made out of the $20,000.00 fund established pursuant to Court's order of 9/1/89; directing D.C. to pay $5,439.58 to the Clerk of Court by 10/15/90 to return the balance in the fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 10/04/1990)
428 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : awarding attorney's fees, expenses & costs incurred in litigation of plaintiffs' claims prior to and including 5/11/90 against defendants; DIRECTING District of Columbia to pay National Prison Project of ACLU the sum of $750,000.00; ENTERING JUDGMENT pursuant to Rule 54 of FRCvP and directing that beginning 55 days after entry of this Order, simple interest, pursuant to 28 USC 1961, shall accrue on said sum or any part thereof that remain unpaid; DIRECTING said payment shall constitute full satisfaction of any claims against D.C. defendants that plaintiffs have or may have for attorneys' fees, expenses and costs in this action which claims accrued prior to and including 5/11/90 (N) (ker) (Entered: 10/10/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in CA 80-2136 of $12,105.15 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 9/10/90 (ajr) (Entered: 10/11/1990)
MOTION by special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $153,498.00 of the Lorton fund as follows: $100,000.00 for the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., and $53,498.00 for the National Center on

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 20 of 137

10/15/1990 10/15/1990
10/18/1990
10/30/1990 11/05/1990 11/05/1990 11/05/1990 11/07/1990
11/07/1990

Institutions and Alternatives Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 10/14/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco pay office expenses from the $20,000.00 fund Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 10/17/1990)
429 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $153,498.00 of the Lorton fund as follows: $100,000.00 for the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., and $53,498.00 for the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives [104-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing that these disbursements shall be made as soon as possible after the date of this order; directing that the Special Officer receive progress reports and report to the Court regarding both of these disbursements (N) (ajr) (Entered: 10/18/1990)
430 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion pay office expenses from the $20,000.00 fund [105-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing the Clerk of Court to pay expenses upon submission by Special Officer of appropriate documentation; directing payment be made from the $20,000.00 fund; directing the District of Columbia to pay into the $20,000.00 fund an amount equal to said expenditures upon notice from the Clerk that payment has been made. Said payment by the District of Columbia to be made within 10 days of the Clerk's notice (N) (ajr) (Entered: 10/22/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendants of $5,439.58 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to Order of 10/2/90 (ajr) (Entered: 11/01/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $75,750.00 of the Lorton Fund for the Black Man's Development Center, Inc. Exhibits (2) (ajr) (Entered: 11/07/1990)
MOTION by special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation of $7,860.40--$5,735.63 for services and expenses, $1,187.00 for services of investigative assistant, and $937.77 for services of expert consultant Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 11/07/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to transfer $80,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to the Special Officer's checking account (ajr) (Entered: 11/07/1990)
431 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer $80,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to the Special Officer's checking account [110-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $80,000.00 from the registry of the Court to the Special Master's checking account as soon as convenient; directing Special Master to pay $53,498.00 to NCIA and pay $25,000.00 to D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services, as previously ordered (N) (ajr) (Entered: 11/12/1990)
432 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation of $7,860.40--$5,735.63 for services and expenses, $1,187.00 for services of investigative assistant, and $937.77 for services of expert consultant [109-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to pay to Kathryn R. Monaco the total sum of $7,860.40 for services and expenses as set forth in Special Officer's motion; payment shall be made from the $20,000.00

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 21 of 137

11/07/1990
12/10/1990 12/13/1990 12/14/1990 12/14/1990 12/17/1990 12/17/1990
12/17/1990 12/17/1990 01/04/1991

Fund extablished by D.C. pursuant to Court's order of 9/1/89; directing D.C. to pay $7,860.40 to Clerk of Court by 11/21/90 in order to return balance on deposit in this Fund to $20,000.00 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 11/12/1990)
433 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $75,750.00 of the Lorton Fund for the Black Man's Development Center, Inc. [108-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Special Officer to make one disbursement of $75,750.00 to Black Man's Development Center as soon as possible after the date of this order; Directing Sspecial Officer to receive progress reports and report to the Court re: this program; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $75,750.00 as soon as possible to the Special Officer's checking account (N) (ajr) Modified on 11/12/1990 (Entered: 11/12/1990)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court of $7,860.40 by DC pursuant to order of 11/7/90 (ajr) (Entered: 12/11/1990)
DEPOSIT by D.C. into the Registry of the Court of $675.50 pursuant to order of 10/18/90 (ajr) (Entered: 12/14/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $5,200.00 of the Lorton Fund (ajr) (Entered: 12/17/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 12/17/1990)
434 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for expenditure of funds so that the Special Officer may pay for the cost of tests as stated in her motion (N) (ajr) (Entered: 12/18/1990)
435 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing that the clerk of Court pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $9,478.32 for services and expenses of the Special Officer, the investigative assistant, and the expert consultant as set forth in the Special Officer's motion. Payment is to be made from the $20,000.00 fund established by the District of Columbia pursuant to the Court's Order of 9/1/89; and it is further ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay $9,478.32 to the Clerk of Court by 1/2/91 in order to return the balance on deposit in this fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 12/18/1990)
MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent decree amendment on new modular 200 unit (ajr) (Entered: 12/18/1990)
436 CONSENT DECREE amending Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree of 4/28/82, the Amended Decree of 8/18/83, and the Amended Decree of 3/4/85. (J.L. GREEN, J.) (N) (ajr) (Entered: 12/18/1990)
437 RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order setting forth instructions and a time schedule for defendants; directing that this Order

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 22 of 137

01/23/1991 01/24/1991 01/29/1991
02/05/1991 02/15/1991
02/22/1991
02/26/1991 03/01/1991
03/05/1991 03/08/1991 03/21/1991

is without prejudice to plaintiff's right to seek further relief to seek to enforce this Order by future petitions to the Court [424-1] in 1:80-cv02136. Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 01/07/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC of $61.66 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 10/18/90 (ajr) (Entered: 01/24/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to transfer $10,000.00 into the Special Officer's checking account (ajr) (Entered: 01/25/1991)
438 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer $10,000.00 into the Special Officer's checking account [121-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing the Clerk of Court to transfer ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) as soon as possible to the checking account of the Special Officer as trustee for the Lorton Fund (N) (ajr) (Entered: 01/30/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 02/07/1991)
439 ORDER by Judge June L. Green :directing the Clerk of Court to pay the Special Officer the sum of $19,880.31 for services and expenses from the $20,000.00 fund established by D.C.; directing D.C. to pay $19,880.31 to the Clerk of Court by 2/28/91 in order to return balance on deposit to fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/1991)
440 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : vacating order [121-1 in CA 79-1726] of 2/15/91 , directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn R. Monaco $19,880.31; directing D.C. pay $19,880.31 to the Clerk of Court by 3/8/91 , and directing DC to pay $9,478.32 to the Clerk of Court by 3/8/91 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 02/25/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 02/27/1991)
441 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $19,695.65 for services and expenses; directing that payment be made from Lorton Fund account #50072602; directing the District to pay to the Clerk of the Court $19,695.65 plus interest at the rate of 6.35% from date of this order until the date the amount is deposited with the Clerk; the reimbursement plus appropriate interest shall be paid to the Clerk by 3/15/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/01/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC of $29,358.63 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 2/22/91 (ajr) (Entered: 03/06/1991)
DEPOSIT by D.C. into the Registry of the Court of $19,719.96 pursuant to order of 3/5/91 (ajr) (Entered: 03/11/1991)
NOTICE OF FILING by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco of report concerning compliance with the consent decree as it applies to apprenticeship programs at Central Facility. Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 03/22/1991)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 23 of 137

03/21/1991
03/25/1991
03/27/1991 03/28/1991
04/10/1991 04/10/1991 04/11/1991 04/11/1991 04/16/1991

MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for leave to expend $15,000.00 of the Lorton fund on an incentive program at Central Facility, and $15,000.00 of the fund for the Visitors' Services Center, and to order the Clerk to transfer $50,000.00 to the Special Officer's checking account to pay for the incentive program, the award to the Visitors' Center, and other previously ordered expenditures (ajr) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
442 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to expend $15,000.00 of the Lorton fund on an incentive program at Central Facility, and $15,000.00 of the fund for the Visitors' Services Center, and to order the Clerk to transfer $50,000.00 to the Special Officer's checking account to pay for the incentive program, the award to the Visitors' Center, and other previously ordered expenditures [129-1] in 1:79-cv01726 directing the Clerk to transfer fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) as soon as convenient to the checking account of the Special Officer as trustee for the Lorton Fund, and that the Special Officer report to the Court as appropriate (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/26/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation in the amount of $16,194.20 for services and expenses Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 03/29/1991)
443 ORDER by Judge June L. Green :directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco, Special Officer, the sum of $16,194.20 for services and expenses; payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund established pursuant to order of 9/1/89; directing the District of Columbia to pay $16,194.20 to the Clerk of Court by 4/12/91 in order to return the balance of the fund to $20,000.00 brief due 4/12/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/29/1991)
STATUS REPORT of Special Officer Kathryn Moncao regarding compliance with the order of 12/14/89. Attachments (12) (ajr) (Entered: 04/11/1991)
STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 on compliance with the Court's orders of 6/30/89, 2/6/90 and 3/8/90 (ajr) Modified on 04/11/1991 (Entered: 04/11/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in CA 80-2136 of $16,194.20 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 3/28/91 (ajr) (Entered: 04/11/1991)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, the Special Officer of the Court to expend and traansfer funds (ks) (Entered: 04/12/1991)
444 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend and transfer funds [135-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing Clerk of Court to transfer $20,000.00 to checking account of Special Officer; directing Special Officer to make one disbursement of $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/18/1991)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 24 of 137

04/25/1991 04/26/1991 04/26/1991
04/29/1991 04/29/1991 05/02/1991
05/06/1991 05/10/1991 05/14/1991 05/15/1991 05/17/1991

MOTION by Special Master Kthryn Monaco for compensation Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 04/26/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer to transfer and expend $27,269.00 of the Lorton Fund for Black Man's Development Center, Inc. Exhibit (ajr) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
445 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : ordered that the Clerk of Court pay Special Officer Kathryn Monaco the sum of $17,640.19 for services and expenses of the Special Officer, the Investigative Assistant and the expert consultants as set forth in the Special Officer's motion. Payment is to be made from the $20,000.00 fund established by the District of Columbia pursuant to the Court's order of 9/1/89; and it is further ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay $17,640.19 to the Clerk of Court by 5/13/91 in order to return the balance on deposit in this fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
446 MOTION by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for the Court's adoption of the Special Officer's report of 4/10/91 as the Court's finding of fact (ajr) (Entered: 05/01/1991)
447 MOTION by plaintiffs TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for finding of contempt , for sanctions , and for attorney fees Exhibits (7) (ajr) (Entered: 05/01/1991)
448 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer and expend $27,269.00 of the Lorton Fund for Black Man's Development Center, Inc. [138-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing Special Officer to report to the Court regarding this program; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $30,000.00 as soon as possible to Special Officer's checking account so Special Officer can make this disbursement (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
449 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for the Court's adoption of the Special Officer's report of 4/10/91 as the Court's finding of fact [140-1] by TWO JOHN DOES, TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:79cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/08/1991)
450 MOTION by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions and award of attorney's fees to 5/15/91 (ks) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
452 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions and award of attorney's fees to 5/15/91 [450-1] by DC in 1:80cv-02136 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/21/1991)
451 RESPONSE by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for finding of contempt [447-1] by TWO JOHN DOES, TWELVE JOHN DOES; Exhibits (ks) (Entered: 05/16/1991)
MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 to hold in abeyance consideration of plaintiffs' motion for contempt , and to extend time to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 25 of 137

05/22/1991 05/31/1991 05/31/1991 06/12/1991 06/12/1991 06/14/1991
06/14/1991 06/17/1991

6/4/91 in which to reply to opposition to said motion (ajr) (Entered: 05/22/1991)
453 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to hold in abeyance consideration of plaintiffs' motion for contempt [145-1] by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, granting motion to extend time to 6/4/91 in which to reply to opposition to said motion [145-2] by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv01726 reply to motion due 6/4/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/31/1991)
MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 6/12/91 in which to reply to opposition to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions, and awarding of attorneys' fees (ajr) (Entered: 06/05/1991)
454 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting plaintiffs' motion to further extend the time to 6/12/91 to file a reply : (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/05/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant District of Columbia the sum of $17,640.19 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 4/26/91 (mbd) (Entered: 06/13/1991)
455 JOINT MOTION by the parties in CA 80-2136 for adoption of consent order (ajr) (Entered: 06/14/1991)
456 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion for adoption of consent order [455-1] by defendant, plaintiff; defts. to adopt a preventive maintenance plan within 45-day, and fully implement the preventive maintenance program within 180-days, and promptly submit to the Court a certification that they have implemented the plan; defts. to hire & retain a complment of 13 full-time maintenance pesonnel at the Central Facility; deft. to retain 5 phyicians at the Lorton Central Facility Infirmary within 30-day; defts. shall present a medical staffing plan to the Court within 45-days; defts. shall hire & retain 6 psychologists for the Central Facility mental health program; defts. shall retain a full-time clerk-typist or office assistant at the Lorton Central Infirmary; setting out requirements for hiring or retaining all personnel by this order; defts. to promptly certificate to pltfs. that the Central Facility Infirmmary is repaired & waterproof; this order shall not alter the authority granted to Special Officer in the order of 12/14/89; full expenses of all measures shall be borne by the District of Columbia; defts. shall pay pltfs' counsel their reasonable attorneys' fees & costs associated with bringing their contempt motion (N) (jaw) (Entered: 06/14/1991)
MOTION by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted (blj) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 06/19/1991)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 26 of 137

06/19/1991 06/20/1991 06/21/1991 06/21/1991 06/24/1991
06/25/1991 06/25/1991 07/01/1991 07/01/1991
07/01/1991

MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the health care portion of this case (blj) (Entered: 06/25/1991)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer of the Court to expend and transfer funds (blj) (Entered: 06/26/1991)
RESPONSE by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 in opposition to defendants' motion to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted [149-1] by DC (blj) (Entered: 06/25/1991)
458 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer of the Court to expend and transfer funds [154-1] in 1:79cv-01726 directing the Clerk of Court to transfer $25,000.00 to the checking account of the Special Master (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/08/1991)
457 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $16,063.42 for services and expenses of Special Officer, investigative assistant and expert consultants; Payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund; Directing Dist. of Col. to pay $16,063.42 to Clerk of Court by July 9, 1991 in order to return balance on deposit in fund to $20,000.00 [150-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (blj) (Entered: 06/25/1991)
REPLY by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726to response to motion to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted [149-1] by DC (ajr) (Entered: 07/08/1991)
461 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions be imposed at a hearing before this Court scheduled for 7/25/91 at 10:45 a.m. (N) (mbh) (Entered: 07/31/1991)
MOTION by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the health care portion of this case to 7/12/91 (mbh) (Entered: 07/05/1991)
459 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : motion hearing set for 10:00 7/11/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 to consider defendant's motion to permit defendant not to count residents housed in newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/10/1991)
462 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 27 of 137

07/11/1991
07/11/1991
07/17/1991 07/22/1991 07/22/1991 07/26/1991 07/31/1991 08/01/1991
08/06/1991 08/07/1991

respect to the health care portion of this case to 7/12/91 [304-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (mbh) (Entered: 08/01/1991)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : by DC motion to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted [149-1] heard in 1:79-cv-01726 reporter: K. Moomey (Miller) (ajr) (Entered: 07/12/1991)
460 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted [149-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 directing that defendants be permitted to operate the newly constructed Cellblock #7 with certain provisions (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/12/1991)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, the Special Officer of the Court to expend and transfer funds ; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 07/19/1991)
NOTICE OF FILING by Special Officer of the Court to withdraw the motion of special officer to expend funds filed 7/17/91 (cjp) (Entered: 07/23/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer to expend funds ; exhibit (1) (cjp) (Entered: 07/23/1991)
NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 of withdrawal of motion to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the health care protion of this case; Attachment (mbh) (Entered: 07/29/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer for compensation ; attachments (cjp) (Entered: 08/07/1991)
463 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to pay Special Officer Kathryn Monaco the sum of $16,188.03 for services and expenses of Special Officer, assistants, and consultants; payment to be made from the $20,000.00 fund , directing defendant DC to pay $16,188.03 to the Clerk of Court by 8/16/91 in order to return the balance of the Fund to $20,000.00 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 08/02/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer to purchase office equipment ; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 08/07/1991)
464 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing that the Clerk of Court SHALL NOT TRANSFER certain funds to the Special Officer's checking account, as directed in this Court's order of 6/21/91, but, instead, shall disburse the funds directly to the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc. The clerk shall pay the $25,000.00 installment due on 7/1/91 as soon as practicable. The clerk is directed to pay the final $25,000.00 installment by 10/1/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136,

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 28 of 137

08/12/1991
08/14/1991 08/15/1991
08/15/1991 08/16/1991 08/19/1991 08/20/1991 08/23/1991 08/30/1991 09/12/1991 09/24/1991 09/26/1991

in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 08/08/1991)
465 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing that certain computer and office furnishings be purchased jfor the Special Officer and that receipts for same be submitted th Clerk of Court who will pay for same from the Special Fund; directing defendants to pay to Clerk of Court an amount equal to such expenditures to return Special Fund to $20,000.00; directing the Clerk to notify defendants of each payment and the amount and defendants will make a payment to the Clerk within 14 days of said notice (N) (ajr) (Entered: 08/13/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer for compensation (cjp) (Entered: 08/16/1991)
466 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : appointing Grace M. Lopes as Special Officer of the Court; effective 9/9/91; directing defendants to pay certain fees and expenses; setting forthe powers and duties of Special Officer; directing Clerk of Court to make certain payments from the fund in Court's Registry (N) (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
468 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of Court to Pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $19,228.53 from the fund; directing the District of Columbia to pay $19,228.53 to the Clerk of Court by 8/30/91 (N) (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
467 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion by Special Officer to expend funds [171-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer to expend funds ; exhibit (1) (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
469 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants RE: parties agree to reduce the number of medical support positions at the Central infirmary to 15 registered nurses (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
470 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion by special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend funds to pay $8,899.68 to continue the Bond Iniative Program until 10/15/91; directing that the Special Officer shall make the disbursement (N) (ajr) (Entered: 09/03/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-2136 of $19,288.53 into the Registry of the Court pursuant top order of 8/15/91 (ajr) (Entered: 09/03/1991)
471 MOTION by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (clv) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
MOTION by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer for compensation ; exhibits (5) (clv) (Entered: 09/27/1991)
472 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing that the Clerk of Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $26,492.43 for services and expenses of the Special Officer, her investigative assistant and expenses of the former

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 29 of 137

09/30/1991 10/08/1991
10/16/1991 10/16/1991 10/21/1991 10/30/1991
11/01/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991

Sspecial Officer, Kathryn Monaco and for the services and expenses of Ms. Monaco's expert consultant and investigative assistant; FURTHER DIRECTING that payment of sum of $12,857.75 for fees and expenses of Ms. Monaco's expert consultant and investigative assistant be drawn from Perpetual Savings Account; FURTHER directing that District of Columbia pay $12,857.75 t Clerk of Court by October 11, 1991, to replenish said Account; FURTHER DIRECTING that payment of fees and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and former Speical Officer Monaco and Ms. Coykendall, in the sum of $13,634.68 be drawn from $20,000.00 fund account; FURTHER DIRECTING that District of Columbia pay $13,634.68 to the Clerk of the Ccourt to replenish the $20,000.00 account by October 11, 1991. (N) (mbh) (Entered: 09/30/1991)
473 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 of consent decree amendment and and all exhibits; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 10/02/1991)
474 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA to pay Covington & Burling the sum of Fourty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) in full settlement of fees and costs associated with bringing the contempt motion of 4/29/91 and with monitoring compliance with court's order of 12/14/89 and the Consent Decree, as amended, on or before 11/8/91 (N) (dot) (Entered: 10/10/1991)
MOTION of Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibit (1) (mbh) (Entered: 10/21/1991)
DEPOSIT of $12,857.75 by defendant DC into the registry of the court pursuant to order of 9/26/91 (mbh) (Entered: 10/29/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant/s in CA 80-2136 of $13,634.68 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 9/26/91 (ajr) (Entered: 10/23/1991)
475 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $10,000.88 for services and expenses of herself and her investigative assistant, Lee Coykendall; directing that this amount be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; directing District of Columbia to pay $10,000.88 to the Clerk of the court in order to replenish the $20,000.00, this is to be done by 11/15/91 (N) (dot) (Entered: 10/30/1991)
476 MOTION by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for finding of contempt , imposition of sanctions , and for an award of attorney fee (cjp) (Entered: 11/05/1991)
MOTION by special officer Grace M. Lopes for compensation ; exhibits (3) (cjp) (Entered: 11/12/1991)
MOTION by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (cjp) (Entered: 11/12/1991)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 30 of 137

11/13/1991 11/13/1991
11/13/1991
11/18/1991 11/18/1991 11/19/1991 11/20/1991 11/20/1991 11/20/1991 11/22/1991 11/25/1991

477 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : requiring the District of Columbia to pay National Prison Project the sum of thirty nine thousand five hundred and fifty dollars ($39,550.00) in full settlement of claims by plaintiffs' attorney's fees or costs, exclusive of expert fees, from 5/12/90 through 7/31/91 (N) (dot) (Entered: 11/13/1991)
478 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [182-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; requiring Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $13,186.32; payment shall be drawn from the $20,000.00 account fund; the District of Columbia shall pay $13,186/32 to Clerk of the Court to replenish the account fund by 11/26/91 replenish funds due by 11/26/91 (N) (dot) (Entered: 11/13/1991)
479 RESPONSE by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for finding of contempt [181-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, motion imposition of sanctions [181-2] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:79-cv01726, 1:80-cv-02136, motion for an award of attorney fee [181-3] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv02136 (ajr) (Entered: 11/15/1991)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to shorten time for defendants' response filed in 862128 (cjp) (Entered: 11/21/1991)
MOTION by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 for clarification of the terms of the mental health provisions of the Agreed Plan , and to shorten the time in which defendants may respond to this motion Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
480 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to shorten the time in which defendants may respond to this motion for clarification [323-2] by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128, 1:79-cv-01726 response to motion due 11/26/91 in 1:86-cv-02128, in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81cv-02072 ; (N) (cjp) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
DEPOSIT by Corporation Counsel in the sum of $10,000.00 into the registry pursuant to 10/30/91 Court order (cjp) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
481 REPLY by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726to response to motion imposition of sanctions [181-2] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (kmk) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
482 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to opposition [186-1] by defendant in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanction and award of attorney's fees (kmk) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
MOTION by Grace M. Lopes, the appointedd Special Officer to expend funds (clv) (Entered: 11/26/1991)
REPLY by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant USA in 1:79-cv01726to response to motion for clarification of the terms of the mental

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 31 of 137

11/26/1991
12/03/1991 12/04/1991 12/04/1991 12/09/1991 12/12/1991
12/12/1991 12/12/1991 12/12/1991

health provisions of the Agreed Plan [188-1] by plaintiff; exhibit (1) (dot) (Entered: 12/04/1991)
483 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to issue check to Special Officer Grace Lopes drawn on the Lorton Fund in the amount of $15,848.55; directing Special Officer to deposit this amount in her account (N0. 86790284) and pay Westlaw $24,394.93 as compensation for services; directing defendants to reimburse Lorton Fund by 12/13/91 in the amount of $1,957.55 reimburse of funds due by 12/13/91 in 1:79cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (dot) (Entered: 11/27/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in the sum of $13,186.32 pursuant to Court's order of 11/13/91 (cjp) (Entered: 12/04/1991)
REPLY by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 in support of motion for clarification of the terms of the mental health provisions of the Agreed Plan [323-1] by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128, 1:79-cv-01726 (cjp) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
484 STATUS REPORT by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 RE: individuals have been selected for the vacant facilities management positions, that those selected have accepted the offer of employment and will commence work at the facility beginning 12/16/91 (cjp) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer for compensation ; exhibits (4) (cjp) (Entered: 12/10/1991)
485 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $22,522.52 for her services and expenses, those of her investigative assistant, her expert consultant and former Special Officer Monaco's investigative assistant; Further directing that payment in the sum of $7,057.44 for fees and expenses of Ms. Lopes' expert consultant and Ms. Monaco's investigative assistant be drawn from Perpetual Savings Account Number 500-726-02; Directing that the District of Columbia pay $7,057.44 to the Clerk of Court by 12/30/91 to replenish Account Number 500-727-02; Further ordering that payment of fees and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and Ms. Coykendall, in the sum of $15,465.08 be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; Further directing District of Columbia to pay $15,465.08 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 account by 12/30/91. (N) (dot) (Entered: 12/13/1991)
DEPOSIT by Corporation Counsel in sum of $4,137.82 pursuant to Court's order (cjp) (Entered: 12/13/1991)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : reporter: Laura Beasley (cjp) (Entered: 12/16/1991)
486 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to comply with the Court's instructions within time contraints as set forth in this order (N) (cjp) (Entered: 12/16/1991)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 32 of 137

12/19/1991 12/19/1991
12/20/1991 12/23/1991 12/27/1991 01/04/1992
01/06/1992 01/07/1992 01/09/1992 01/10/1992 01/13/1992
01/13/1992

487 MOTION by the Special Officer appointed by the Court to expend funds ; exhibits (2) (clv) (Entered: 12/19/1991)
488 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [4871]; directing that Special Officer disburse $38,472.00 to the National Center for Institutions and alternatives as soon as possible after the date of this order; directing that Special Officer receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement (N) (cjp) (Entered: 12/24/1991)
491 FIRST REPORT OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER, GRACE M. LOPES, on The Modular 200 reception and diagnostic unit; exhibits (14) (filed in C.A. 80-2136) (mbd) Modified on 01/13/1992 (Entered: 01/13/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendant in the amount of $1,957.55 pursuant to the Court's Order of 11/26/91 (clv) (Entered: 12/27/1991)
489 MOTION filed by plaintiffs TWO JOHN DOES, TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for the adoption of the Special Officer's Report of 12/20/91 as the Court's findings of fact (ajr) (Entered: 12/30/1991)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/11/93, to respond to plaintiffs' motion to show cause [340-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, granting motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the Health Case portion of this case [261-1] by plaintiff(s)ssssssssssssss in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/05/1993)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 pursuant to the Court's order of 12/12/91 (cjp) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
DEPOSITS in the amounts of $7,057.44 and $15,465.08 pursuant to the Courts order of 12/12/91 by the defendant (clv) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
490 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions , and for award of attorneys' fees (cjp) (Entered: 01/10/1992)
MOTION by Special Officer filed for compsenation ; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 01/16/1992)
492 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of the court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $15,925.15 for services and expenses; directing that payment of fees and expenses of Lope and Coykendall be drawn from $20,000.00 fund account; directing the District of Columbia to pay $15,925.15 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by 1/27/92; to replenish the fund by 1/27/92 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (dot) (Entered: 01/13/1992)
493 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting in part, denying in part motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions [201-] and award of attorneys' fees [201-2] ; the Court finds defendants in contempt of its

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 33 of 137

01/28/1992 01/29/1992
01/30/1992 02/04/1992 02/05/1992 02/06/1992 02/11/1992
02/11/1992 02/11/1992 02/11/1992

orders, but declines to impose a monetary sanction; the Court also grants plaintiffs' motion for award of attorney fees; directing defendants pay plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attornyes' fees and costs associated with bringing this contempt motion; directing parties to negotiate concerning the amount of this fee award in 1:79-cv-01726, (N) (cjp) (Entered: 01/17/1992)
494 MOTION by Grace M. Lopes, the Special Officer for compensation ; attachment (clv) (Entered: 01/29/1992)
495 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $8,199.70 for services and expenses of her expert Dr. Robert Cohen; directing payment be made from Perpetual Account Number 500-726-02; directing District of Columbia to pay $8,199.70 to Clerk of Court to replenish said account by 2-14-92. replenish funds due 2/14/92 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86cv-02128 ; (N) (dot) (Entered: 01/30/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendants in CA 80-2136 of $15,925.15 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 1/13/92 (ajr) (Entered: 01/31/1992)
496 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) in 1:80-cv02136, defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order on the operation of the diagnostic unit (cjp) (Entered: 02/07/1992)
MOTION by Special Officer filed for compensation ; attachments (cjp) (Entered: 02/10/1992)
497 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : setting forth a schedule for compliance by defendants; and instructions to plaintiffs and the special officer (N) (cjp) (Entered: 02/11/1992)
498 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing clerk to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $18,107.31 for services and expenses for her and her investigative assistant; directing that payment of fees and expenses be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund; directing that the District of Columbia pay $18,107.31 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 2/24/92 replenish of fund due 2/24/92 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (dot) (Entered: 02/11/1992)
NOTICE OF FILING by the Special Master of supplement to the first report on the Modular 200 Reception and Diagnostic Unit (sm) (Entered: 02/14/1992)
499 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge June L. Green (N) (dmb) (Entered: 02/18/1992)
500 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting plaintiffs' motion to clarify; accompanying memorandum clarifies the Court's Order of 12/21/89; denying plaintiffs' request for discovery concerning Correctional Treatment Facility (N) (lpp) Modified on 03/03/1992 (Entered: 02/26/1992)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 34 of 137

02/14/1992 02/24/1992 02/25/1992 03/05/1992 03/09/1992 03/10/1992 03/11/1992
03/13/1992 04/06/1992 04/06/1992 04/07/1992
04/07/1992

DEPOSIT by District of Columbia the sum of $8,199.70 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 1/29/92 (mbd) (Entered: 02/18/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent order temporarily amending 12/17/90 consent decree (sm) (Entered: 02/24/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendant District of Columbia the sum of $18,107.31 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 2/11/92 (sm) (Entered: 02/26/1992)
501 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for adoption of consent order temporarily amending 12/17/90 consent decree [211-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (sm) (Entered: 03/06/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendant District of Columbia the sum of $260.27 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 4/5/90 (sm) (Entered: 03/09/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits (3) (sm) (Entered: 03/10/1992)
502 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [215-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $15,424.34 for services and expenses; directing that payment be made from the $20,000.00 fund account; directing the District of Columbia to pay $15,424.34 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by 3/27/92 (N) (sm) (Entered: 03/11/1992)
STATUS REPORT for February/March 1992 of the Special Officer on Medical Services and Mental Health Staffing at the Central Facility; Exhibits (20) (sm) (Entered: 03/16/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits (3) (sm) (Entered: 04/06/1992)
MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for the Court's adoption of the February/March 1992 Report of the Special Officer on Medical Services and Mental Health Staffing at the Central Facility (sm) (Entered: 04/06/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $28,518.70 for her services and expenses; payment in the amount of $18,628.01 for fees and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and Ms. Coykendall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund; District of Columbia shall pay $18,628.01 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 4/22/92; directing payment in the amount of $9,890.69 for fees and expenses of Dr. Bailus Walker be drawn from Perpetual Account No. 500-726-02; District of Columbia shall pay $9,890.69 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish account number 500-726-02 by 4/22/92; (N) (clv) (Entered: 04/08/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of the Court disburse the sum of $25,000.00 directly to D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 35 of 137

04/09/1992 04/10/1992 04/13/1992 04/15/1992 04/23/1992
04/27/1992 04/27/1992 05/08/1992 05/08/1992 05/11/1992
05/12/1992

Project, Inc., 1420 20th St. NW, Suite 117,, Washington, DC 20036 on or about 4/23/92 (N) (clv) (Entered: 04/08/1992)
503 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for the Court's adoption of the February/March 1992 Report of the Special Officer on Medical Services and Mental Health Staffing at the Central Facility [2191] by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (sm) (Entered: 04/13/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA the sum of $15,424.34 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 3/11/92 (sm) (Entered: 04/10/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC, defendant USA, plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (sm) (Entered: 04/14/1992)
504 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing District of Columbia to pay Covington & Burling the sum of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00) in full settlement of fees and costs; (N) (clv) (Entered: 04/15/1992)
505 STIPULATION filed by both parties and fiated by Judge June L. Green for contempt fines regarding correctional Officer shortages with agreement by the parties that defendants shall pay into the registry of the Court the sum of $9,500.00 withing 45 days of the filing of this stipulation. (N) (sm) (Entered: 04/23/1992)
506 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for finding of contempt , and for sanctions , and for attorney fees for medical and mental health conditions at Lorton Central Facility ; Exhibits (6) (sm) (Entered: 04/28/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA the sum of $28,528.70 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 4/7/92 (sm) (Entered: 04/28/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 5/15/92 to respond to Motion for Finding of Contempt, Imposition of Sanctions and Award of attorney's fees for medical and mental health conditions at Lorton Central Facility (sm) (Entered: 05/11/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits (3) (sm) (Entered: 05/11/1992)
507 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [225-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,166.88 for services and expenses; directing that payment be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund established by previous orders of this Court; directing that the District of Columbia pay the sum of $17,166.88 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by May 26, 1992 (N) (sm) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
508 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/15/92 to respond to Motion for Finding of Contempt, Imposition of Sanctions and Award of attorney's fees for medical and mental health

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 36 of 137

05/18/1992 05/21/1992
05/21/1992 05/28/1992 05/28/1992 06/01/1992
06/09/1992 06/10/1992

conditions at Lorton Central Facility [224-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 response to motion due 5/15/92 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 ; (N) (sm) (Entered: 05/13/1992)
509 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 5/22/92, to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition and sanctions and award of attorneys'fees for medical and mental health conditons at Lorton Central Facility (lpp) (Entered: 05/20/1992)
510 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/22/92, to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition and sanctions and award of attorneys'fees for medical and mental health conditons at Lorton Central Facility [509-1] by DC in 1:80cv-02136, granting motion for compensation [225-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/26/1992)
511 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court to expend funds Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 05/27/1992)
512 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [5111] in 1:80-cv-02136, granting motion for compensation [225-1] in 1:79cv-01726; directing the clerk of the court to transfer $20,000.00 to the Special Master's checking account as soon as funds become available; with instructions to the Special Officer. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
514 MOTION (consent) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/5/92 to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions and award of attorneys' fees for medical and mental health conditions at Lorton Central Facility (cjp) (Entered: 06/03/1992)
513 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 6/5/92 , to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition and sanctions and award of attorneys'fees for medical and mental health conditons at Lorton Central Facility [509-1] by DC; setting a hearing on this matter at 10:30 A.M. on 6/9/92.(N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/01/1992)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court for special officer for compensation Exhibits (3) (lpp) Modified on 06/10/1992 (Entered: 06/10/1992)
515 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $22,799.84 for services and expenses; directing that payment in the amount of $17,587.51 for fees and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and Ms. Coykendall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; directing the District of Columbia shall pay $17,587.51 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by June 26, l992; directing that payment in the amount of $5,212.33 for services and expenses of Dr. Robert Cohen and Dr. Cassandra Newkirk be drawn from the Perpetual/Crestar Savings Account; directing that the District of Columbia pay $5,212.33 to the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 37 of 137

06/12/1992 06/30/1992 07/02/1992 07/07/1992 07/07/1992 07/09/1992
07/24/1992 07/27/1992 07/31/1992

Clerk of the Court to replenish the Perpetual/Crestar account by June 26, l992. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
516 CONSENT ORDER setting forth an agreement among the parties regarding medical and mental health standards, including provisions for fines and sanctions. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/12/1992)
517 STIPULATION filed and fiated by Judge June L. Green that based on the Special Officer's report of 3/24/92, defts. had 8 lots of expired ldrugs in the Central Infirmary. Pursuant to the Court's Order of 12/14/89, the parties agree that defts. shall pay into the Registry of the Court the sum of $8,000 within 45 days of the filing of this stipulation. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
518 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 7/31/92, to file proposed procedure to facilitate the special officer's ability to contract (lpp) (Entered: 07/07/1992)
519 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 7/31/92, to file proposed procedure to facilitate the special officer's ability to contract [518-1] by TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/07/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation Exhibits (5) (lpp) (Entered: 07/09/1992)
520 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for special officer for compensation; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $42,988.72 for services and expenses; directing that payment in the amount of $l8,319.03 for fees and expenses of Special Officer Lopes be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund established by previous orders; directing the District of Columbia to pay $l8,319.03 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by July 20, l992; directing that the anmount of $14,707.77 for services and expenses of Dr. Downer, Ms. Coykendall and Ms. Romero be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account established by previous orders; directing the District of Columbia pay $l4,707.77 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by July 20, l992; directing that payment in the amount of $9,961.92 for services and expenses of Dr. Newkirk be drawn on the Crestar Savings Account immediately after defendants replenish this account; directing the District of Columbia pay $9,961.92 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by July 31, l992. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/09/1992)
521 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 9/15/92 to file a quality assurance plan with the Court (ks) (Entered: 07/27/1992)
522 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 9/15/92 to file a quality assurance plan with the Court [521-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/27/1992)
523 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant and plaintiff(s) of procedure to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 38 of 137

08/04/1992 08/06/1992 08/10/1992 08/12/1992
08/13/1992 08/13/1992 08/28/1992 09/02/1992 09/08/1992 09/08/1992

facilitate special officer's ability to contract for medical and mental health positions (lpp) (Entered: 08/04/1992)
524 ORDER by Judge June L. Green setting forth instructions to the Special Officer; directing defts. to pay into the court registry, within five days of the receipt of notice from the Special Officer to do so, a total amount of anticipated costs. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 08/05/1992)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, the Special Officer for compensation Exhibits; (5) (lpp) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
525 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 9/11/92 to submit a revised draft of the plans and 9/18/92 to finalize plans (lpp) (Entered: 08/11/1992)
526 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [240-1] directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $32,355.29 for her services and expenses and the services and expenses of her investigative assistants, staffing consultant and nutrition consultant; directing that payment in the amount of $17,m971.00 for fees for Ms. Coykendall, Mr. Roche, Mr. Henderson and Dr. Downer be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; Directing that the District of Columbia pay $l7,971.00 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by August 24, l992; Directing that payment in the amount of $14,383.74 for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; directing the District of Columbia pay $l4,383.74 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish he //crestar Savings Account by Augsut 24, l992.(N) (bjl) (Entered: 08/12/1992)
Text not available. (Entered: 08/13/1992)
527 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 9/11/92 to submit a revised draft of the plans and 9/18/92 to finalize plans [525-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 08/13/1992)
529 MOTION filed by Special Officer to award contingent and restricted funding Exhibits: (3) (lpp) Modified on 09/04/1992 (Entered: 09/04/1992)
528 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting motion of Special Officer to award contingent and restricted funding; setting forth instructions to the Special Officer and directing the Clerk of the Court to deposit $60,000.00 from the Lorton Fund into the Speccial Officer's checking account.(N) : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
531 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Green amending final settlement agreement and consent decree of 4/28/92, the amended decree of 8/18/83, the amended decree of 3/4/85 and the consent decree of 12/14/90 (lpp) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer appointed Grace M. Lopes for special officer for compensation for special officer for compensation Exhibits:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 39 of 137

09/09/1992 09/09/1992
09/10/1992
09/10/1992 09/15/1992
09/18/1992 09/23/1992

(4) (lpp) (Entered: 09/10/1992)
530 JOINT MOTION by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) in for adoption of consent decree amendment regarding modular 200 unit (lpp) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
532 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [237-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $19,903.13 for services and expenses; directing that payment in the amount of $19,903.13 for services and fees be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund established by previous orders of this Court; directing the District of Columbia pay $19,903.13 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by 9/23/92. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
533 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time for filing a plan addressing the special needs of physically handicapped inmates be extended to 9/25/92, special medical diets plan be filed by 10/20 /92; plan for implementation of a computerized pharmacy system be filed 10/2/92 draft being provided to plaintiffs and the Special Officer by 9/25/92, and the Special Officer's report on whether masters degree social workers should continue to staff psychologist's positions be extended unitl 9/25/92 (lpp) Modified on 09/24/1992 (Entered: 09/14/1992)
534 NOTICE OF FILING by the Special Officer of compliance with consent decree requirements related to the psychiatrist employed at the Central Facility, Attachment (1) (lpp) (Entered: 09/15/1992)
535 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time for filing a plan addressing the special needs of physically handicapped inmates be extended to 9/25/92, special medical diets plan be filed by 20/26/92; plan for implementation of a computerized pharmacy system be filed by 10/2/92 draft being provided to plaintiffs and the Special Officer by 9/25/92, and the Special Officer's report on whether masters degree social workers should continue to staff psychologist's positions be extended until 9/25/92 [533-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136, granting motion for special officer for compensation [246-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/16/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to submit its plan 10/20/92 (dcn) (Entered: 09/21/1992)
536 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time for filing a plan addressing the special needs of physically handicapped inmates be extended to 9/25/92, special medical diets plan be filed by 10/20 /92; plan for implementation of a computerized pharmacy system be filed 10/2/92 draft being provided to plaintiffs and the Special Officer by 9/25/92, and the Special Officer's report on whether masters degree social workers should continue to staff psychologist's positions be extended unitl 9/25/92 [533-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 due by 10/20/92 in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 40 of 137

09/23/1992 09/24/1992
10/09/1992 10/21/1992
10/21/1992 11/03/1992 11/05/1992 11/16/1992
11/20/1992 11/25/1992

(N) (lpp) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
537 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 10/20/92, to submit its plan to address and remedy general maintenance and structural deficiencies in Dorm 20 and Infirmary and the Special Officer's report on whether masters degree social workers should continue to staff psychologist's positions (lpp) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
538 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/20/92, to submit its plan to address and remedy general maintenance and structural deficiencies in Dorm 20 and Infirmary and the Special Officer's report on whether masters degree social workers should continue to staff psychologist's positions [537-1] by DC in 1:80-cv02136, granting motion to extend time to submit its plan 10/20/92 [2481] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer, for compensation (lpp) (Entered: 10/13/1992)
539 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $33,590.57; directing the District of Columbia to pay $l8,631.82 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by l0/30/92; directing that payment in the amount of $14,958.75 to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by l0/30/92. [251-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/22/1992)
540 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 11/30/92, to submit its evaluation of the care services, and physical facilities available to handicapped inmates (lpp) (Entered: 10/22/1992)
541 MOTION by Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes, for an extention of time to file her report and recommendation on mental health staffing at the central facility (lpp) Modified on 11/05/1992 (Entered: 11/05/1992)
542 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion [541-1] in 1:80-cv02136 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 11/06/1992)
543 ORDER by Judge June L. Green :directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,917.27 for her services and expenses, and the services and expenses of her investigative assistants and expert consultant; directing that this payment be drawn from the $20,000 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; directing the District of Columbia pay $17,917.27 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000 fund account by 11/30/92. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 11/16/1992)
544 MOTION filed by Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes to expend funds , Exhibits: (3) (lpp) Modified on 11/24/1992 (Entered: 11/23/1992)
545 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [5441]; the Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a check for $20,000.00 to the Special Officer for deposit in the Special Officer's checking account

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 41 of 137

11/30/1992 11/30/1992 11/30/1992 12/03/1992 12/03/1992
12/09/1992 12/11/1992
12/11/1992 12/15/1992
12/15/1992 12/15/1992
01/11/1993 01/13/1993

as soon as funds become available; Special Officer is directed to make full disbursement of this sum to the National Women's Law Center; Special Officer shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement (N) (lpp) (Entered: 11/25/1992)
546 STATUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Special Officer's on Mental Health Staffing at the Central Facility (lpp) (Entered: 11/30/1992)
547 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys'fees (lpp) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
548 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 4/15/93, to file a quality assurance plan (lpp) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
549 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/15/93, to file a quality assurance plan [548-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
550 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing that the District of Columbia pay Covington and Burling the sum of thirty thousand dollars in full settlement of fees and costs associated with obtaining the Order dated June l0, l992. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for sadoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (lpp) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the District of Columbia to pay the National Prison Project the sum of $26,400.00, and it is further ordered, payment shall be in full settlement of any claims by plaintiffs for attorneys' fees or costs (N) (lpp) (Entered: 12/13/1992)
551 MOTION by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer filed for Compensation Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
552 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL for plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, substituting Eric G. Lasker for attorney Clare Maureen Elmendorf for TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (lpp) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
553 COMMENTS/MEMORANDUM by plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 on the Special Officer's report and recommendations on mental Health Staffing at the Central Facility (lpp) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
554 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) in 1:86-cv-02128 for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the Health Case portion of this case (lpp) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer of the Court for Compensiation ; Exhibits (4) (ks) (Entered: 01/13/1993)
555 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Compensation;

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 42 of 137

01/14/1993 02/12/1993
02/12/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 03/02/1993 03/10/1993 03/12/1993

directing that the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $29,792.61 for her services and expenses and the services and expenses of her investigative assistant and expert consultants; further directing that payment in the amount of $19,929.88 for Ms. Lopes' services and expenses and Ms. Coykendall's services and expenses be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; directing that the District of Colummmbia pay $19,929.88 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by January 22, l993; further directing that payment in the amount of $9,862.73 for Dr. Newkirk's services and expenses and Mr. Henderson's services and expenses shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account that has been established by previous orders of this Court; directing that the District of Columbia pay $9,862.73 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by January 22, l993. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
(bjl) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
556 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Compensiation [263-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M.Lopes the sum of $14,961.92 for her services and expenses and that the payment be drawn from the $20,000. fund established by previous orders; further ordered that the District of Columbia pay $14,961.92 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000. fund by 3/1/93; directing Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $14,276.25 for services and expenses of her investigative assistant and her expert consultant; directing that this payment be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account established by previous orders of this Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $14,276.25 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account bty 3/1/93. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
557 MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation Exhibits (3) (lpp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
558 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant DC for protective order (jeb) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by District of Columbia of plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Charles Braslow. (jeb) Modified on 02/26/1993 (Entered: 02/26/1993)
559 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to within which it must submit its plan on addressing special needs of physically handicapped inmates (lpp) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
560 MOTION filed by special Officer for Compensation , Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 03/11/1993)
561 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Compensation [270-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136; directing that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $16,000.55 for services and expenses for herself and her investigative assistant; this payment to be

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 43 of 137

03/19/1993 03/22/1993 03/30/1993 04/05/1993
04/05/1993 04/09/1993 04/14/1993
04/20/1993

drawn from $20,000.00 fund; directing that District of Col. pay $16,000.55 to Clerk of Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund; directing that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M.Lopes the sum of $8,263.14 for services and expenses of her expert consultant ; directing that this payment be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; directing the District of Columbia to pay $8,263.14 to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 3/19/93. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
562 MOTION filedi Grace M. Lopes, to expend funds , Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 03/22/1993)
563 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [5621] in 1:80-cv-02136, 1:79-cv-01726, granting motion for Compensation; with instructions to the Clerk of the Court and the parties and the Special Officer. (N) [270-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/22/1993)
564 ORDER by Judge June L. Green recting that if the Federal City Council does not demonstrate that it has raised the remainder of the funds to support the budget that was submitted to the Special Officer by August 31, l993, this grant award shall be automatically vacated. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/30/1993)
565 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [2721] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136: Clerk of the Court will pay the sum of $30,587.64 for her services and expenses and staff; Further Ordered that payment in the amount of $16,788.95 for the fees and expenses of Ms. Lopes be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account extablished by previous order of this Court; Further Ordered the District of Columbia shall pay $16,788.95 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account; Further ordered that payment in the amount of $13,798.69 for the services and expenses of Ms. Coykendall and Dr. Shansky be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; Further Ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay $12,798.69 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/05/1993)
566 MOTION filed by Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes for compensatiion Exhibit: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 04/07/1993)
567 MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes for return of Funds Exhibit: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
568 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for return of Funds [567-1; the United Black fund shall deposit the full balance in all accounts maintained for the Bonding Initiative Program into the Registry of the Court; the Department of Corrections and the United Black Fund shall promptly deposit into the Registry of the Court all fees collected from BIP Program participants in the future (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
569 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing that the August 15, l993 Order does not authorize Special Officer Lopes to perform judicial functions in

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 44 of 137

04/20/1993 04/21/1993 04/22/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/28/1993
05/03/1993 05/07/1993 05/07/1993

the above captioned cases; directing the Special Officer's findings of fact and recommendations have been and shall continue to be treated as advisory in nature; directing that the Court shall continue to make all determinations in the above captioned cases upon full consideration of the Special Officer's report and all information, including filed papers and testimony provided by the parties in each case. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/21/1993)
570 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) in 1:86-cv-02128 for order to show cause regarding mental health , Exhibits: (16), Bulky pleading (lpp) (Entered: 04/21/1993)
572 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent odecree amending final settlement and consent decree of 3/23/84 and the order of 7/11/91 , Attachment (1) (lpp) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
571 CONSENT DECREE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, Amending Final Settlement and Consent Decree of March 23, l984 and the Order of July 11, l991, Attachments, Fiat (lpp) (Entered: 04/22/1993)
573 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: this Court's 9/1/92 order is vacated, Clerk of the Court shall promptly return these funds to the general Lorton Funds accounts (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/26/1993)
574 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court to vacate the 9/1/92, Order , Exhibit: (1) (lpp) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
575 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court to expend funds , Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
NOTICE OF FILING of the Special Officer's recommondations concernings the 4/21/93 proposed amendment to the consent decrees (dmb) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
576 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [5751] in 1:80-cv-02136, 1:79-cv-01726; directing that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check in the amount of $20,000.00 by June 1, l993 to the Special Officer whoc shall deposit it in her checking account; directing the Special Officer to make full disbursement of this sum ($20,000.00) to the Lorton Art Program for operating costs incurred during period of June 1, l993 and ending May 31, l993; directing Special Officer to receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
577 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for protective order (lpp) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
578 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court, for Compensation Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 05/10/1993)
579 NOTICE by Grace M. Lopes, special Officer of the Court, Exhibit (1)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 45 of 137

05/11/1993
05/24/1993
06/02/1993 06/04/1993 06/08/1993
06/09/1993 06/15/1993 07/01/1993

(lpp) (Entered: 05/10/1993)
580 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for Compensation [288-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:81-cv-02072, 1:86-cv02128, the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,251.22 for her services and expenses and Dr. Ronald Shanksy's expenses, this payment shall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $19,251.22 to the Clerk of the COurt in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 5/21/93; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $11,718.33 for the services and expenses of her investigative assistant and expert consultant; this payment shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; Further Ordered the District of columbia shall pay $11,718.33 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 5/21/93 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 05/12/1993)
581 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to enlarge the tiem wihin which defendant must submit its plan on addressing the special needs of physically handicapped inmates; Further Ordered that time for defendant to submit its written evaluation of the care, services and physical facilities is extended to 3/30/93; a draft of the final plan to address the special needs of the physically handicapped at the Central Faciity is to be provided to plaintiffs and the Special Officer by 4/30/93 and Final draft of the plan by 5/31/93 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
583 MOTION filed to continue hearing date (lpp) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
585 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to continue hearing date [370-1] in 1:86-cv-02128, 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:81-cv02072 motion hearing set for 7/1/93 in 1:86-cv-02128, in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
582 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Compensation [288-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136; that the Clerk of Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,356.32 for her services and expenses and the sum of $20,244.46 for the services and espenses of her investigative assistants and her expert consultant; Ordered that the DC shall pay $17,356.32 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the 20,000.00 fund account by 6/21/93, and pay $20,244.46 to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 6/21/93 (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
584 MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes, to Expend funds (lpp) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
586 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion Expend funds; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) which the Special Officer shall deposit in her trustee checking account; setting forth certain instructions to defendants and the Special Officer; [584-1] in 1:80-cv-02136, 1:79-cv01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
587 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: Stricking defendants' surreply from the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 46 of 137

07/07/1993 07/08/1993
07/08/1993 08/10/1993 08/11/1993
08/18/1993

record; denying plaintiffs' motion to hold defendants in contempt; Parties shall meet with Special Officer Grace Lopes to discuss the delivery of mental health services to acutely mentally ill residents of the Occoquan Facility of Lorton Reformatory; dismissing motion for protective order by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER [362-1] (lpp) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes, for Compensation, Exhibits: (5) (lpp) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
588 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for Compensation [288-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:81-cv-02072, 1:86-cv02128; the Clerk of the Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,348.32 for her services and expenses and Dr. Ronald Shanksy's services and expenses; Payment should be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; D.C. shall pay $18,348.32 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 found account by the 7/23/93; the Clerk of the Court will shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $15,955.00 for the services and expenses of her investigative assistants and Dr. Goulda Downer's services and expenses; this payment be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; Further Ordered the District of Columbia shall pay $15,955.00 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 7/23/93 (N) (lpp) Modified on 07/08/1993 (Entered: 07/08/1993)
589 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the clerk of the Court to disburse a check in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to purchase fans for the Maximum Security Facility; check shall be made payable to vendor; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Officer Grace M. Lopes for compensation , Exhibit: (4) (lpp) (Entered: 08/11/1993)
590 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [301-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $13,996.70 for the services and expenses of her investigative assistants; the District of Columbia shall pay $13,996.70 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,00.00 fund account; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $24,095.06 for her services and expenses and Dr. Robert Cohen's services and expenses; the District of Columbia shall pay $24,095.06 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 08/12/1993)
591 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion Expend funds [584-1] in 1:80-cv-02136, [295-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, [179-1] in 1:81-cv-02072, [371-1] in 1:86-cv-02128; Special Officer shall issue a check in the amount of $1,666.99 that is drawn from her trustee checking account directly to the Springfield, Hilton Hotel and Springfield, Virginia in order to subsidize the cost of the mental health transfer workship; the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check from the Lorton Fund to the Special Officer in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars in order to subsidize the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 47 of 137

08/18/1993 09/08/1993
09/08/1993 09/09/1993 09/14/1993 09/14/1993
09/15/1993 10/04/1993 10/06/1993 10/06/1993
10/14/1993

expenses of the tool and key control training; the Special officer shall pay the expenses of the tool and key control training from the above-stated disbursement following receipt and review of all appropriate receipts and invoices (N) (lpp) (Entered: 08/18/1993)
592 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes to expend funds , Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 08/19/1993)
593 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant and Judge June L. Green : that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $10,605.00 for the services and expenses of Ms. Coykendall, Mr. Roche and Dr. Downer; that the District of Columbia shall pay $10,605.00 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 9/22/93; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $25,790.39 for her services and expenses and Dr. Belitsky's services and expenses; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $25,790.39 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 9/22/93 (N) (Original filed in CA 1462-71) (ks) Modified on 09/09/1993 (Entered: 09/09/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace m. Lopes for compensation (lpp) (Entered: 09/09/1993)
594 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Master to expend fund, Appendix (lpp) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
595 MOTION filed Special Master Grace M. Lopes to expend funds , Exhibit (2) (lpp) (Entered: 09/15/1993)
596 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [5951] in 1:80-cv-02136; the Clerk of the COurt shall issue a check in the amount of $1000.00 to the Special Officer which the Spcial Officer shall deposit in her trustee checking account; the Special Officer shal disburse this sum to Physician Assistant Eleanor Engeti (N) (lpp) (Entered: 09/15/1993)
Text not available. (Entered: 09/15/1993)
DEPOSIT of $25,790.39 and $10,605.00 by Corporation Counsel pursuant to Order of 9/8/93 (ks) (Entered: 10/05/1993)
597 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff(s) TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 by Clare M. Elmendorf (lpp) (Entered: 10/07/1993)
598 ORDER by Judge Joyce H. Green : granting motion to expend fund, Appendix [594-1]; the clerk of the Court shall issue a check in the amount of $447.00 to the Special Officer which the Special Officer shall deposit in her trustee checking account; the special officer shall thereafter issue a check from her trustee checking account in the amount of $447.00 to the National Seminars Group in order to pay for the cost of 8/2/93, Total Quality Management Training (N) (lpp) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
599 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Compensation [307-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 48 of 137

10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/18/1993 11/08/1993 11/09/1993
12/09/1993 12/15/1993 12/15/1993

Lopes the sum of $16,943.16 for her services and expenses and Dr. Downer's services and expenses; this payment will be drawn from the $20,00.00 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $16,943.16 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 10/22/93;the Clerk of the Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $35,767.75 for the services and expenses of Ms. Lee Ware Coykendall, Mr. Timothy Roche, Dr. Robert L. Cohn and Dr. Richard Belitsky; this payment shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account established by previous orders of this Court; and it is further ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay $35,767.75 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 10/22/93 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 10/14/1993)
STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 (lpp) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
600 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (lpp) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
601 ERRATA by plaintiffs TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiffs TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to status report filed 10/14/93. (bm) (Entered: 10/19/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes for compensation , Exhibits (2) (lpp) (Entered: 11/09/1993)
602 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [310-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,687.90 from the $20,000.00 fund account, established by previous orders, for services and expenses; directing D.C. to pay 18,687.90 to Clerk of Court by 11/19/93; directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes $13,502.97 from the Crestar Savings Account, established by previous orders, for services and expenses of Ms. Coykendall and Mr. Roche; directing D.C. to pay $13,502.97 to Clerk of Court by 11/19/93 (N) (ab) Modified on 11/10/1993 (Entered: 11/10/1993)
603 NOTICE by plaintiffs TWO JOHN DOES and TWELVE JOHN DOES of withdrawal of appearance of Care M. Elmendorf as counsel for plaintiffs. (bm) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
MOTION filed for compensation; exhibits (6) (pm) (Entered: 12/16/1993)
604 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation; [312-1] directing that the Clerk of Court pay Grace Lopez $15,491.21 for services and expenses and DC shall pay $15,491.21 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the fund account. The Clerk of Court shall pay Grace Lopez $12,941.00 for services and expenses of Ms. Coykendall, Ms. Schneider, Dr.Cohen, Dr. Downer and Mr. Roche and DC shall pay $12,941.00 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 12/31/93 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (pm) (Entered: 12/17/1993)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 49 of 137

01/10/1994 01/11/1994
02/09/1994 02/10/1994
02/15/1994 02/16/1994 03/03/1994 03/14/1994 03/15/1994

MOTION filed Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court for Compensation , Exhibit: (4) (lpp) (Entered: 01/12/1994)
605 ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green : that the Clerk pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $14,618.30 for her services and expenses and Dr. Robert L. Cohen's services and expenses; that the District of Columbia shall pay $14,618.30 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 1/25/94; the the Clerk of Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $10,820.50 for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Roche; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $10,820.50 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 1/25/94 (N) (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (ks) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (lpp) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion by the parties for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees [381-1] directing that the District of Columbia pay the National Prison Project the sum of fortysix thousand six hundred and twenty-one dollars ($46,621.00); directing that the payment shall be in full settlement of any claims by plaintiffs for atorneys' fees or costs that may be asserted in this matter for the time period from August 1, 1992 through August 31, 1993. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/14/1994)
606 MOTION filed by Special Office of the Court, Grace M. Lopes for compensation , Exhibit (3) (lpp) Modified on 02/22/1994 (Entered: 02/16/1994)
607 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [317-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 02/22/1994)
608 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (lpp) (Entered: 03/04/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace Lopes for compensation , Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 03/15/1994)
609 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [320-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,747.00 for her services and expenses; this payment will be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; the District of Columbia shall pay $17,747.00 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account; the Clerk of the Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $16,320.44 for the services and expenses; this payment shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; the District of Columbia shall pay $16,320.44 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account before 3/29/94 (lpp) Modified on 03/17/1994 (Entered: 03/17/1994)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 50 of 137

04/05/1994 04/06/1994
04/11/1994 04/12/1994 04/12/1994 04/14/1994 05/09/1994 05/17/1994 05/19/1994 05/19/1994
05/27/1994 05/31/1994

610 MOTION filed for (lpp) (Entered: 04/06/1994)
611 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for [610-1], the Clerk of the Court shall issue four checks in the amount of $688.00 from the Crestar Account paid to the order of the following Department of Corrections employees who have been designated as participants in the American Correctional Health Association 1994 Multidisciplinary Training Conference; these checks shall be issued by the Clerk of the Court on an expedited basis directly to Grace M. Lopes; Grace M. Lopes shall promptly distribute the checks; participants shall provide documentation of their expenses to the Special Officer within ten days following the attendance of the training conference (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes for compensation Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
612 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [325-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/15/94 [323-1] by DC response to motion(s) due by 4/15/94 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 4/21/94, to submit its response to plaintiff's contempt motion (lpp) (Entered: 04/15/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : hearing on the Motion fo rFinding of Contempt and Imposition of Sanctions set for 10:00 6/7/94 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 05/10/1994)
613 MOTION filed special master for compensation Attachments (lpp) (Entered: 05/19/1994)
614 JOINT STIPULATION filed regarding automatic fines for expired drugs. (N) (bm) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
615 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [334-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 the Clerk of the Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $16,357.43; payment will be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; the District of Columbia shall pay $16,357.43 to the Clerk of the Court replenish the $20,000.00 fund account; the Clerk of Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,760.28 for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Robert L. Cohen, payment will be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; D.C. shall pay $19,760.28 to the Clerk of the Court in order to treplenish the Crestar Savings Accountby 6/2/94 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
617 MOTION filed by Special Officer to expend funds ; exhibits (3). (bm) (Entered: 06/01/1994)
616 STIPULATED ORDER by Judge June L. Green : regarding automatic fines for expired drugs; defendants are subject to an automatic fine of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 51 of 137

06/02/1994
06/10/1994 06/14/1994 07/05/1994 07/05/1994 07/05/1994 07/06/1994
08/09/1994
08/09/1994

$1,000. for eahc violation for a total amolunt of $4,000. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/31/1994)
618 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [6171] in 1:80-cv-02136; the clerk of the Court shall ssue a check to the Special Officer in the amount of $25,000.00 which the Special Officer shall deposit in her trustee checking account; the Special Officer shall make full disbursement of the sum to the Lorton Art Program, Inc., for the operating costs incurred during the period commencing on 6/1/94 and ending on 5/31/95; and it is further ordered that the Special Officer shall received periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/03/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace Lopez for compensation , Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 06/15/1994)
620 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [339-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (lpp) Modified on 07/22/1994 (Entered: 06/15/1994)
621 MOTION of Special Officer Grace M. Lopes for compensation; Exhibits A-F. (jeb) Modified on 07/22/1994 (Entered: 07/06/1994)
DEPOSIT by Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia into the registry of the Court the sum of $20,329.52. (jeb) (Entered: 07/06/1994)
DEPOSIT by Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia for the D.C. Department of Corrections the sum of $20,671.94 in the registry of the Court. (jeb) (Entered: 07/06/1994)
622 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,407.63 for her services and expenses as well as Dr. Downer's services and expenses; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $27,315.26 for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Dr. Belitsky, and Dr. Cohen (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N)(ks) Modified on 07/22/1994 (Entered: 07/15/1994)
623 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation; [341-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136; the Clerk of the Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,511.02 for her services and expenses and Ms. Schneider's services and expenses; payment will be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account extablished by previous order; District of Columbia shall pay $19,511.02 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund; the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $21,880.43 for services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Henderson; this payment will be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account established by previous order of the Court; the District of Columbia whall pay $21,880.43 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 08/10/1994)
MOTION filed Special Master Grace M. Lopes for compensation , Exhibits (5) (lpp) (Entered: 09/07/1994)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 52 of 137

09/09/1994 09/09/1994 09/09/1994 09/13/1994
10/14/1994 10/18/1994 10/20/1994
10/20/1994 10/21/1994
10/28/1994

STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 (lpp) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
624 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (lpp) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes for Compensation , Exhibit (4) (lpp) (Entered: 09/14/1994)
625 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and William B. Bryant : granting motion for Compensation [347-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,030.13 for the services and expenses of Mr Roche, Ms. Schneider, Mr. Hayes; payment shall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; the District of Columbia shall pay $17,030.13 to the Clerk of th4e Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 9/26/94; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $29,844.38 for the services and expenses of Ms. Lopes and Dr. Robert L. Cohen; payment shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; the District of Columbia shall pay $29,844.38 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 09/14/1994)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer, for protective order , Exhibits (5) (lpp) (Entered: 10/17/1994)
MOTION filed by special master, Grace M. Lopes, for compensation (lpp) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
626 COPY OF ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [350-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,265.15 for her services and expenses; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lpes the sum of $32,408.21 for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Mr. Hayes, Dr. Belitsky, Mr. Balsamo and Mr. Henderson (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Carrie Gansle (jeb) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
627 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for protective order [349-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 the depositon subpoena to Dr. Robert L. Cohn in CA 94-491 is quashed , Special Mater Grace M. Lopes and her staff, consultants, and experts shall not be deposed or other wise compelled to testify by any person regarding facts obtained and opinions formed in the performance of their duties without prior leave of Court (N) (lpp) (Entered: 10/24/1994)
MOTION filed by counsel for Clinton T. Eldridge for reconsideration of order the depositon subpoena to Dr. Robert L. Cohn in CA 94-491 is quashed [352-1], order Special Mater Grace M. Lopes and her staff, consultants, and experts shall not be deposed or other wise compelled to testify by any person regarding facts obtained and opinions formed in the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 53 of 137

11/07/1994 11/14/1994
11/14/1994 11/16/1994
11/21/1994 11/23/1994
12/01/1994 12/12/1994 12/13/1994 12/13/1994

performance of their duties without prior leave of Court [352-2], order [352-3] Attachments (A) (lpp) (Entered: 10/31/1994)
RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to motion for protective order [349-1] (lpp) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
RESPONSE in opposition to motion for reconsideration of order the depositon subpoena to Dr. Robert L. Cohn in CA 94-491 is quashed [352-1], order Special Mater Grace M. Lopes and her staff, consultants, and experts shall not be deposed or other wise compelled to testify by any person regarding facts obtained and opinions formed in the performance of their duties without prior leave of Court [352-2], order [352-3] [353-1] . (lpp) (Entered: 11/15/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Master GraceM. Lopes for compensation , Affidavit (1), Exhibits (5) (lpp) (Entered: 11/15/1994)
628 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [356-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $10,725.23 for her services and expenses as well as the services and expenses of Mr. Hayes and Mr. Henderson; this payment shall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; the District of Columbia shall pay $10,725.23 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20.000.00 fund account by 11/30/94; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace m. Lopes the sum of $13,508.01 for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche and Ms. Schneider; this payment shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; the District of Columbia shall pay $13,508.01 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 11/30/94 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 11/16/1994)
629 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (lpp) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
REPLY to response to motion for reconsideration of order the depositon subpoena to Dr. Robert L. Cohn in CA 94-491 is quashed [352-1], order Special Mater Grace M. Lopes and her staff, consultants, and experts shall not be deposed or other wise compelled to testify by any person regarding facts obtained and opinions formed in the performance of their duties without prior leave of Court [352-2], order [352-3] [353-1] Exhibits (3) (lpp) (Entered: 11/25/1994)
630 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : vacating without prejudice the Court's Order of 10/24/94 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 12/02/1994)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Master, for compensation , Exhibit: (4) (lpp) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of John Thomas by plaintiff in 1:79cv-01726. (bm) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
631 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 54 of 137

12/19/1994 01/17/1995 01/19/1995
02/10/1995 02/14/1995 03/03/1995 03/10/1995 03/10/1995

[361-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; the Cler of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,671.13 for services and expenses as well as for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Balsamo; the District of Columbia shall pay $19,671.13 to the Clerk of the Court in order tor eplenish the $20,000.00 fund account; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes, $21,711.86 for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Hayes and the law firm of Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor and Kolker; the District of Columbia shall pay $21,711.86 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
STIPULATION filed and fiated by Judge June L. Green regarding mental health compliance. (N) (ted) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes, for compensation , Exhibit (5) (lpp) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
632 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [363-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of the COurt shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,936.67 for her services and expenses as weel as the services and expenses of Mr. Roche and Ms. Schneider; the District of Columbia shall pay $18,936.67 to the Clerk of the Court inorder to replenish the $20,000.00 fund; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $4,427.91 for thew services and expenses of Mr. Hayes and Dr. Shansky; the District of Columbia shall pay $4,427.91 to the Clewrk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestary Savings Account; the Clerk of the COurt shall pay Grace M. Lopes fromt he Inmates of Modular Facility saving account established by previous order of the COurt the sum of $23,364.58, compensation for the services and expenses of Special Oficer Lopes, Mr. Roche, Ms.Schneider, Mr. Haryes and Dr. Shansky; the District of Columbia shall pay $23,364.58 to the Clerk opf the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular Facility savings account by 1/1/95. (N) (lpp) (Entered: 01/30/1995)
633 TRANSCRIPT filed for status hearing held on 10/20/94. Reporter: Carrie Gansle (lpp) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
MOTION filed by Grace Lopes, Special Master for compensation , exhibits (6) (lpp) (Entered: 02/15/1995)
634 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for leave to file under seal motion of plaintiff EXHIBITS: FINDINGS filed under seal in room 1800 (lpp) Modified on 03/15/1995 (Entered: 03/06/1995)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 3/24/95 to file response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt (ted) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
636 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file under seal motion of plaintiff [634-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/15/1995)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 55 of 137

03/10/1995 03/14/1995 03/15/1995 03/15/1995 03/20/1995
03/27/1995 03/28/1995 03/28/1995 03/30/1995 04/03/1995 04/03/1995 04/04/1995

637 FINDINGS OF FACT and Conclusions of Law, pursuant to court order dated 3/10/95, this pleading is filed under seal in room 1800 . (lpp) (Entered: 03/16/1995)
635 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 3/28/95 to file response to contempt motion (ted) (Entered: 03/15/1995)
638 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 3/28/95 to file response to contempt motion [635-1] by DC in 1:80-cv02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
639 MOTION filed by Special Master, Grace M. Lopes for compensation , Exhibits (6) (lpp) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
640 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [372-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,424.31 for her services and expenses, payament shall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; the District of Columbia, shall pay $17,424.31 to the Clerk of the Court in to replenish the $20,000.00 account; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $31,452.78 for the services and expenses Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Dr. Shansky, the law firm of Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor and Kolker and Mr. Henderson, this payment shall be drawn from the Crestar Account; the District of Columbia shall pay $31,452.78 to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
641 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 3/24/95 to file response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt [368-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/28/1995)
642 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 3/29/95 to file a response to plaintiffs' contempt motion [375-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/29/1995)
643 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 4/3/95 to respond to plaintiffs' contempt motion (lpp) (Entered: 03/29/1995)
644 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/3/95 to respond to plaintiffs' contempt motion [643-1] by DC response to motion due by 4/3/95 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 03/31/1995)
645 RESPONSE by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for findings of contempt of this Court's Orders concerning correctional officer, mental health and medical staffing and the treatment of handicapped prisoners . (lpp) (Entered: 04/04/1995)
646 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 by Jacques Philippe Lerner (lpp) (Entered: 04/04/1995)
648 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 by Jacques P. Lerner (lpp) (Entered: 04/09/1995)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 56 of 137

04/05/1995 04/07/1995 04/11/1995 04/12/1995 04/12/1995
04/14/1995 05/16/1995 05/16/1995
05/30/1995 06/01/1995

647 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/5/95, to respond to plaintiffs' contempt motion [379-1] by DC in 1:79cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/05/1995)
649 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 4/14/95i, to submit a reply to defendants' oppositon to the contempt motion (lpp) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
650 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/14/95i, to submit a reply to defendants' oppositon to the contempt motion [649-1] by TWO JOHN DOES reply to motion(s) due by 4/14/95 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
651 MOTION filed Special Master Grace Lopes for compensation (lpp) (Entered: 04/12/1995)
652 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [382-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of the COurt shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $58,814.40 in compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Dr. Cohen, Dr. Belitsky, Dr. Shansky and Mr. Hayes; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular Facility savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay $58,814.40 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Inmates of Modular Facility savings account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/12/1995)
653 REPLY by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 support of plaintiff's motion for findings of contempt of the Court's orders concerning officer staffing, medical staffing and the treatment of handicapped residents, Exhibits (5) (lpp) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
654 MOTION filed by Special Master Grace Lopes for Compensation attachments (lpp) (Entered: 05/17/1995)
655 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Compensation [386-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,303.30 for her services and expenses; D.C. shall pay $19,303.30 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000..00 fund; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,435.81 for the services and expenses; D.C. shall pay $18,435.81 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 05/19/1995)
656 MOTION filed by Special Officer to expend funds ; Exhibits(2) (ted) (Entered: 06/01/1995)
657 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [6561]; the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check to the Special Officer inthe amount of $25,000.00, the Special Officer shall deposit in her trustee checking account; full disbursement of this summ to the Lorton Art Program, Inc. for the operating costs incurred during the period commencing on 6/1/95 and ending on 5/31/96; the Special Officer shall

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 57 of 137

06/14/1995 06/14/1995
06/19/1995 06/21/1995 06/26/1995 06/30/1995 07/05/1995 07/05/1995 07/18/1995 07/18/1995
08/02/1995

receive progress reports regarding disbursement (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
MOTION filed by the Special Master Grace Lopes for order for compensation ; Exhibits (4) (ks) (Entered: 06/23/1995)
ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for order for compensation [389-1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $54,738.97 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Shansky (N) (ks) (Entered: 07/14/1995)
658 MOTION filed by special officer, Grace M. Lopes to expend fund and for compensation of office manager (lpp) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
659 RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion to expend fund and for compensation of office manager [658-1] . (lpp) (Entered: 06/22/1995)
660 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fund and for compensation of office manager [658-1] (N) (ted) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
661 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for leave to file a redacted version of its 3/3/95 contempt motion ; EXHIBIT (ted) (Entered: 07/05/1995)
662 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 of redacted version of their motion for findings of contempt. (ted) (Entered: 07/06/1995)
663 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file a redacted version of its 3/3/95 contempt motion [661-1] by TWO JOHN DOES, TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (ted) (Entered: 07/06/1995)
MOTION filed by the Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits (ted) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
664 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [392-1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $32,649.63 which represents compensation for the Sepcial Officer's fee and Ms. Schneider's fee and expenses; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,377.90 which represents compensation for Mr. Roche's fee and expenses and the Special Officer's expenses; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $15,356.51 which represents compensation for Dr. Shansky's fee and expenses (N) (ks) (Entered: 07/21/1995)
665 NOTICE OF FILING by Special Officer, Grace Lopes, of the 8/9/95 medical expert report; Attachment (ted) (Entered: 08/03/1995)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 58 of 137

08/11/1995 08/11/1995
08/14/1995 08/14/1995
08/15/1995 08/16/1995 08/22/1995 08/28/1995 08/28/1995 09/07/1995 09/12/1995 09/13/1995

MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits(7) (ted) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
668 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [394-1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,027.35 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and Ms. LaMarre; and that the Clerk of the Cour shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $32,449.82 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Mr. Hayes, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Shansky (N) (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (ks) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
666 MOTION (JOINT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136 to adopt consent order (ted) (Entered: 08/17/1995)
669 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to modify the Court's 8/11/95; and that the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $49,477.17 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of the Special Officer, Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Mr. Hayes, Dr. Cohen, Ms. LaMarre, and Dr. Shansky; and that the Court's 8/11/95 Order is vacated in lieu of this Order (Original Order filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for report by Special Officer concerning medical services ; Exhibits(9) (ted) (Entered: 08/16/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for report by special officer concerning medical services (ted) (Entered: 08/17/1995)
667 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green setting forth instructions for the parties pursuant to the Report of the Special Master filed on 8/2/95. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
DEPOSIT of $50,027.53 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 7/18/95. (ted) (Entered: 08/30/1995)
DEPOSIT of $90.00 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 5/16/95. (ted) (Entered: 08/30/1995)
REPLY by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 in support of motion for report by special officer concerning medical services [396-1] by JOHN DOE (ted) (Entered: 09/08/1995)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits(5) (ted) (Entered: 09/13/1995)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 RE: opposition to plaintiff's motion for report by Special Officer concerning medical services (JMF) Modified on 09/15/1995 (Entered: 09/15/1995)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 59 of 137

09/13/1995
10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/11/1995 10/12/1995 10/17/1995 10/18/1995 10/19/1995
10/23/1995

670 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [400-1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $31,387.72 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and Mr. Roche; and the the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,126.69 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Dr. Belitsky and Mr. Hayes (Original filed in CA 79-1726) (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/28/1995)
671 SPECIAL REPORT on defendants' compliance with the orders related to officer staffing, mental health staffing, medical staffing, services for handicapped inmates environmental health and safety, and certain medical emergencies; BULKY (JMF) (Entered: 10/12/1995)
672 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for special officer to investigate new enforcement (JMF) (Entered: 10/13/1995)
CONTEMPT HEARING before Judge June L. Green, parties to submit proposed order by 10/13/95. Reporter: Harry Deutsch (bjl) (Entered: 10/12/1995)
DEPOSIT of $17,126.69 into Court Registry pursuant to Order of 09/13/95. (JMF) (Entered: 10/12/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 for joinder in request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will ensure the defendants' complaince with this court's orders concerning medical and mental health services at lorton (JMF) (Entered: 10/18/1995)
MOTION filed by SPECIAL OFFICER for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 10/19/1995)
681 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [405-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $38,890.19 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche, Ms. Chneider, and Dr. Cohen (Original filed in CA 79-1726) (N) (ks) (Entered: 11/01/1995)
673 ORDER by Judge June L. Green finding defendants in violation of the staffing provisions contained in the prior orders of this Court; directing defendants to sub mit to the Court and to plaintiffs by 11/6/95 a detailed proposal regarding staffing; setting forth further instructions to defendants; directing defendants to pay $50,000.00 into an account under the Court's supervision by 11/22/95; setting forth instructions regarding the sum of $50,000.00; directing that plaintiffs shall be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorneys' fees; directing that plaintiffs shall have the right at any time to renew their motion for full amount of fines outstanding as of the date of such renewal. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/23/1995)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 60 of 137

10/23/1995 10/23/1995 10/23/1995 10/24/1995 10/25/1995 10/26/1995 10/26/1995 10/26/1995
10/31/1995 10/31/1995
11/01/1995
11/02/1995

674 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to deposit with the Clerk of the Court the sum of $200,000.00 (two hundred thousand dollars) by October 23, 1995. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
MOTION HEARING by plaintiff for contempt against defendant heard and granted (see order of 10/23/95) before Judge June L. Green Reporter: Susan Tyner (bjl) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
DEPOSIT by defendants' pursuant to order of October 23, 1995. Defendants' shall deposit with the Clerk of the Court $200,00.00 (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
675 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 11/6/95 to file response to plaintiff's request that the Special Officer be authorized to conduct investigation (JMF) Modified on 10/25/1995 (Entered: 10/25/1995)
DEPOSIT of $31,387.72 in to registry by DC Government (JMF) (Entered: 10/27/1995)
676 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 11/6/95 to file response to plaintiff's request that the Special Officer be authorized to conduct investigation [675-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/26/1995)
677 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time nunc pro tunc to submit plans pursuant to Court's Order of August 22, 1995 , and/or to to stay imposition of fines as to defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (JMF) (Entered: 10/30/1995)
678 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for order to incorporate the recommendations made by the special officer's medical expert into their emergency medical response plan ; attachments (2) (JMF) (Entered: 10/30/1995)
679 MOTION filed by plaintiffs in 1:80-cv-02136 for preliminary injunction (bjl) (Entered: 11/01/1995)
680 MOTION filed by plaintiffs' NATHANIEL MCQUEEN-EL, LAVANCE GREENE-BEY, EUGENE CUNNINGHAM, RAYMOND QUIGLEY, WALTER BROOKS-EL AND NORMAN MINOR-BEY in 1:80-cv02136 for temporary restraining order enjoining Covington and Burling from representing plaintiffs' (JMF) Modified on 12/26/1995 (Entered: 11/01/1995)
683 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to motion for temporary restraining order enjoining Covington and Burling from representing plaintiffs' [680-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES (JMF) (Entered: 11/03/1995)
682 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : denying motion for temporary restraining order [680-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 61 of 137

11/06/1995 11/07/1995 11/08/1995 11/13/1995 11/14/1995
11/16/1995 11/16/1995 11/20/1995
11/22/1995

DOES; Covington and Burling to file a response to the motion for preliminary injunction by 4:00 on 11/13/95; (N) (clv) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
684 MOTION (consent) filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 11/20/95 to file response to plaintiffs' request that special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms. (bjl) (Entered: 11/07/1995)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 of letter to plaintiff's counsel setting forth the actions defendant has taken to comply and maintain compliance with the officer staffing requirements imposed; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 11/08/1995)
685 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan for Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 11/20/95 to file response to plaintiffs' request that special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms. [411-1] by in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (jeb) Modified on 11/08/1995 (Entered: 11/08/1995)
687 RESPONSE by Non Party COVINGTON AND BURL. in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [679-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES; exhibits (6) . (JMF) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
688 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting Special Master's motion for compensation; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $29,112.66 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche, and Ms. Schneider; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $9,473.02 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Fisher and Mr. Henderson (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 11/21/1995)
686 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : directing plaintiff to file reply to the opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction by 11/28/95; status hearing set for 10:30 12/5/95 ; (N) (clv) (Entered: 11/16/1995)
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: status hearing set for 10:30 12/5/95 ; before Judge June L. Green . (clv) (Entered: 11/16/1995)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time for two additional days within which to file a response to plaintiffs' request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will insure defendants' compliance with this court's orders concerning medical and mental health services. (JMF) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to November 23, 1995 which to file a response to plaintiffs' request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will insure defendants' compliance with court's orders concerning medical and mental health services. [415-1] by

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 62 of 137

11/22/1995
11/22/1995 11/22/1995 11/27/1995 11/28/1995 12/04/1995 12/04/1995
12/05/1995 12/05/1995 12/05/1995

DC (N) (JMF) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
689 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time for two additional days within which to file a response to plaintiffs' request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will insure defendants' compliance with this court's orders concerning medical and mental health services. [415-1] by DC brief due by 11/24/95 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 ; in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (cjp) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 12/4/95 to deposit with the court the $50,000.00 payment in Court's order of October 23, 1995 (JMF) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
690 RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant DC in 1:80cv-02136 to plaintiffs' request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms (JMF) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv02128 of a request for the Special Officer be authorized to conduct an investigation; attachments (JMF) Modified on 11/30/1995 (Entered: 11/29/1995)
698 REPLY by plaintiffs' NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL , EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM, NORMAN MINOR, LAVANCE GREENEBEY, WALTER BROOKS-EL and RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv02136 to response to motion for preliminary injunction [679-1] by plaintiff class; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
691 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 12/4/95 to deposit with the court the $50,000.00 payment in Court's order of October 23, 1995 [417-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/05/1995)
699 REPLY by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 in support of their request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will insure the defendants' compliance with this Court's orders concerning medical and mental health services at Lorton; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
692 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 by Kemi Marlene Morten, Brian J.H. Lederer (JMF) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction before Judge June L. Green by petitioners heard and denied; motion by petitioners to intervene heard and denied. Reporter: Theresa Sorenson (bjl) Modified on 12/06/1995 (Entered: 12/06/1995)
700 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 in

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 63 of 137

12/06/1995
12/07/1995 12/13/1995
12/15/1995 12/15/1995 12/18/1995 12/20/1995 12/20/1995 01/02/1996 01/03/1996 01/03/1996

support of motion to extend time nunc pro tunc to submit plans pursuant to Court's Order of August 22, 1995 [677-1] by DC, motion to stay imposition of fines as to defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 [677-2] by DC; attachments (3) (JMF) Modified on 12/26/1995 (Entered: 12/26/1995)
693 ORDER by Judge June L. Green denying petitioners' motion for substitution of class counsel; denying petitioners' alternative oral motion to intervene; denying petitioners' request for appointment of a receiver with broad administrative and fiscal authority to run the Central Facility on a day-to-day basis; granting petitioners' request for a protective order; prohibiting defendants from taking any retaliatory action against Nathaniel McQueen El, Eugene Cunningham, Norman Minor, LaVance Greene-Bey, Walter Brooks-el, Raymond Quigley or any of those who have affixed their name to the petition in this matter. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
MOTION filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to continue show cause hearing to 12/15/95 (ted) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
694 ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting Special Officer GRACE M. LOPES's motion for compensation; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $39,042.52 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, and Ms. Fisher (Original filed in CA 711462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
695 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge June L. Green (N) (jeb) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
696 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREED PLAN & CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : (N) (jeb) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
DEPOSIT of $36,585.68 into the registry of the court. (ted) (Entered: 12/20/1995)
697 MOTION filed by Government defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, for reconsideration and stay of the December 6, 1995 protective order. (bjl) (Entered: 12/21/1995)
MOTION filed by Special Officer Grace M. Lopes to increase compensation rate for special assistant (JMF) (Entered: 01/05/1996)
701 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to submit medical procurement plan (JMF) (Entered: 01/03/1996)
702 RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for reconsideration and stay of the December 6, 1995 protective order. [6971] by DC, DC . (JMF) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
703 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for a finding that defendants' proposed reduction of the UDC Program is unreasonable and in violation of the Court's orders concerning programs ; exhibits (2)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 64 of 137

01/03/1996
01/04/1996 01/04/1996 01/04/1996 01/11/1996 01/11/1996 01/11/1996
01/16/1996 01/17/1996

(JMF) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
705 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiffs' NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM and WALTER BROOKS-EL on behalf of of 1103 other named prisioners at Central Facility, Lorton Correctional Complex in 1:80-cv-02136 from order [693-1] , entered on: 12/06/95. No fees paid. Copies mailed to Peter Nickels, Charles Ruff and Kemi Morten, 2605 Wade Road, S.E., Washington, DC, 20020, (202) 562-2883 (JMF) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
704 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion to extend time nunc pro tunc to submit plans pursuant to Court's Order of August 22, 1995 [677-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 and/orto Stay Imposition of Fines. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [705-1] by WALTER BROOKS-EL, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM, NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL to U.S. Court of Appeals (JMF) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
706 ERRATA by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136 of corrected version of the Government's Motion for Reconsideration and Stay of December 6, 1995 Protective Order. (JMF) (Entered: 01/05/1996)
707 TRANSCRIPT filed for preliminary injunction hearing held on date(s) of December 5, 1995. Reporter: Theresa M. Sorensen (JMF) (Entered: 01/16/1996)
708 MOTION filed by SPECIAL OFFICER to expend funds on an expediated basis ; attachments (3) (JMF) (Entered: 01/16/1996)
709 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds on an expediated basis [708-1] in 1:80-cv-02136; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue one check in the amount of $25,000.00 drawn from the Modular checking account to Dr. Ronald Shransky and another check in the amount of $25,000.00 from the Crestar savings account to Dr. Shransky forthwith, and in any event before January 11, l996; setting forth instructions to the Receiver; further directing the Clerk of the Court to reimburse the Modular and Crestar accounts in the amount oif $25,000.00 each with contempt fine monies deposited pursuant to the 10/23/95 Order filed in 12 John Does vs. D.C.; directing the Receiver to, within 10 days of this Order, Dr. Ronald Shransky shall deposit with the Clerk of the Court the sum of $50,000.00 which shall constitute repayment of the monies expended pursuant to the first paragraph of this Order; directing Dr. Ronald Shransky to pay to the Clerk of the Court, out of his own monies, the sum of $150.00 which shall constitute repayment of the banking costs imposed for processing these transactions. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/16/1996)
713 MOTION filed by GRACE M. LOPES; SPECIAL OFFICER for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
USCA # 96-5003 assigned for appeal [705-1] by WALTER BROOKS-

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 65 of 137

01/17/1996 01/17/1996 01/17/1996
01/18/1996 01/18/1996 01/22/1996 01/22/1996
01/22/1996 01/25/1996 01/25/1996 01/29/1996

EL, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM, NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL (JMF) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
710 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 1/22/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants' proposed reduction of the UDC program (JMF) Modified on 01/18/1996 (Entered: 01/18/1996)
716 ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to increase compensation rate for special assistant [4291]; that Ms. Schneider's compensation rate shall be increased to $60.00 per hour (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
717 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [434-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:86-cv-02128; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $29,979.04 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Speical Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, and Ms. Lytle (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
711 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/22/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants' proposed reduction of the UDC program [710-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/19/1996)
712 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to file Meet and Confer Statement to January 30, 1996. (JMF) Modified on 01/19/1996 (Entered: 01/19/1996)
714 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file Meet and Confer Statement to January 30, 1996. [712-1] by DC Meet Confer Statement due date extended to 1/30/96 in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:79-cv-01726 in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
715 RESPONSE by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for a finding that defendants' proposed reduction of the UDC Program is unreasonable and in violation of the Court's orders concerning programs [703-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES . (JMF) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
718 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : motion hearing set for oral argument on 1:30 1/31/96 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (Original filed in CA 79-1726) (N) (ks) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
719 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion for finding of contempt and imposition of sanctions [430-1] by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
720 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendant's motion to extend time to 1/16/96, nunc pro tunc, referenced in the Court's order of October 23, 1995, to deposit with the Court the $50,000.00. [440-1] 1:79-cv01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
721 REPLY by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 in support of their for a motion for

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 66 of 137

01/31/1996 01/31/1996 01/31/1996 01/31/1996 02/01/1996 02/06/1996 02/07/1996
02/12/1996
02/12/1996

a finding that defendants' proposed reduction of the Program is unreasonable and in violation of the Court's orders concerning programs [703-1]; exhibits (2) JOHN DOES . (JMF) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
HEARING before Judge June L. Green regarding Maximum Facility and plaintiffs' request for a report to be submitted by the Special Master; the Court directs the Special Master to submit such report within two weeks; setting a hearing for 2/21/96 at 10:00 a.m. Reporter: Frank Rangus (bjl) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green for report by Special Officer regarding medical services heard and taken under advisement. Reporter: Frank Rangus (bjl) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
722 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for order covering automatic fines for defendants failure to prepare medical plans as required in this Court's August 22, 1995 Order. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
723 RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for reconsideration and stay of the December 6, 1995 protective order. [6971] by DC, DC ; exhibits (6). (JMF) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
724 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to provide, by 2/19/96, plaintiffs with any information that defendants believe will eliminate the concerns raised in the motion; direting that, no later than 7 days after receiving all of the defendants' information, the plaintiffs shall inform the Court whether or not they intend to withdraw their motion. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
725 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting oral motion by plaintiffs for emergency relief; setting forth instructions to the parties and the Special Officer; setting a hearing on 2/21/96 at 10:00 a.m. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/08/1996)
726 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing tht defendants shall report to the Court in writing, no later that 4/2/96 on their progress in hiring a correctional health care coordinator with systemwide supervisory authority over the provision of medical and mental health services at Lorton; if a coordinator is not hired by 4/2/96, oral argument is set for 4/10/96 at 1:30 P.M. : (N) (bjl) Modified on 02/08/1996 (Entered: 02/08/1996)
730 MOTION filed by plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136 for reconsideration of order [693-1] dated December 06, 1995, nun pro tunc ; (fiat) Green, J. (JMF) Modified on 02/22/1996 (Entered: 02/22/1996)
731 REPLY by plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136,

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 67 of 137

02/13/1996
02/15/1996 02/15/1996 02/21/1996
02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/22/1996 02/26/1996

plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136to to class counsel's opposition to petitioners' motion for reconsideration of 12/6/95 order. (JMF) (Entered: 02/22/1996)
727 RESPONSE by plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for reconsideration and stay of the December 6, 1995 protective order. [697-1] by DC, DC; attachments (6) . (JMF) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv02128 of tracking and recall system for inmates receiving psychiatric care. (ted) (Entered: 02/16/1996)
743 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation (JMF) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
728 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,921.87 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes; this check shall be drawn from the $20,000 Fund established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $18,921.87 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000 Fund by 3/5/96; the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $25,330.50 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle, Mr. Roche and Dr. Belitsky; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $25,330.50 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 3/5/96. (N) (bm) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
HEARING before Judge June L. Green regarding the status of Maximum Facilities held; further hearing set for 2/27/96 at 1:30 P.M. Reporter: Kay Moomey (Miller) (bjl) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
729 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726 and in 1:80-cv-02136 of letter dated 02/20/96 to Judge June L. Green. (JMF) (Entered: 02/22/1996)
732 MOTION (JOINT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to adopt consent order (JMF) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
733 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the District of Columbia to pay Covington and Burling the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) in full settlement of fees and costs associated with obtaining the Order dated October 23, 1995. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/27/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 68 of 137

02/26/1996 02/27/1996 02/27/1996
02/28/1996 02/29/1996
03/04/1996 03/04/1996
03/04/1996 03/05/1996 03/13/1996

735 MOTION (EMERGENCY) filed by petitioners' for show cause why class counsel should not be held in contempt for refusal to meet with petitioners as ordered by the Court ; attachments (8) (JMF) Modified on 02/29/1996 (Entered: 02/28/1996)
734 CONDSENT ORDER by the parties and Judge June L. Green : (N) (bjl) Modified on 02/28/1996 (Entered: 02/28/1996)
736 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv02136, defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136 to quash subpoenas served on City Administrator Michael Rogers and Anthony Williams, Chief Financial Officer (JMF) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
FURTHER HEARING before Judge June L. Green regarding status of Maximum heard and taken under advisement. Reporter: Harry Deutsch (bjl) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
737 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting oral motion by plaintiffs' for further emergency relief; setting forth specific instructions to defendants and directing the Special Officer to report to the parties and the Court by 3/15/96 as to whether defendants have complied with certain requirements; instructions are set forth for the Special Officer; setting a hearing for 2:30 P.M. on 4/10/96 to determine whether additional relief is necessary to achieve compliance with the Court's Orders. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/29/1996)
738 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : finding motion to quash subpoenas served on City Administrator Michael Rogers and Anthony Williams, Chief Financial Officer by defendants is [451-1] moot in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
739 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion for reconsideration of order [693-1] dated December 06, 1995, nun pro tunc [730-1] by plaintiffs in 1:80-cv-02136, denying motion for reconsideration and stay of the December 6, 1995 protective order. [697-1] by DC, in 1:80-cv02136; denying petitioners' request for attorney's fees. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
740 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting plaintiffs' request to withdraw the motion for report by Special Officer concerning medical services. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
741 RESPONSE by plaintiff SIX INMATES OF LORTON in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for show cause why class counsel not be held in contempt for refusal to meet with as ordered by the Court [735-1] by WALTER BROOKS-EL, NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL; exhibits (5) . (JMF) (Entered: 03/06/1996)
742 REPLY by PETITIONERS'to class counsel's opposition to petitioners'

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 69 of 137

03/14/1996 03/15/1996
03/15/1996 03/16/1996 03/18/1996 03/19/1996 03/19/1996 03/19/1996 03/19/1996

motion for show cause why class counsel should not be held in contempt for refusal to meet with petitioners as ordered by the Court [735-1] (JMF) (Entered: 03/14/1996)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 4/30/96 to develop a plan to recruit and retain correctional officers set forth in paragraph 7 of the 12/15 95 order (JMF) Modified on 03/20/1996 (Entered: 03/15/1996)
744 (STRIKEN AND RETURNED PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 03/19/96 #746) NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 from order granting oral motion by plaintiffs' for further emergency relief; setting forth specific instructions to defendants and directing the Special Officer to report to the parties and the Court by 3/15/96 as to whether defendants have complied with certain requirements; instructions are set forth for the Special Officer; setting a hearing for 2:30 P.M. on 4/10/96 to determine whether additional relief is necessary to achieve compliance with the Court's Orders. [737-1], order [737-2] , entered on: February 29, 1996. IFP. Copies mailed to John Michael Facciola, Jacques P. Lerner, Paul A. Quander, Michael E. Zielinski, Clare E. Kindall, Peter J. Nickles, Eric G. Lasker, Alan A. Pemberton, Kemi M. Morten, Brian J. H. Lederer, Nathaniel McQueen-El, Norman Minor, Walter Brooks-El, Raymond Quigley, Eugene J. Cunningham and Lavance Greene-Bey. (Submitted to Judge June L. Green). (Buck slip w/noa to Judge). (JMF) Modified on 03/19/1996 (Entered: 03/18/1996)
745 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv02136 of letter report to the court pursuant to the 02/29/96 order. (JMF) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
780 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv02136 of plan regarding emergency medical care file pursuant to the August 22, 1996 order; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [744-1] by RAYMOND QUIGLEY, WALTER BROOKS-EL, LAVANCE GREENE-BEY, NORMAN MINOR, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM to U.S. Court of Appeals (JMF) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
746 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk's office shall strike the Notice of Appeal from the Court's docket and return said document to the petitioners. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/19/1996)
747 MOTION filed by plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv02136 to proceed in forma pauperis (nunc pro tunc (1/3/96) (JMF) Modified on 03/22/1996 (Entered: 03/21/1996)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [747-1] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL (fiat) (N); nunc pro tunc to 01/03/96. (JMF) Modified on 03/22/1996 (Entered: 03/21/1996)
748 MOTION filed by plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 70 of 137

03/19/1996 03/19/1996 03/19/1996 03/19/1996 03/19/1996 03/20/1996
03/22/1996 03/26/1996
03/27/1996 03/29/1996
03/29/1996

1:80-cv-02136 to proceed in forma pauperis (nunc pro tunc 1/3/96) (JMF) Modified on 03/22/1996 (Entered: 03/21/1996)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [748-1] by EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM (fiat) (N); nunc pro tunc to 01/03/96 (JMF) (Entered: 03/21/1996)
749 MOTION filed by plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136 to proceed in forma pauperis (nunc pro tunc) (1/3/96) (JMF) Modified on 03/22/1996 (Entered: 03/21/1996)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [749-1] by WALTER BROOKS-EL (fiat) (N); nunc pro tunc to 01/03/96. (JMF) (Entered: 03/21/1996)
750 MOTION filed by plaintiff ALONZO BOLDEN in 1:80-cv-02136 to proceed in forma pauperis (JMF) (Entered: 03/21/1996)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [750-1] by ALONZO BOLDEN (fiat) (N); nunc pro tunc to 01/03/96. (JMF) (Entered: 03/21/1996)
751 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [456-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $22,098.03 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche and Mr. Brown; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $33,686.64 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle, and Mr. Henderson (N) (See Order for details) (ks) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
752 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 from order [693-1] , entered on: December 06, 1995. No fee paid D.C. Gov't; Copies mailed to all parties. (JMF) (Entered: 03/27/1996)
STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 3/19/96 USCA # 96-8005 assigned for appeal [744-1] by RAYMOND QUIGLEY, WALTER BROOKS-EL, LAVANCE GREENE-BEY, NORMAN MINOR, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM (JMF) Modified on 03/29/1996 (Entered: 03/28/1996)
DEPOSIT in the amount of 21,667.00 pursuant to court order dated 01/31/96. (JMF) (Entered: 03/28/1996)
753 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136 from order [746-2] , entered on: March 19, 1996. IFP: Copies mailed to Peter Nickles and Richard Love. (Submitted to Judge June Green). (Buck slip w/noa to Judge). (JMF) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
754 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 71 of 137

04/01/1996 04/01/1996 04/01/1996 04/02/1996 04/02/1996 04/08/1996 04/09/1996
04/11/1996
04/17/1996
04/18/1996

cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136 from order [739-1] , entered on: March 04, 1996. IFP: Copies mailed to Peter Nickles. (Submitted to Judge June Green). (Buck slip w/noa to Judge). (JMF) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
USCA # 96-5089 assigned for appeal [752-1] by DC, MARION S. BARRY JR. (adc) (Entered: 04/03/1996)
755 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 of letter to Judge June Green dated April 1, 1996. (JMF) (Entered: 04/03/1996)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $18,921.67 pursuant to Court Order dated 02/20/96. (JMF) (Entered: 04/03/1996)
TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [753-1] by WALTER BROOKS-EL, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM, NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL to U.S. Court of Appeals (JMF) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [754-1] by WALTER BROOKS-EL, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM, NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL to U.S. Court of Appeals (JMF) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
757 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 for order regarding attorney's fees (JMF) (Entered: 04/10/1996)
756 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the District to pay Covington and Burling the sum of forty-two thousand two hundred and ten dollars ($42,210.00) in full settlement of fees and costs associated with obtaining the Order dated 2/26/96. This amount shall bear interest at the rate established by 28 USC 1961 from the sixtieth (60th) day following entry of this Order. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/10/1996)
758 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for a finding that defendants are in violation of the court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions , and for order requiring defendants to aopt new inspection and abatement procedures ; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 04/12/1996)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 2:00 6/19/96 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; , and status hearing set for 2:00 5/29/96 for parties to return to court for a update of the report and recommendation of Grace Lopes on facilities in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; Reporter: Frank Rangus (JMF) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
761 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: directing Special Officer to assist defendants in identifying an appropriate systemwide medical coordinator, and shall, after consulting with the parties, report to the Court as to whether the person whom defendants propose to hire for that position is

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 72 of 137

04/19/1996 04/22/1996
04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/23/1996 04/24/1996 04/24/1996

qualified to undertake the tasks necessary to improve systemwide compliance with the Court's Orders; Special Officer shall report to the Court as to whether the Court should enter additional orders regarding the powers and responsibilities of the systemwide medical coordinator so as to better enable the systemwide medical coordinator to improve compliance with the Court's existing Orders; if defendants have not hired an appropriately qualified systemwide medical coordinator within 60 days from the date of this Order, the Special Officer shall present further recommendations concerning other compliance mechanisms that may improve defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders regarding mental health care and medical care at the Lorton facilities; further status hearing set for 2:00 6/19/96 in 80-cv-2136, in 79-cv-1726, in 81-cv-2072, in 86cv-2128. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv02128 of plan regarding the segregation of inmates housed on protective custody status at Occoquan. The plan has been approved by the parties and by the Special Officer pursuant to B.2. of the 12/15/95 order. (JMF) (Entered: 05/03/1996)
759 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting oral motion for further relief concerning the procurement of food, cleaning and maintenance supplies, medical and pharmaceutical supplies and services, the testimony and recommendations of the Special Officer of the Court, Ms. Grace M. Lopes, and Defendants' consent. The parties shall appear for a hearing before the Court on 5/29/96 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. (N) (adc) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
760 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/17/96 [439-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (adc) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
762 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation (JMF) (Entered: 04/24/1996)
764 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for enlargement of time nunc pro tunc to March 15, 1996, to begin monthly reporting time, and moves to enlarge time to 5/3/96 within which it will produce monthly reports to plaintiffs [445-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (adc) (Entered: 04/25/1996)
USCA # 96-5107 assigned for appeal [744-1] by RAYMOND QUIGLEY, WALTER BROOKS-EL, LAVANCE GREENE-BEY, NORMAN MINOR, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM (lkn) (Entered: 04/25/1996)
USCA # 96-5106 assigned for appeal [744-1] by RAYMOND QUIGLEY, WALTER BROOKS-EL, LAVANCE GREENE-BEY, NORMAN MINOR, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM (lkn) (Entered: 04/25/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 73 of 137

04/24/1996 04/25/1996 04/26/1996 04/29/1996 04/29/1996 04/30/1996 04/30/1996 04/30/1996

763 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : withdrawing by WALTER BROOKSEL, NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL motion for show cause why class counsel should not be held in contempt for refusal to meet with petitioners as ordered by the Court [735-1]; denying petitioners' additional request for relief. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/25/1996)
766 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv02136 to extend time to 5/13/96 to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants' are in violation of the court's orders concerning einvironmental health and sanitation conditions (JMF) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
769 MOTION filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for the court appointment of Grace M. Lopes as an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 ; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion nunc pro tunc to comply with paragraph E(1) of the December 15, 1996, wherein it must ensure each prisoner receives a mental health screening utilizing a new mental health screening form [440-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; exhibits (3) . (JMF) (Entered: 05/01/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 joinder in emergency motion for the court appointment of Grace M. Lopes as an expert witness under federal rule of evidence 706 ; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt, and automatic sanctions imposed, with respect to the environmental health and fire safety portion of this case [432-1] by plaintiffs'; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/01/1996)
767 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting Government's motion to extend time to 5/13/96 to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions and for an order requiring defendants to adopt new inspection and abatement procedures on or before 5/13/96. [766-1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/03/1996)
770 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for the court appointment of Grace M. Lopes as an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 [471-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES, JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136; Directing that the orders of the Court appointing Ms. Lopes as the special officer of the Court FRCvP 53 are stayed pending further order of the Court; Setting forth instructions regarding Ms. Lopes appointment; Directing defendants' to file and hand serve response to plaintiffs' motion for

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 74 of 137

05/01/1996 05/01/1996 05/03/1996 05/09/1996 05/09/1996
05/10/1996 05/13/1996 05/13/1996

appointment of Ms. Lopes as expert by 12:00 noon May 15, 1996; Plaintiffs shall file and hand serve their reply thereto by 2:00p.m. May 16, 1996; Setting argument on the motion on 4:00p.m. May 16, 1996. (N) (JMF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 5/31/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to modify the medical care remedial order (JMF) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time nunc pro tunc to March 31, 1996 the time within which it must comply with paragraph B(1) of the December 15, 1996 order, must have a full staff of six psychologists. (JMF) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
768 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for a finding that defendants are in proposed reduction of the UDC Program is unreasonable and in violation of the court's orders concerning programs, based on subsequent change of law. [758-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
771 MOTION filed by special master in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend funds and for compensation of office manager; attachments (1). (bjl) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
772 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing that the Clerk of the Court issue a check in the sum of $16,427.75 to Grace M. Lopes drawn from proceeds of contempt fine monies; directing Ms. Lopes to deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make regular payroll and tax payments for her secretary/office manager; directing defendants to issue a check in the amount of $16,427.75 within 30 days from the date of this Order; directing Ms. Lopes to deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make regular payroll and tax payments for her secretary/office manager. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
776 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to withdraw without prejudice their motion for a finding that defendants' proposed reduction of the UDC Program is unreasonable and in violation of the court's orders concerning programs (JMF) (Entered: 05/15/1996)
773 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting plaintiffs' motion to withdraw without prejudice their motion for a finding that defendants' proposed reduction of the UDC Program is unreasonable and in violation of the Court's Orders concerning programs. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
774 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 5/14/96 file a response to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions (JMF) (Entered: 05/14/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 75 of 137

05/14/1996 05/15/1996
05/15/1996 05/16/1996 05/16/1996 05/20/1996 05/21/1996
05/21/1996 05/21/1996

775 RESPONSE by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions [758-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES .; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/15/1996)
777 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ROBERT LEON WILSON in 1:86-cv02128, plaintiff CARL WILLIAMS in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff CALVIN ROOKARD in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff WALTER ROBINSON in 1:86cv-02128, plaintiff AHMED PASHA in 1:86-cv-02128 to vacate the Court's Order of April 30, 1996 (JMF) Modified on 05/16/1996 (Entered: 05/16/1996)
779 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to extend time to 5/14/96 file a response to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions [774-1] by defendants. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green to vacate the Court's Order of 4/30/96 heard and granted. Reporter: Gordon Slodysko (bjl) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
778 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to vacate the Court's Order of April 30, 1996 [474-1] by plaintiffs; setting forth further instruction re Ms. Lopes as an expert witness. in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
782 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:81-cv-02072, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
781 ORDER by Judge June L. Green :denying as moot motion for order to incorporate the recommendations made by the special officer's medical expert into their emergency medical response plan by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES [678-1]; granting plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees; directing parties to meet and confer within the next thirty days and attempt to come to some agreement concerning the amount to be awarded. (N) (jeb) Modified on 05/21/1996 (Entered: 05/21/1996)
783 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/12/96 to file a reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that the defendants' are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions (JMF) Modified on 05/24/1996 (Entered: 05/24/1996)
RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion to extend time nunc pro tunc to March 31, 1996 the time within which it

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 76 of 137

05/21/1996
05/24/1996 05/29/1996 05/29/1996
05/31/1996 06/03/1996 06/03/1996 06/07/1996 06/10/1996

must comply with paragraph B(1) of the December 15, 1996 order, must have a full staff of six psychologists. [451-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER .; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
785 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [476-1] by GRACE M. LOPES ; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lo[pes the sum of $42,171.74 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Ms. Lytle; directing that the check be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $42,171.74 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings accout. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
784 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 6/12/96 to file a reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that the defendants' are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions [783-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : regarding report by Special Master on Status of Prison Conditions. Reporter: Vicki Stallsworth (bjl) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
786 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting oral motion of plaintiffs for further emergency relief concerning the procurement of food and maintenance supplies; directing the Director of the Department of Corrections or her designee to make a report to the Court by 6/7/96 emergency procurement contract for food and by 6/12/96 regarding procurement of supplies in order to achieve compliance with the Court's Orders, including the Orders of 2/6, 2/29 and 4/22/96; directing that defendants shall consult with the Special Officer concerning such measures. (N) (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
787 STATUS REPORT by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 (JMF) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
DEPOSIT in the amount of $21,667.00 into the registry pursuant to order of January 04, 1996. (JMF) (Entered: 06/05/1996)
788 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
789 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 of emergency food contract was awarded to three vendors on June 05, 1996. (JMF) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
DEPOSIT into the registry of the court pursuant to order dated May 21, 1996 in the amount of $42,171.74. (JMF) (Entered: 06/12/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 77 of 137

06/10/1996 06/10/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/12/1996
06/12/1996
06/12/1996

795 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend funds from the Lorton Fund in order to subsidize the continued operation of the Lorton Art Program, Inc. ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated April 23, 1996 in the amount of $32,827.30. (JMF) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
793 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend funds: carbon dioxide monitor (JMF) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
794 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/21/96 to reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions (JMF) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
796 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend funds: correctional health care coordinator ; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 06/13/1996)
790 ORDER by Judge June L. Green graning motion of Special Officer to expend funds; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check in the sum of $5,124.45 to Special Officer Lopes from the fines imposed in the above case pursuant to the Court's 10/23/95 Order; directing the Special Officer to use these monies to promply pay the following balances owed for advertisements of the Correctional Health Care Coordinator position: May 30, 1996 advertisement in New England Journal of Medicine in the amount of $69/50; May 19, l996 advertisement in the New York Times in the amount of $1,358.00 and June 5 and 12, 1996 advertisements in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the amount of $1,563.75; directing that the balance after these payments shall be retained by the Special Officeer as reimbursement to her for her personal payment of $510.00 to the New England Journal of Medicine for the May 23, 1996 advertisement and $1,123.20 to the Washington Post for advertisements on May 12 and 19, 1996. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
791 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion of Special Officer to expend Funds for the Lorton Art Program; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check drawn on Crestar amount to the Special Officer in the amount of $25,000.00 which the Special Officer shall deposit in her trustee checking account; directing the Special Officer to make full disbursement of this sum to the Lorton Art Program, Inc., for the operating costs incurred during the period commencing on 6/1/96 and ending 5/31/97; directing the Special Officer shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
792 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting the Special Officer's motion to expend funds for the carbon dioxide monitor; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check drawn on the Crestar account to the Special

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 78 of 137

06/12/1996 06/17/1996 06/18/1996 06/19/1996 06/20/1996
06/21/1996 06/25/1996 06/27/1996

Officer in the amount of $591.18; setting forth special instructions to the Special Officer. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
797 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 of memorandum to undersigned counsel that sets forth the measures the Department of Corrections has and will take to improve the organization and effectiveness of the procurement of maintenance supplies. (JMF) (Entered: 06/13/1996)
798 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to continue status conference July 09, 1996 at 1:30 p.m. and requirements imposed on the Special Officer as set forth in the Court's order April 18, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
799 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions by 6/21/96. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/20/1996)
803 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:81-cv-02072, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
804 ORDER (COPY) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [490-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; Ordered that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $41,946.70 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Cohen and Mr. Henderson. (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
801 MOTION filed by plaintiffs 1:80-cv-02136, to extend time to 7/8/96 to file reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a Finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's Orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions. (bjl) (Entered: 06/24/1996)
802 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 7/8/96 to file reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a Finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's Orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions. [801-1] by plaintiffssssssss (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
805 ORDER (COPY) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation by Special Officer; Ordered that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $44,033.90 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle and Dr. Belitsky. (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/28/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 79 of 137

06/27/1996 07/02/1996
07/08/1996
07/09/1996 07/09/1996 07/24/1996 07/25/1996 07/26/1996 07/26/1996 07/26/1996 07/29/1996

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
806 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv02136 of Handicapped Plan, Specialty Clinic Plan, Tuberculosis Screening and Treatment Plan, and Dental Plan which were are submitted pursuant to the August 22, 1995 order. (JMF) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
807 REPLY by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:80-cv-02136 to government's opposition to motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions [758-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES, motion for order requiring defendants to adopt new inspection and abatement procedures [758-2] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES (JMF) (Entered: 07/09/1996)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green regarding District's hiring of Health Care Coordinator. : Reporter: Vicky Stallsworth (bjl) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
808 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to order plaintiffs' submitted to the Court at hearing on July 09, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
809 MOTION filed by defendants and plaintiffs in for a status hearing. (bjl) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
810 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting plaintiff's consent motion for a status call; setting hearing for 9/4/96 at 10:00 a.m. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/26/1996)
811 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend redeemable contempt fine funds ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for the adoption of a consent order concerning systemwide medical and mental health care (JMF) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
812 STATUS REPORT by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv02136 (JMF) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
813 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend redeemable contempt fine funds [811-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; idirecting the Clerk of the Court to issuea check in the amount of $778.50 to Booth Refrigeration Supply Co. from fine monies deposited which are held in the Court Registry Investment System; directing the Clerk of thme Court to issue a check in the amount of $4,765.00 to Bray and Scarf from fine monies deposited which are held in the Court Registry Investment System; directing that the $200,000.00 in redeemable contempt fines that were deposited the Court Registry Investment System pursuant to the 10/23/95 amd 2/27/96 Orders shall be reduced in light of these expenditures; setting forth other instructions to the defendants and the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 80 of 137

07/29/1996 07/29/1996 07/30/1996 08/06/1996
08/07/1996 08/08/1996 08/08/1996
08/16/1996 08/19/1996 08/19/1996

Special Officer. (N) (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
814 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 1:30 10/9/96 in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
815 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' motion for an oral argument; setting such argument for 11:00 A.M. on September 4, 1996.. [809-1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/31/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to modify the Court's December 15, 1996 consent decree , and to extend time limits in the Court's December 15, 1996 consent decree (JMF) (Entered: 07/31/1996)
816 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to continue oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions to September 13, 1996 , and for order requiring defendants to adopt new inspection and abatement procedures to adopt (JMF) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
817 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 for termination of prospective relief (JMF) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
818 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [498-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726, granting motion for compensation [488-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128; directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $36,938.29 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche and Ms. Lytle; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia pay $36,938.29 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 8/22/96. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
819 MOTION filed by plaintiffs in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 9/20/96 to file response to defendants' Motion for Termination of Prospective Relief. (bjl) (Entered: 08/19/1996)
820 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 9/20/96 to file response to defendants' Motion for Termination of Prospective Relief. [819-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES (N) (bjl) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
821 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendants' motion to continue oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions to September 16, 1996 at 10:30 A.M. [816-1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 08/20/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 81 of 137

08/29/1996 08/29/1996 09/04/1996 09/04/1996
09/04/1996
09/04/1996 09/04/1996 09/06/1996 09/09/1996 09/10/1996 09/10/1996 09/11/1996
09/11/1996

822 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 for reimburse funds ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
823 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 to continue status hearing to September 16, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
824 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to continue status hearing to September 16, 1996 [823-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80cv-02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/04/1996)
825 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion of the Special Officer to promply deposit into the Registry of the Court the sum of $765.00 which represents the reimbursement from the Journal of the American Medical Association; directing the Clerk of the Court to hold these funds on deposit purusant to the Court's October 23, 1995 and February 26, 1996 Order. [822-1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/04/1996)
826 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting the Special Officer's motion to withdraw and deposit funds; directing the Clerk of the Courtto withdraw $5.543.50 from the contempt fine monies held in 12 John Does pursuant to the Court's October 23, 1995 and February 26, 1996 Orders and deposit these monies in the Court Registry Investment System account currently maintained in the Inmates of Occoquan case. (N) : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/04/1996)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to Court's order of 01/31/96 in the amount of $36,938.29. (JMF) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to the Court's order 08/08/96 in the amount of $36,938.29. (JMF) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend the time limit in the Court's December 15, 1995 consent order (JMF) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
827 STATUS REPORT by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant in 1:79cv-01726, defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 (bjl) (Entered: 09/10/1996)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to Court's order of 10/223/95 and 02/26/96 in the amount of $765.00. (JMF) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 09/12/1996)
828 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing the Clerk of the Court to pay the sum of $40,622.03 to Grace Lopes which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle and Mr. Roche; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account; directing the District of Columbia to pay the sum of $40,622.03 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 9/26/96. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
829 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 82 of 137

09/12/1996
09/12/1996
09/13/1996 09/17/1996 09/18/1996 09/19/1996
09/19/1996 09/19/1996

continue status hearing on procurement issues and the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions to October 09, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 09/12/1996)
830 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to continue status hearing on procurement issues and the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions to October 09, 1996 [8291] by DC; status hearing on procurement issues set for 10:00 10/9/96; hearing on plaintiffs' motion for finding that defendants are in violation of Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions set for 11:00 10/9/96 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 09/12/1996)
RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion for enforcement of the Court's order of July 23, 1996 [490-1] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS, ROBERT LEON WILSON, motion for hearing on this motion [490-2] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS, ROBERT LEON WILSON . (JMF) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
831 MOTION filed by plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136 requesting issuance of show cause order directed to defendant DC Department of Corrections , and request on in camera hearing (JMF) (Entered: 09/17/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for post-judgment monitoring ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
DEPOSIT pursuant to order of 09/04/96 into the Registry in the amount of $5,543.50. (JMF) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
832 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for a continuance of the oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions and for an order requiring defendants to adopt new inspection and abatement procedures until October 30, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 09/20/1996)
833 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 10/23/96 to file a response to defendants' motion for termination of prospective relief (JMF) (Entered: 09/20/1996)
834 CERTIFIED COPY of order filed in USCA dated 7/18/96, on appeal [705-1] , dismissing appeal . USCA # 96-5003 (cjp) (Entered: 09/22/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 83 of 137

09/23/1996
09/23/1996 10/08/1996
10/09/1996 10/09/1996
10/09/1996 10/09/1996 10/10/1996 10/16/1996 10/16/1996

835 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for a continuance of the oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions and for an order requiring defendants to adopt new inspection and abatement procedures until October 30, 1996 [832-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES status hearing set for 11:00 10/30/96 ; (N) (dcn) (Entered: 09/23/1996)
836 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/23/96 to file a response to defendants' motion for termination of prospective relief [833-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (dcn) (Entered: 09/23/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/21/96 nunc pro tune October 07, 1996 within which it must develop, in conjunction with the Special Officer plans for the recruitment and retention of correctional officers and psychologists (JMF) (Entered: 10/09/1996)
MOTION (CORRECTED) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/25/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees (JMF) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
837 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting oral motion of plaintiffs for further relief concerning procurement and/or repair of kitchen equipment, cleaning and maintenance supplies and medical and pharmaceutical supplies and services; directing defendants to report to the court by 12/9/96 as to measures they have taken to improve the organization of such procurement and/or repair; setting a hearing for 12/17/96 at 10:00 a.m. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
HEARING before Judge June L. Green : regarding the hiring of a system wide medical health care coordinator held; Further progress hearing set for 12/17/96 at 10:00 A.M. Reporter: Susan Tyner (bjl) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
838 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs oral motion for additional relief concerning the need for improved medical leadership within the Department of Corrections; setting a progress report hearing on 12/17/96 at 10:00 a.m. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
HEARING before Judge June L. Green : regarding procurement and/or repair of kitchen equipment, cleaning and maintenance supplies and medical and pharmaceutical supplies and services held. Further progress report hearing set for 12/17/96 at 10:00 A.M. Reporter: Susan Tyner (bjl) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
839 MOTION filed by Special Master for compensation; Exhibits A-E. (bjl) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
840 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation;

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 84 of 137

10/18/1996 10/18/1996 10/21/1996 10/22/1996 10/22/1996 10/23/1996 10/23/1996 10/23/1996 10/23/1996 10/24/1996 10/29/1996 10/29/1996

[507-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:81-cv-02072, 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to extend time to 10/25/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees [512-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (JMF) (Entered: 10/21/1996)
OBJECTIONS by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to extend time to 10/25/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees [512-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (JMF) (Entered: 10/21/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/21/96 to file correctional officer and mental health staffing plan (JMF) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
841 RESPONSE by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to order [734-1], dated February 27, 1996 [734-2]; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
842 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to waive imposition of any applicable fines and extend time to nunc pro tunc, the time within which defendants may file this plan (JMF) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
844 RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to motion for termination of prospective relief [817-1] by defendants; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
845 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for evidentiary hearing (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
846 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for contempt fines on defendants for their failure to comply with the Court's Consent Order of August 22, 1995 (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion to extend time to 10/21/96 to file correctional officer and mental health staffing plan [520-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER . (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
843 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendants' motion to waive imposition of any applicable fines and extend time to nunc pro tunc, to October 22, 1996, for defendants to submit officer deployment plan. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
847 REPLY BRIEF by defendants' in 1:80-cv-02136 in support of their response to motion for termination of prospective relief [817-1] (JMF) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
848 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136,

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 85 of 137

10/29/1996 10/31/1996 10/31/1996 11/04/1996 11/04/1996 11/04/1996 11/04/1996 11/05/1996 11/06/1996 11/07/1996
11/08/1996 11/15/1996

plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for reconsideration of order [843-1] 10/22/96 ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
849 RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to defendants' motion for enlargement of time nunc pro tunc and to waive imposition of fines . (JMF) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
850 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : continuing motion hearing for 11:00 12/5/96 ; hearing on defendants' motion for termination of prospective relief set for 11:00 12/5/96 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
851 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136: Attachment: Quality Assurance Implementation Plan for Central Facility. (bjl) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
852 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 11/18/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines (JMF) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
853 RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to order [734-1], of February 27, 1996 [734-2] (JMF) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
854 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 11/4/96 nunc pro tunc, to submit the correctional officer staffing plan required by this court's order of February 27, 1996 , and for a waive the imposition of any fines referenced therein (JMF) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
DEPOSIT into the registry pursuant to Court Order dated 10/16/96 in the amount of $52,040.15 (JMF) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
855 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 11/18/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines [852-1] by DC (N) (bjl) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
856 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $51,675.11 which represents the compensation for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Dr. Belitsky; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar savings account; directing that the District of Columbia pay $51,675.11 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar account. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to order of December 15, 1995 [412-1] (JMF) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 12/16/96 to file mental health plan (JMF) (Entered: 11/18/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 86 of 137

11/18/1996 11/19/1996 11/20/1996 12/02/1996 12/02/1996 12/03/1996
12/04/1996 12/05/1996
12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/11/1996 12/17/1996

858 MOTION (Consent) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 12/9/96 to submit its response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines. (bjl) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
857 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting the Consent Motion for Extention of time to 12/996 for defendant to submit its response to plaintiffs' motion for ontempt fines. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
DEPOSIT into the registry pursuant to the order of 11/07/96 in the amount of $51,675.11 (JMF) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
860 MOTION (Consent) filed by plaintiffs in 1:80-cv-02136 to continue December 5, 1996 hearing to December 17, 1996 (adc) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
861 STATUS REPORT by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 (adc) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
859 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting the plaintiffs' consent motion to continue 12/05/96 hearing; and motion hearing on plaintiff's motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's Orders and defendants' motion for termination of prospective relief reset for 10:00 12/17/96 ; (N) (jeb) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
862 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 for compensation ; exhibits (A-C). (adc) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
863 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [862-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $42,633.39 for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider and Ms. Fisher; directing that the check be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; directing that the District of Columbia pay $42,663.39 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/06/1996)
STATUS REPORT by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant USA in 1:79-cv-01726 pursuant to Court's order of October 09, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
864 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 12/23/96 to submit its response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines (JMF) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
865 RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to order dated October 09, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
866 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 12/23/96 to submit its response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines [864-1] by DC (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/12/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 2/14/97 to file mental health plan (JMF) (Entered: 12/18/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 87 of 137

12/19/1996 12/19/1996
12/23/1996 01/03/1997 01/07/1997 01/07/1997 01/08/1997
01/21/1997 01/21/1997
01/23/1997 01/23/1997 01/27/1997

MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green status hearing set for 1:15 2/5/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; Reporter: Wm. McAllister (bjl) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
867 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' oral motion for further relief concerning procurement and medical matters; setting forth a compliance schedule and a further hearing on 10:00 5/7/97 in 1:79-cv01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
868 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 1/24/97 to submit response to plaintiffs' motin for contempt fines (JMF) (Entered: 12/24/1996)
869 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/24/97 to submit response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines [8681] by DC; response to motion due by 1/24/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
STATUS REPORT by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (JMF) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
870 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for compensation [514-1]; Clerk of Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $34,240.39 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Delaney, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Inc.; check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account; District of Columbia shall pay $34,240.39 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 1/22/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to order dated 12/05/96 in the amount of $42,663.39 (JMF) (Entered: 01/22/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 03/03/97 for payment of fines filed nunc pro tunc to December 01, 1996 [536-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; time to pay fines in sum of $100,000.00, as required by Court's Order dated 7/23/96, enlarged to 3/3/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/22/1997)
871 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 2/24/97 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines (JMF) Modified on 01/27/1997 (Entered: 01/24/1997)
872 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 2/18/97 to implement the handicap plan (JMF) (Entered: 01/24/1997)
873 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 2/18/97 to implement the handicap plan [872-1] by DC (N) (jeb) (Entered: 01/27/1997)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 88 of 137

01/27/1997 01/29/1997 01/30/1997 02/05/1997
02/06/1997 02/06/1997 02/10/1997
02/13/1997 02/14/1997 02/14/1997 02/18/1997

874 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 2/24/97 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines [871-1] by DC (N) (jeb) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 2/7/97 to file procurement goals (JMF) (Entered: 01/30/1997)
875 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : extending time to 2/7/97 for defendant to file its procurement goals; granting to motion of defendant to enlarge the time to file the procurement goals referenced in the Court's Order of 12/19/96.(N) (jeb) (Entered: 01/30/1997)
876 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Dr. Armand H. Start to submit to the Court by 2/19/97 a written summary briefly outlining steps taken and that will be taken by defendants in future to retain services of full-time systemwide Medical Director and measures Dr. Start has taken and intends to take in the future to improve state of defendants' medical compliance under the Court's Orders and Consent Decrees ; Dr. Start will appear on 2/24/97 at 10:00 to testify more fully as to the defendants' efforts in these areas in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv02128, in 1:92-cv-01208 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 02/05/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (JMF) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
879 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that defendants be given until 2/14/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 to file their statement of procurement goals, as well s their supplement to their status report. (N) (adc) (Entered: 02/14/1997)
877 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : Clerk of Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $54,530.83 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche, Mr. Henderson and Dr. Downer [520-1]; check shall be drawn from Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $54,530.83 to Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 2/25/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
878 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 10:00 2/24/97 ; correcting order dated 2/5/97 (N) [see order for details] (dbw) (Entered: 02/13/1997)
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant DC in 1:79-cv01726, defendant USA in 1:79-cv-01726 to status report [524-1] by USA, DC (JMF) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 3/14/97 to file mental health plan (JMF) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
STATUS REPORT by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant USA

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 89 of 137

02/19/1997 02/24/1997 02/24/1997 02/26/1997 02/26/1997
03/05/1997 03/06/1997 03/07/1997
03/14/1997 03/20/1997
03/20/1997 03/20/1997

in 1:79-cv-01726 on procurement goals (JMF) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
STATUS REPORT by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (JMF) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : testimony of Dr. Armond H. Start heard; parties to notify Court of progress, in writing, in two months Reporter: Phyllis Merana (dbw) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
880 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 3/24/97 to submit its response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines (JMF) (Entered: 02/25/1997)
881 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 3/24/97 to submit its response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines [880-1] by DC (N) (jeb) (Entered: 02/26/1997)
882 JOINT MOTION by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff in 1:80-cv02136, defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136, Non Party in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136, special master in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 for entry of consent order regarding environmental health and sanitation matters ; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 02/27/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 03/06/1997)
STATUS REPORT by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv02128; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 03/07/1997)
883 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [527-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $28,819.33 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, and Ms Fisher; directing that the District of Columbia pay $28,819,33 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar savings account by 3/20/97. (N) (jeb) Modified on 03/07/1997 (Entered: 03/07/1997)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 4/23/97 to file mental health plan (JMF) (Entered: 03/17/1997)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green granted joint motion for entry of consent order regarding environmental health and sanitation matters [882-1] by plaintiff, special master, plaintiff, Non Party, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, defendant Reporter: Kay Moomey (lkn) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
884 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs' in 1:80-cv-02136 to proposed consent order regarding enivironmental health and sanitation issues; (fiat) JUDGE JUNE L. GREEN (JMF) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
885 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : 60 days after date of entry of this

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 90 of 137

03/21/1997 03/25/1997
03/26/1997 03/31/1997 04/02/1997 04/07/1997 04/08/1997
04/08/1997 04/16/1997 04/24/1997

Order, Court's Orders concerning environmental health and sanitation contained in (1) Sectin VI of 4/28/82 Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree; (2) paragraphs 13 through 21 of 8/18/83 Consent Decree; (3) Section 6 of 3/4/85 Consent Decree; and (4) portion of 6/14/91 Consent Order regarding preventative maintenance plan and maintenance personnel, shall be stayed in light of agreement the parties have entered regarding environmental health and sanitation matters (N) [see order for details] (dbw) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
886 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (JMF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
887 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees [886-1] by defendants; directing the District of Columbia pay Covington and Burling the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars in full settlement of fees and costs associated with obtaining the order dated 5/21/96; directing this amount shall bear interest at the rate established by 28 USC 1961 from the 60th day following entry of this order. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
888 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 4/28/97 to submit response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines (JMF) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of Court pursuant to order dated 03/07/97 in the amount of $28,819.33 (JMF) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
889 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/28/97 to submit response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines [8881] by DC (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/02/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
890 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : [529-1] directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $44,689.82 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, and Dr. Belitsky; check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous order of the Court; District of Columbia shall pay $44,689.82 to Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 4/23/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
891 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 to to Covington & Burling's response to our intial ojections to proposed agreement; (fiat) JUDGE JUNE GREEN (JMF) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to authorize the Special Officer to cancel and reissue a check issued pursuant to the Court's Order of January 15, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 04/17/1997)
892 RESPONSE by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to Court's order dated

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 91 of 137

04/24/1997 04/30/1997 05/02/1997 05/06/1997
05/06/1997 05/09/1997 05/13/1997
05/19/1997 05/19/1997 05/20/1997 05/23/1997

February 27, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
RESPONSE by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to Court's order dated December 15, 1995 (JMF) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
893 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 10:30 5/29/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 ; (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/30/1997)
894 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding fines (JMF) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
895 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $45,947.95 which represents compensaton for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Downer; check shall be drawn from Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; District of Columbia shall pay $45,947.95 to Clerk of Court in order to replenish Crestar savings account by 5/23/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 05/07/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 05/07/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 to substitute order for compensation filed May 06, 1996 , and to vacate order May 06, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
896 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to substitute order for compensation filed May 06, 1996 by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, granting motion to vacate order May 06, 1997 [534-2] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $45,947.95 which represents compsensation for the services and expenses of Special Master Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Downer; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia pay $45,947.95 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 5/23/97. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/13/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 5/29/97 to report on defendants' achievement of procurement goals and measurable progress in the procurement of supplies and services (JMF) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
897 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 to postpone the stay of the Court's Orders regarding environmental health and sanitation matters until July 20, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
898 ERRATA by defendants' in 1:80-cv-02136 to the enviromental agreement referenced as Schedule A in the Consent Order approved on March 20, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 05/21/1997)
899 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 92 of 137

05/23/1997
05/27/1997 05/28/1997 05/29/1997 05/29/1997
06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/03/1997

5/29/97 to report on defendants' achievement of procurement goals and measurable progress in the procurement of supplies and services [536-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
900 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for adoption of consent order regarding fines [894-1] by defendants; directing defendants to pay to the U.S. District Court a fine in the total amount of $67,500 for non-compliance with the Court's orders referenced above up to and including the date of this Order; directing defendants to pay $37,750.00 by 7/15/97 and the remaining $37,750 by 11/15/97. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
901 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend $28,000.00 from the Lorton Fund in order to subsidize the continued operation of the Lorton Art Program, Inc. ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/28/1997)
902 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $28,000.00 from the Lorton Fund in order to subsidize the continued operation of the Lorton Art Program, Inc. [901-1] by GRACE M. LOPES (N) (JMF) (Entered: 05/28/1997)
PROCUREMENT HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Patricia Yerkes (JMF) (Entered: 05/30/1997)
903 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 10:30 7/22/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 ; granting plaintiff oral motion for further relief concerning the procurement and/or repair of food, kitchen equipment, cleaning and maintenance supplies and equipment, and medical and pharmaceutical supplies and services at the Central and Maximum Facilities; directing that if defendants have not taken steps to make substantial progress towards achieving the goals Defendants set forth pursuant to the Court's Order of December 15, 1996, then the Court will order Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt (N) (JMF) (Entered: 05/30/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
STATUS REPORT by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 on Procurement Goals; attachments (27) (JMF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
904 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [539-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lpes the sum of $37,641.67, which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms Schneider and Ms Fisher; directing that this check be drawn from the Inmates of Modular Accounts established by previous orders of the Court; directing the defedant DC to pay $37,641.67 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Inmates Modular Account by 6/18/97. (N) (jeb) Modified on 06/03/1997 (Entered: 06/03/1997)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 93 of 137

06/04/1997 06/05/1997 06/09/1997
06/09/1997 06/16/1997 06/18/1997
06/24/1997 07/01/1997 07/08/1997 07/08/1997
07/09/1997

905 MOTION (COSENT) filed by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 to defer the beginning of the stay of the Court's orders regarding environmental health and sanitation matters ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
906 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff in 1:80-cv02136, defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to vacate the May 23, 1997 order regarding fine (JMF) (Entered: 06/06/1997)
907 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to vacate the May 23, 1997 order regarding fine [906-1] by DC, TWO JOHN DOES, MARION S. BARRY JR.; directing the defendants pay to the USDC a fine in the amount of $67,500 for non-compliance with the Court's orders; said amount shall be paid in two equal installments of $33,750, the first of which is to be paid due 7/15/97 and the second due 11/15/97. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 06/09/1997)
908 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to defer the beginning of the stay of the Court's orders regarding environmental health and sanitation matters [905-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES (N) (jeb) (Entered: 06/09/1997)
909 STATUS REPORT by defendants' DC in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv02136, 1:86-cv-02128, (JMF) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
910 MOTION filed Theresa Gree, personal represenative of the estate of class member Albert Green to amend consent decree, and maintain individual action for compensatory damages in negligence and gross negligence pursuant to survival and wrongful death statutes ; exhibits (9) (JMF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
911 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in 1:80-cv-02136 to motion to amend consent decree, and maintain individual action for compensatory damages in negligence and gross negligence pursuant to survival and wrongful death statutes [910-1]; exhibits(1) (JMF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
912 RESPONSE by defendants' in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion to amend consent decree, and maintain individual action for compensatory damages in negligence and gross negligence pursuant to survival and wrongful death statutes [910-1] . (JMF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) Modified on 07/10/1997 (Entered: 07/10/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 8/27/97 to report on defendants' achievement of procurement goals and measurable progress in the procurement of supplies and services , and for status hearing (JMF) Modified on 07/10/1997 (Entered: 07/10/1997)
913 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting the Special Officer's motion for continuance of status hearing; status hearing set for 10:00 8/27/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/09/1997)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 94 of 137

07/09/1997
07/16/1997 07/18/1997 07/30/1997 07/30/1997 08/01/1997 08/04/1997
08/11/1997 08/11/1997

914 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion of the Special Officer Lopes for compensation; directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,125.66 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,264.10 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Downer and Mr. Henderson; this check shall be drawn from the Twenty-Thousand Dollar Fund established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $19,125.66 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account and pay $19,264.10 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Twenty-Thousand Dollar Fund, by 7/25/97. (N) (mlp) Modified on 07/10/1997 (Entered: 07/09/1997)
915 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion to amend consent decree, and maintain individual action for compensatory damages in negligence and gross negligence pursuant to survival and wrongful death statutes [910-1] by Theresa Green. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 07/16/1997)
916 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, of amended certificate of service for defendants' opposition to the motion of Theresa Green, filed July 1, 1997. (lkn) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
917 MOTION filed by Non Party THERESA . GREEN in 1:80-cv-02136 for reconsideration of order dated July 16, 1997 [915-1] (JMF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $33,750.00 pursuant to Court's order dated June 09, 1997. (JMF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
918 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend funds and for compensation of Office Manager ; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 08/04/1997)
919 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds and for compensation of Office Manager [918-1] by GRACE M. LOPES, directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check to Grace M. Lopes, in the amount of $14,604.87, drawn from Inmates of Modular account containing the proceeds of contempt fine monies; Ms. Lopes shall deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make regular payroll and tax payments for her secretary/office manager; defendants shall issue a check that is payable to Grace M. Lopes in the amount of $14,604.88 wihtin 45 days; Ms. Lopes shall deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make regular payroll and tax payments for her secretary/office manager. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (JMF) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
920 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [547-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 95 of 137

08/13/1997 08/27/1997 08/27/1997 08/27/1997 09/03/1997 09/04/1997
09/12/1997 09/15/1997 09/23/1997 09/25/1997

01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $46,084.76 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Cohen, Dr. Belitsky, and Mr. Henderson; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $46,084.76 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
921 RESPONSE by defendants' in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for reconsideration of order dated July 16, 1997 [915-1] [917-1] by THERESA . GREEN . (JMF) (Entered: 08/14/1997)
PROCUREMENT HEARING before Judge June L. Green: joint proposed plan to be submitted by 9/11/97. Reporter: Gordon Slodysko (mlp) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to seal the special officer's report on defendnat's compliance with the orders relating to personal safety (st) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
922 CERTIFIED COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 7/1/97, referencing appeal [754-1], appeal [753-1], appeal [752-1] , directing affirmed in part & reversed in part. USCA # 96-5089, 96-5106 & 96-5107 (cjp) (Entered: 08/31/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
923 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [549-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $37,212.70 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, and Mr. Roche; directing that this check be drawn from the Inmates of Modular Facility savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing that the District of Columbia shall pay to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular Facility Savings Account due by 9/18/97. (N) (jeb) Modified on 09/08/1997 (Entered: 09/08/1997)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $46,084.76 pursuant to Court's order dated August 11, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
924 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of attorney Michael Edward Zielinski for DC in 1:79-cv-01726. (JMF) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
MOTION filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for further relief concerning the procurement ofof essential supplies and services (JMF) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
925 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for further relief concerning the procurement ofof essential supplies and services [552-1]

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 96 of 137

09/25/1997
09/25/1997 09/29/1997 10/02/1997 10/08/1997 10/09/1997
10/10/1997 10/16/1997

by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726; directing defendants to make further progress in the following areas: facilities maintenance and procurement policies and procedures, food service, basic issue items, basic housekeeping and sanitation supplies, medical services contracts, pharmaceutical supplies, security equipment, canteen, Modular 200 dormitory fire alarm system, plumbing in Dormitory 27 at the Center Facility; status hearing set for 1:15 12/3/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv02136. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/25/1997)
926 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion requesting issuance of show cause order directed to defendant DC Department of Corrections [831-1] by WALTER BROOKS-EL, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM, NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL; directing the Special Officer to investigate the allegations raised by the inmates to determine if there is a factual basis for the claims, and if so, whether such conduct warrants issuance of a protective order; the Special Officer shall report other evidence, if any, of rataliatory conduct for the purpose of assisting the Court on the remand issue; attachments. (N) (mlp) Modified on 09/25/1997 (Entered: 09/25/1997)
943 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting Theresa Green's motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order dated 7/16/97. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file nonredacted report and appendices under seal [563-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; the nonredacted version of her Special Report on Defendants' Compliance with the Orders related to Personal Safety (filed as Volume I) and its Appendices (filed as Volumes II through XVII) shall be sealed by the Clerk of the Court. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 for appointment of a receiver and imposition of fines regarding personal safety ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 10/03/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
927 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [554-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $41,128.90 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of the Special Officer and her staff; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previoius orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $41,128.90 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar saving account by 10/24/97. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
DEPOSIT into the Court's registry in the amount of $19,125.66 pursuant to order dated July 09, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for adoption of the findings in the special officer's report on defedants' compliance with the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 97 of 137

10/22/1997
10/23/1997 10/28/1997 10/30/1997
10/31/1997 11/03/1997 11/04/1997

orders related to personal safety, dated September 29, 1997 [566-1] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
928 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Non Party THERESA . GREEN in 1:80-cv02136 from order [926-1], order status hearing set for 1:15 12/3/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136. [925-1], order [925-2] , entered on: July 30, 1997 and September 25 1997. $5.00 filing fee and $100.00 docketing fee paid. Copies mailed to Jacques P. Lerner, Paul O. Quander, Michael E. Zielinski, Clare E. Kindall, Peter J. Nickels, Eric G. Lasker, Alan A. Pemberton, Kemi M. Morten, Brian J.H. Lederer, Nathaniel Mcqueen, Norman Minor, Walter Brooks, Eugene J. Cunningham, Lavance Greene, Raymond Quigley, Alonzo W. Bolden. (JMF) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [928-1] by THERESA GREEN to U.S. Court of Appeals (JMF) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
929 STATUS REPORT by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv02136 (JMF) (Entered: 10/29/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 11/17/97 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for a receiver and imposition of fines [569-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; response to dispositive motions due by 11/7/97, and show cause hearing set for 10:00 11/13/97. (N) (mlp) Modified on 10/30/1997 (Entered: 10/30/1997)
930 JOINT MOTION by defendants and plaintiffs for entry of consent Orders modifying appointment of Special Officer. (ks) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
USCA # 97-5302 assigned for appeal [928-1] by THERESA . GREEN (JMF) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
931 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion [556-1] by parties in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:86-cv-02128 to modify appointment of Special Officer; effective 11/1/97, the Court's Order appointing Special Officer of 8/15/91 with respect to Case Numbers 791726, 80-2136, and 90-727 is modified to provide that the duties previously assigned to Grace M. Lopes are assigned to Karen M. Schneider; the Court's Orders dated 2/29/96 and 7/18/96 in Case Number 92-1208, is modified to provide that the duties previously assigned to Grace M. Lopes are assigned to Karen M. Schneider; the foregoing Orders otherwise shall continue in full force and effect; Ms. Schneider is authorized to consult with and seek assistance from Ms. Lopes with regard to any matter within the scope of the Special Officer's duties; the Court's Order appointing Special Officer of 8/15/91 in Case Number 862128, shall continue in full force and effect, except that Ms. Schneider shall perform all monitoring functions in Case Number 86-2128; upon notice of resignation by Ms. Lopes to the Court, Ms. Schneider shall assume all the duties assigned to the Special Officer as set forth in the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 98 of 137

11/05/1997 11/06/1997 11/12/1997 11/13/1997
11/21/1997 11/24/1997 11/24/1997 11/26/1997 12/03/1997 12/05/1997

Court's Order appointing Special Officer of 8/15/91 in Case Number 862128. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
932 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:81-cv-02072, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 of final accounting; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: show cause hearing set for 11/13/97 at 10:00 is reset to 2:00 11/20/97. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
933 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for compensation [559-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $39,652.04 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Lopes, Ms. Schneider and Mr. Roche; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court, D.C. shall pay $39,652.04 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 12/5/97; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $5,931.24 which represents underpayment by the defendants in prior motions for compensation; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $5,931.24 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 12/5/97. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
934 RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant DC in 1:80cv-02136 to order dated 09/25/97 [553-2], [926-1] (JMF) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to the order dated 10/09/97 in the amount of $33,750.00 (JMF) (Entered: 11/25/1997)
935 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 12/10/97 to submit the reports required by the court's order date 09/25/97 (JMF) (Entered: 11/25/1997)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants' and plaintiffs' for the District Court to request the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to convene a Three-Judge Court (JMF) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
936 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 12/10/97 to submit the reports required by the court's order date 09/25/97 [935-1] by defendant; status hearing reset for 10:30 1/22/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 12/08/1997)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 99 of 137

12/08/1997
12/08/1997
12/10/1997 12/12/1997 12/17/1997 12/19/1997 12/23/1997 01/08/1998 01/09/1998 01/12/1998

937 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [563-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $42,988.11 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Roche, Mr. Henderson, and Dr. Downer; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $42,988.11 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 12/31/97. (N) (mlp) Modified on 12/09/1997 (Entered: 12/08/1997)
CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green: judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against the District of Columbia in the amount of Sixty-Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($63,300.00); this judgment, being in the nature of a settlement, shall bear no interest; the District shall pay the judgment issuing the check made payable to the ACLU National Prison Project. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/08/1997)
938 RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant DC in 1:80cv-02136 to Court's order dated 09/25/97 [553-2]; attachments (11) (JMF) (Entered: 12/11/1997)
939 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/20/98 to submit a list of basic repairs that need to be maed at the Central and Maximum facilities as required by the Court's order of 09/25/97 [566-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to extend time to 1/9/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this Court's order of 11/20/97 [592-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 to set compensation rate for assistant (JMF) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
940 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to set compensation rate for assistant [568-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; Ms. Sandalow's compensation rate shall be set at $55.00 per hour. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (9) (JMF) (Entered: 01/09/1998)
MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 1/16/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this court's order of 11/20/97 (JMF) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
941 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [570-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $57,271.81 as compensation for services and

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 100 of 137

01/15/1998 01/20/1998
01/20/1998 01/22/1998 01/30/1998 02/05/1998

expenses; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $57,271.81 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 2/6/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/13/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 12/05/97 in the amount of $42,988.11 (JMF) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/30/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this Court's order of 11/20/97 [596-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER, finding motion to extend time to 1/16/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this court's order of 11/20/97 by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER [594-1] moot. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order dated 09/25/97 [553-2] (JMF) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
STATUS/PROCUREMENT HEARING before Judge June L. Green: counsel to submit a joint proposed order regarding deadlines. Reporter: Theresa Sorensen (mlp) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
MOTION filed by plaintiffs' in 1:79-cv-01726 for further relief concerning the procurement of essential supplies and services (JMF) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
942 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for further relief concerning the procurement of essential supplies and services [573-1] by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726; directing defendants to file with the Court within 30 days, a supplement to the list of basic facilities-maintenance repairs they filed on 1/20/98; after defendants file the supplement, every 30 days thereafter, they shall submit a report to the Special Officer with copies to plaintiffs' counsel, regarding the status of each repair; within 30 days, defendants are to take appropriate action with their contract food service vendor regarding nutritional assessment and satellite feeding; within 15 days, defendants are to take steps to improve monitoring of their contract with their food service vendor; within 30 days, defendants are to develop and institute an improved procedure for ensuring the timely distribution of basic hygiene, clothing, bed linens, and grooming items to inmates at the Maximum facility; within 60 days, defendants are to take such steps as are necessary to prioritize, track, and procure basic housekeeping and sanitation supplies in quantities sufficient to ensure that the Central and Maximum facilities are habitable, sanitary and safe; within 45 days, defendants shall report on what steps they are taking to procure adequate stores of basic food and personal hygiene items on the Canteen and whether sufficient stocks of such items are available; within 30 days, defendants are to take such actions as are necessary to procure medical services and dental supplies sufficient to render essential medical and dental care to the inmates at the Central facility; within 60 days, defendants are to file a status report with the Court describing the steps they have taken to comply with this Order; status hearing is set for 4/30/98 at 10:30. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/05/1998)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 101 of 137

02/05/1998
02/06/1998 02/10/1998 02/11/1998
02/25/1998 03/02/1998 03/06/1998 03/10/1998 03/10/1998 03/10/1998 03/12/1998

ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to substitute the attached correctional officer deployment and ceiling for the number of beds allowed in the larger dorms [599-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; the Orders of this Court are amended to substitute the attached deployment plan for that filed with the Court on 4/19/96, and the maximum number of beds allowed in dorms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 is increased to 92; attachment. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (11) (JMF) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to order dated 01/12/98 in the amount of $57,271.81 (JMF) (Entered: 02/17/1998)
944 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [575-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $75,058.19 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Roche, Mr. Sandalow, Dr. Downer, Dr. Belitsky, Mr. Henderson, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Maupin and Mr. Hackle; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $75,058.19 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 3/4/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/12/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 to consolidate accounts containing fine funds (JMF) (Entered: 02/26/1998)
952 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136 for appointment of counsel , and for an evidentiary hearing on remand ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
951 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (JMF) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
945 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 by Richard Stuart Love (JMF) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
946 RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to Court's order dated 02/05/98 (JMF) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
947 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (10) (JMF) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
948 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [580-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 79-cv1726, granting motion for compensation [947-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 80-cv-2136 and directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider $44,151.12 which represents

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 102 of 137

03/16/1998 03/18/1998 03/19/1998
03/19/1998 03/23/1998 03/31/1998 04/02/1998 04/02/1998
04/03/1998

compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Roche, Ms. Sandalow and Ms. Banks; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $44,151.12 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 3/27/98; the Clerk of the Court is to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider $53,086.66 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Mr. Henderson, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Maupin; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $53,086.66 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 3/27/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/16/1998)
949 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 4/6/98 to respond to motin of Nathaniel McQueen, et.al., for appointment of counsel (lkn) (Entered: 03/17/1998)
950 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to consolidate accounts containing fine funds [577-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; setting forth accounting procedures. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
REASSIGNMENT OF PORTION OF CASE: Calendar Committee reassigns the motion of Kemi Morten, Esq. filed 3/2/98 and the protective order issue on remand by the Court of Appeals to Judge Ricardo M. Urbina only. The remainder of the case remains assigned to Judge June L. Green. (jeb) (Entered: 03/19/1998)
953 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (JMF) (Entered: 03/20/1998)
954 ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : granting motion to extend time to 4/6/98 to respond to motin of Nathaniel McQueen, et.al., for appointment of counsel [949-1] by defendant; response due by 4/6/98 (N) (jaw) (Entered: 03/23/1998)
955 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend fine funds ; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (8) (JMF) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
956 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fine funds [955-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of the court shall issue a check from the TWELVE JOHN DOES Court Registry Investment System account in the amount of $25,000.00 to the Special Officer for deposit in the Special Officer's checking account; and that the Special Officer shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (ks) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 03/12/98 in the amount of $44,151.12 (JMF) (Entered: 04/06/1998)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 103 of 137

04/08/1998 04/21/1998
04/24/1998 04/30/1998

957 RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ALONZO W. BOLDEN-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136 to motion for appointment of counsel [952-1] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES, motion for an evidentiary hearing on remand [952-2] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES (fiat) URBINA, J. (bjsp) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
958 RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:79cv-01726 to order directing defendants to file with the Court within 30 days, a supplement to the list of basic facilities-maintenance repairs they filed on 1/20/98; after defendants file the supplement, every 30 days thereafter, they shall submit a report to the Special Officer with copies to plaintiffs' counsel, regarding the status of each repair; within 30 days, defendants are to take appropriate action with their contract food service vendor regarding nutritional assessment and satellite feeding; within 15 days, defendants are to take steps to improve monitoring of their contract with their food service vendor; within 30 days, defendants are to develop and institute an improved procedure for ensuring the timely distribution of basic hygiene, clothing, bed linens, and grooming items to inmates at the Maximum facility; within 60 days, defendants are to take such steps as are necessary to prioritize, track, and procure basic housekeeping and sanitation supplies in quantities sufficient to ensure that the Central and Maximum facilities are habitable, sanitary and safe; within 45 days, defendants shall report on what steps they are taking to procure adequate stores of basic food and personal hygiene items on the Canteen and whether sufficient stocks of such items are available; within 30 days, defendants are to take such actions as are necessary to procure medical services and dental supplies sufficient to render essential medical and dental care to the inmates at the Central facility; within 60 days, defendants are to file a status report with the Court describing the steps they have taken to comply with this Order; status hearing is set for 4/30/98 at 10:30. [942-1] in 1:80-cv-02136, 1:79-cv-01726, order [574-2] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (st) (Entered: 04/24/1998)
959 RESPONSE by defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to motion for appointment of counsel [952-1] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES ; (fiat) URBINA, J. (bjsp) (Entered: 04/27/1998)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order dated 02/05/98 [574-1], [574-2] (JMF) (Entered: 05/01/1998)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 104 of 137

04/30/1998 05/01/1998 05/06/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998
05/11/1998 05/12/1998

STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Kay Moomey, Miller Court Reporting. (lkn) (Entered: 05/06/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to order dated 04/27, 1998 in the amount $70,554.23 (JMF) (Entered: 05/04/1998)
960 CERTIFIED COPY of order filed in USCA dated 3/11/98, on appeal [928-1] , affirming the judgment of USDC . USCA # 97-5302 (cjp) (Entered: 05/06/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
961 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ALONZO W. BOLDEN-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv01726, plaintiff RALPH L. CLARK in 1:81-cv-02072, plaintiff ROBERT LEON WILSON in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff CARL WILLIAMS in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff CALVIN ROOKARD in 1:86cv-02128, plaintiff WALTER ROBINSON in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff AHMED PASHA in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff FRED OWENS in 1:86-cv02128, plaintiff THOMAS OLIVER in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff MICHAEL IVEY in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff JEFFREY HOWARD in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff CARL HENDERSON in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff JOHN HARRIS in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff JAMES HARRINGTON in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff RONNIE GOODMAN in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff ALLEN GLAZER in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff JAMES DAVIS in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff MICHAEL CLAY in 1:86cv-02128, plaintiff WILLIAM ALSTON-EL in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff INMATES OF OCCOQUAN in 1:86-cv-02128 for leave to file supplement to plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing on remand (bjsp) (Entered: 05/11/1998)
962 ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : granting motion for leave to file supplement to plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing on remand [961-1] by plaintiff ; plaintiff may file the amended motion on or before 5/18/98. (N) (blj) (Entered: 05/11/1998)
963 RESPONSE by defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for appointment of counsel [952-1] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES, motion for an evidentiary hearing on remand [952-2] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES . ; exhibits (1) (bjsp) (Entered: 05/13/1998)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 105 of 137

05/16/1998 05/19/1998 05/22/1998 05/22/1998 05/26/1998
05/29/1998 06/01/1998
06/03/1998 06/04/1998 06/05/1998

966 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 10:30 9/16/98 ; directing defendants to confer with and inform plaintiffs and the Special Officer about Defendants' actions with regard to each of the above referenced areas to ensure compliance with the Court's Orders. (N) (gew) (Entered: 05/27/1998)
964 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for appointment of counsel , and for an evidentiary hearing on remand ; exhibits (2) (tw) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
MOTION filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for order concerning continuing relief in procurement of essential supplies and services (JMF) (Entered: 05/26/1998)
965 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend fine funds ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/26/1998)
967 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fine funds [965-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check in the amount $6,281.94 to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider from Fine monies deposited in the above-captioned case; directing the Special Officer Schneider to deposit these funds into her operating acccount; the defendants shall promptly make the purchases outlined in Exhibit 1 of the Motion to Expend Funds file on 05/22/98, and shall provide the receipts to the Special Officer, directing the Special Officer Schneider shall provide vendors with payments in the amount of the receipts provided by the defendants. (N) (gew) (Entered: 05/27/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to Court's order dated 05/07/98 in the amount of $49,149.00 and $36,403.37 (JMF) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
968 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/15/98 within which to repond to supplemental motion of Nathaniel McQueen et al for appointment of counsel (bjsp) (Entered: 06/02/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
969 ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : granting motion to extend time to 6/15/98 within which to repond to supplemental motion of Nathaniel McQueen et al for appointment of counsel [968-1] by defendant (N) (jwd) (Entered: 06/04/1998)
972 ORDER by Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr. for Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [592-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $62,717.28

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 106 of 137

06/09/1998 06/10/1998 06/12/1998
06/15/1998 06/15/1998
06/17/1998

which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow, Mr. Maupin and KPMG, Peat Marwick; directing defendant DC pay $62, 717.28 to the Clerk of the court in order to replenish the Crestar Saving account due 6/26/98. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 06/10/1998)
970 MOTION filed by special master in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend fine funds ; attachments (2) (JMF) (Entered: 06/10/1998)
971 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fine funds [970-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System account in the amount of $28,000.00 to Special Officer Karen M. Scheider for deposit in the Special Office's checking account; directing the Special Officer to make a full disbursement of this sum to the Lorton Art Program, Inc. for the general operating expenses of the Program; directing that the Special Officer shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 06/10/1998)
973 (ENTERED IN ERROR) ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting the motion of the Special Officer to expend fine funds; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System account in the amount of $28,000.00 to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider for deposit in the Special Officer's checking account; the Special Officer shall make full disbursement of this sum ($28,000.00) to Lorton Art Program, Inc., for the general operating expenses of the Program; the Special Officer shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (mlp) Modified on 06/23/1998 (Entered: 06/15/1998)
974 MOTION filed by defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/29/98 to respond to supplemental motion of NATHANIEL MCQUEEN, et al for appointment of counsel. (tw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
975 RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ALONZO W. BOLDEN-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to defendants' motion for an enlargement of time to reply to plaintiffs supplemental motion for appointment counsel and for evidentiary hearing. (tw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
976 ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : granting motion to extend time to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 107 of 137

06/26/1998 07/02/1998 07/02/1998 07/07/1998
07/09/1998 07/27/1998 07/28/1998 07/30/1998

6/29/98 to respond to supplemental motion of NATHANIEL MCQUEEN, et al for appointment of counsel. [974-1] by defendant response to motion(s) due by 6/29/98 ; Evidentiary hearing set for 6/29/98; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/24/1998)
977 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv02136 to motion for appointment of counsel [964-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES (st) (Entered: 06/29/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to Court order dated 06/05/98 in the amount of $62, 717.28 (JMF) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (8) (JMF) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
978 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [587-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726, granting motion for compensation [583-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-2136; and 1:86-2128 directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $52,049.61 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow, Dr. Belitsky, and Mr. Maupin; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Saving account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $52,049.61 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Saving account by the 20th of July, 1998. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/07/1998)
979 REPLY by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 to objection [977-1] by ATTY GEN.; Exhibits (6) . (lkn) (Entered: 07/10/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to Court's order dated 07/07/98 in the amount of $52,049.61 (JMF) (Entered: 07/28/1998)
980 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend funds and for compensation of office manager ; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 07/29/1998)
981 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to expend funds and for compensation of office manager [980-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider in the amount of $15,095.37 drawn from the Crestar Savings account; directing the Special Officer to deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make regular payroll payments to her secretary/officer manager; directing the defendants to issue a check payable to the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $15,095.38 within 45 days; directing the Clerk of the Court to deposit the check into the Crestar Savings account and immediately issue a check in the amount of $15,095.38 payable to Special Officer Schneider; directing Special Officer Schneider to deposit these monies in to her operating account and draw from them in order to make regular payroll payments to her secretary/office manager. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/30/1998)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 108 of 137

08/04/1998
08/05/1998
08/07/1998 08/11/1998

ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting unopposed motion of Special Officer for disbursement of contempt fine funds and for return of contempt fine funds to the court registry; directing the Clerk of the Court to promptly issue a check in the amount of $29,480.68, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Court Registry Investment System account established with contempt fine funds; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure that these funds are used to directly pay for the equipment and supplies that are the subject of the proposals included in the appendix to Special Officer Lopes' 8/3/98 memorandum in support of her motion; Special Officer Schneider is authorized to return to the court registry the sum of $784.00 which constitutes unexpended contempt fines held in the Special Officer's checking account pursuant to this Court 1/15/97 Order; Special Officer Schneider is authorized to return to the court registry the sum of $620.50 which constitutes unexpended contempt fines held in the Special Officer's checking account pursuant to this Court's 2/23/98 Order; the Clerk of the Court shall obtain these deposits from Special Officer Schneiderand return them to the CRIS account previously established with contempt fine funds deposited by defendants; defendants shall report periodically, and in writing, to Speical Officer Lopes on the status of the expenditures made pursuant to this Order; all funds that are not expended for the items listed in defendants' proposals shall be returned promptly to the registry of the court. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds and for return of contempt fine funds to the court registry [616-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check in the amount of $29,480.68, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) account established with contempt fine funds; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure that these funds are used to directly pay for the equipment and supplies that are the subject of the proposals included in the appendix to Special Officer Lopes' 8/3/98 Memo; Special Officer Schneider is authorized to return to the court registry the sum of $784.00 which constitutes unexpended contempt fines held in the Special Officer's checking account pursuant to this Court 1/15/97 Order; Special Office Schneider is authorized to return to the Court Registry the sum of $620.50 which constitutes unexpended contempt finds held in the Special Officer's checking account pursuant to this Court's 2/23/98 Order; the Clerk of the Court shall obtain these deposits from Special Officer Schneider and return them to the CRIS account previously established with contempt fine funds deposited by defendants; defendants shall report periodically, and in writing, to Special Officer Lopes on the status of the expenditures made pursuant to this Order; all funds that are not expended for the items listed in defendants' proposals shall be returned promptly to the Registry of the Court. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/05/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 08/10/1998)
982 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge June L. Green for Judge

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 109 of 137

08/11/1998
08/12/1998
08/18/1998 08/24/1998 08/26/1998 09/01/1998 09/02/1998 09/02/1998 09/03/1998 09/04/1998

William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [596-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $52,685.03 as compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Maupin; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $52,685.03 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 8/25/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting joint request to an award of attorneys' fees and costs for the period from 11/1/97 through 7/20/98; D.C. shall pay the National Prison Project the sum of $27,488.15 in full settlement of fees and costs for said period of time; defendants reserve their right to challenge future fee claims in this or other cases on any basis including the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
983 ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : denying motion for appointment of counsel [964-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES, denying motion for an evidentiary hearing on remand [964-2] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES, denying motion for appointment of counsel [952-1] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES, denying motion for an evidentiary hearing on remand [952-2] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES (N) (jwd) (Entered: 08/13/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to order dated 03/18/98 in the amount of $297,000.00. (JMF) (Entered: 08/19/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry in the amount of $24,161.90 pursuant to Court's order dated 03/18/98. (JMF) (Entered: 08/27/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry in the amount of $15,095.37 pursuant to Court's order dated July 30, 1998. (JMF) (Entered: 08/27/1998)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to enter proposed order (tb) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 1:30 10/5/98 before Judge June L. Green in Courtroom 7, 2nd Floor. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to enter order [621-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER modifying Court's Orders of 11/20/97 and 4/6/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 09/09/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $52,685.03 pursuant to order dated 08/11/98. (JMF) (Entered: 09/09/1998)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 110 of 137

09/08/1998
10/05/1998 10/06/1998 10/07/1998
11/04/1998 11/04/1998 11/06/1998
12/03/1998 12/07/1998 12/09/1998

984 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting 9/3/98 motion for compensation, directing Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $38,455.70 for compensation; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. is to pay $38,455.70 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 9/23/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
PROCUREMENT COMPLAINCE HEARING before Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 10:00 1/20/99 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv02136. Reporter: Vernell Marshall (mlp) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 09/08/98 in the amount of $38,455.70. (JMF) (Entered: 10/07/1998)
985 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion to expend funds and for compensation of office manager [980-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $54,905.77 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow, Mr. Maupin and KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $54,905.77 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 10/22/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (jf) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $54,905.77 pursuant to Court order dated 10/07/98. (jf) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
986 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [602-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $40,495.45; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Saving account; D.C. shall pay $40,495.45 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 11/06/98, in the amount of $40,495.45. (jf) (Entered: 12/04/1998)
989 STATEMENT filed by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, . (jf) (Entered: 12/23/1998)
987 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation filed 12/7/98; directing Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $39,726.72; check to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. to pay $39,726.72 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 12/23/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/09/1998)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 111 of 137

12/09/1998 12/11/1998
12/23/1998 01/07/1999 01/11/1999
01/20/1999 01/27/1999 01/27/1999 02/02/1999
02/02/1999

MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to enter proposed Order arising from the 10/05/98 status hearing (lkn) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
988 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: finding that continued monitoring of the District's progress in specific areas is required ; status hearing on procurement issues set for 10:00 1/20/99; defendants are to report to the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel by 12/28/98 about specific matters outlined in this Order; defts. will continue to submit reports regarding the status of construction projects to the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel every 30 days as previously ordered. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/11/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $39,726.72 pursuant to order dated 12/09/98. (jf) (Entered: 12/28/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation (jf) (Entered: 01/14/1999)
990 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $56,400.99 for compensation; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous order of the Court; D.C. shall pay $56,400.99 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 1/26/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green: status report presented orally by Special Officer Karen Schneider ; status hearing set for 10:00 6/16/99 in 79-cv-01726, in 80-cv-02136; proposed order to be presented by plaintiffs' counsel. Reporter: Jackie Wood, Miller Reporting Co. (mlp) (Entered: 01/20/1999)
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff MARCOS VEGA in 1:79-cv01726 by Michael S. Labson (lkn) (Entered: 01/28/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 01/11/99 in the amount of $56,400.99 . (jf) Modified on 02/03/1999 (Entered: 02/01/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [631-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay $7,629.55 to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider and drawn from the Court Registry Investment System; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure these funds are used to pay for the supplies and equipment that are the subject of the proposals included in the attachmnet to Special Officer Lopes' 2/1/99 motion; defts. are to report periodically to Special Officer Lopes on the status of these expenditures. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (jf) (Entered: 02/03/1999)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 112 of 137

02/05/1999
02/16/1999
02/19/1999 03/02/1999 03/03/1999 03/04/1999
03/10/1999 03/16/1999

991 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting Special Officer Karen M. Schneider's motion filed 2/2/99 for compensation for services and expenses; directing the Clerk of Court to pay Ms. Schneider the sum of $34,563.11; the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $34,563.11 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 2/19/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/05/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [634-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; Clerk to issue a check for $1,662.00, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, drawn from the Court Registry Investment System account; Special Officer Schneider is to ensure that these funds are delivered to Warden Patricia Jackson; Warden Jackson is to use these funds to meet the inmate payroll costs described in 2/2/99 proposal submitted to Special Officer Lopes; defts. shall report monthly to Special Officer Lopes on the status of inmate payroll and provide her with a final report and accounting of these funds; all funds that are not used for the inmate payroll shall be returned to the Court Registry. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/26/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to Court's order dated 02/05/99 in the amount of $34,563.11. (jf) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by special master in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff in 1:79-cv-01726 for order arising from the January 20, 1999 status hearing (jf) (Entered: 03/03/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (8) (jf) (Entered: 03/03/1999)
992 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and by Judge June L. Green for Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation filed on 3/3/99; Clerk of the Court is to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $51,455.80 as compensation for services and expenses; the check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $51,455.80 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 3/22/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/05/1999)
993 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: regarding monitoring progress of defts. in the areas that were the subject of the Court's 5/26/98 and 12/11/98 Orders , status hearing set for 10:00 6/16/99 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80cv-02136. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to enter proposed order [637-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; in re: defts.' motion to reduce Court ordered staffing as reflected in the closure plan for zones II and III and the consent of the plaintiffs and the Special Officer, dormitories within zones II and III are closed, the Court ordered staffing for the Occoquan Facility shall be reduced as reflected in the closure plan; thereafter, defts. shall comply with the staffing reflected in the closure plan Warden of Occoquan Facility shall provide plaintiffs and

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 113 of 137

03/16/1999 03/16/1999
03/22/1999 03/23/1999 03/24/1999
03/30/1999
04/02/1999 04/06/1999

the Special Officer with weekly updates regarding the status of the closure plan; establishing medical treatments inmates are entitled to. (N) (mlp) Modified on 06/03/1999 (Entered: 03/16/1999)
994 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to exercise contract authority ; exhibits (1) (jf) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
995 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to exercise contract authority [994-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; contract psychiatrist(s) shall submit bills for services to Special Officer Schneider who shall forward them to D.C. Dept. of Corrections; within 2 weeks of receipt of same, D.C. shall deposit a check in the amount of the bills, payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court; this check shall be deposited in the Registry of the Court for disbursement to Special Officer Schneider; Clerk shall issue a check in the amount of the bills payable to Special Officer Schneider, who in turn, shall ensure that these funds are disbursed to the contract psychiatrist(s). (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $51,455.80 pursuant to Court's order dated 03/04/99 (jf) (Entered: 03/23/1999)
996 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend fine funds in the amount $40,000.00 ; exhibits (1) (jf) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
997 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fine funds in the amount $40,000.00 [996-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; Clerk of Court is to issue a check from the Court Registry Investment System account in this case in the amount of $40,000.00 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider for deposit in the Special Officer's checking account; Special Officer Schneider shall make full disbursement of this sum to Visitors' Services Center in order to subsidize the general operating expenses of the Center; Special Officer Schneider shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for order to address staffing shortage [639-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; authorizing Court-appointed Receiver for Medical and Mental Health Services at the D.C. Detention Facility to contract for a full time equivalent dentist to be assigned by defts. to the Occoquan Facility and to be supervised and monitored by defts.' health services staff; costs for this full time equivalent dentist will be borne by defts. who will reimburse the Receiver for the amount expended to contract for this service. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (jf) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
998 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant for Judge June L. Green :that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $42,232.77, which represents compensation for the services and expenses

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 114 of 137

04/08/1999
04/15/1999 04/22/1999 04/27/1999
05/03/1999 05/04/1999

of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow and Mr. Maupin; that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $42,232.77, to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by the 21st day of April, 1999 (N) (lkn) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [642-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; Clerk of Court shall issue a check in the amount of $15,250.00 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Court Registry Investment System account; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure that these funds are delivered to Warden Patricia Jackson; Warden Jackson will use $10,250.00 of funds to purchase and distribute to the Occoquan inmates, the hygiene kit supplies; $5,000.00 of these funds shall be used to off-set the costs of the staff closure event that is described in the funding proposal included in the Appendix to Special Officer Lopes' motion for disbursement; Warden Jackson is to report regularly to Special Officer Lopes on the status of these disbursements. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 04/08/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $3,062.50 pursuant to the Court's order dated 03/16/99 (jf) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $42,232.77 pursuant to Court's order dated April 06, 1999 (jf) (Entered: 04/28/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: upon consideration of consent motion filed by defts. to reduce Court ordered staffing as reflected in their health services closure plan and the phase III closure plan for correctional and non-uniform staff: the dormitories identifed in the phase III closure plan are closed, the Court ordered staffing for the Occoquan Facility shall be reduced as reflected in that plan; thereafter, defts. shall comply with the staffing reflected in attached closure plan; the Court ordered health services staff during phases II and III of the Occoquan closure shall be reduced as reflected in the attached staffing and schedules for phases II and III; Warden of Occoquan Facility shall provide plaintiffs and the Special Officer with weekly updates regarding the status of the closure plan; the defts. shall assure each prisoner who is transferred from Occoquan specific medical care as outlined in this Order ; attachments. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
999 MOTION (JOINT) filed by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 to enter a proposed order excluding from the current population cap inmates housed in the modular facility or in the doublebunked portion of unit six ; exhibits (4) (jf) (Entered: 05/04/1999)
1000 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to enter an order excluding from the current population cap inmates housed in the modular facility or in the double-bunked portion of unit six [999-1] by plaintiff, defendant. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 05/05/1999)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 115 of 137

05/06/1999 05/10/1999
05/18/1999 05/21/1999 06/02/1999 06/03/1999
06/10/1999 06/14/1999 06/16/1999
06/18/1999 06/21/1999 06/21/1999

MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (8) (jf) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
1001 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant for Judge June L. Green and by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation; Clerk to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $59,180.00 for services and expenses, this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court, D.C. is to pay $59,180.00 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 5/25/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
1002 NOTICE OF FILING RE: changes agreed by parties and the Special Officer to the Dental Plan by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136; attachment (tb) (Entered: 05/19/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $59,180.00 pursuant to order dated 05/10/99 (jf) (Entered: 05/23/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (jf) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
1003 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [620-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; Clerk of the Court is to pay Special Officer Schneider the sum of $41,830.61 which represents compensation for services and expenses; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Cort; D.C. shall pay $41,830.61 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 6/17/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 10:30 6/29/99 before Judge June L. Green in Courtroom 7, 2nd Floor. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/10/1999)
1004 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend $28,000.00 from the Lorton Fine Fund in order to subsidize the continued operation of the Lorton Art Program, Inc. ; attachments (1) (jf) (Entered: 06/16/1999)
1005 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $28,000.00 from the Lorton Fine Fund in order to subsidize the continued operation of the Lorton Art Program, Inc. [1004-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; Special Officer shall receive periodice progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/17/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 03/16/99 in the amount of S12,375.00. (jf) (Entered: 06/22/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 06/03/99 in the amount of $41,830.61. (jf) (Entered: 06/23/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 03/16/99 in the amount of $9,375.00. (jf) (Entered: 06/23/1999)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 116 of 137

06/29/1999 06/29/1999 07/06/1999 07/07/1999 07/21/1999 07/21/1999
07/29/1999 08/03/1999

STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Judy Brown (Miller Reporting) (lkn) (Entered: 06/29/1999)
1006 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting pltfs.' oral motion for further relief concerning the procurement of medical services and pharmaceutical supplies for the Central Facility; directing defts. to file a report by 7/6/99; a further status hearing on medical procurement issues will be requested if defts.' report does not adequately resolve the issues noted in this Order. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/29/1999)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order granting pltfs.' oral motion for further relief concerning the procurement of medical services and pharmaceutical supplies for the Central Facility; directing defts. to file a report by 7/6/99; a further status hearing on medical procurement issues will be requested if defts.' report does not adequately resolve the issues noted in this Order. [622-1], order [622-2] (lkn) (Entered: 07/07/1999)
1007 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation; directing Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $36,731.99 for compensation for services and expenses; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. is to pay $36,731.99 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 7/22/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/08/1999)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green: defendants and Special Officer of the Court agree that the orders entered in this action are terminated except to the extent necessary for disbursement of the fines deopsited in the Court Registry pursuant to orders entered in this case. Reporter: Janice A. Salas, Miller Reporting Co. (mlp) (Entered: 07/23/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: terminating orders entered in this case except to the extent necessary for disbursement of the fines deposited in the Court Registry pursuant to orders entered in this matter; Special Officer Lopes is to report and issue recommendations concerning the disbursement of these fines by 9/30/99, and submit her final accounting report 60 days thereafter; this Order shall not affect any claim for fees and expenses on behalf of pltfs. or Special Officer Lopes. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/23/1999)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff in 1:79-cv-01726 for an order arising from the June 29, 1999 status hearing concerning basic facilities repairs, food service, nutritional assessments, and other procurement issues (jf) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
1008 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: requiring continued monitoring of the District's progress in areas referenced in this Order; defts. shall confer with and inform pltfs. and the Special Officer about defts.' actions with regard to each of the areas testified to at the 6/29/99 hearing to ensure the procurement of essential supplies and services and to ensure compliance

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 117 of 137

08/03/1999
08/03/1999 08/03/1999 08/03/1999
08/04/1999 08/04/1999 08/06/1999 08/09/1999
08/16/1999

with the Court's orders ; status hearing set for 10:30 11/10/99 in 1:79-cv01726, in 1:80-cv-02136. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
1009 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting Special Officer's motion to expend funds for compensation of Office Manager; directing Clerk of the Court to issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider in the amount of $30,000.00 drawn from the Crestar Savings account; Special Officer shall deposit these monies into her operating account and draw from them in order to make regular payroll payments to her secretary/office manager. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
1010 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend funds for compensation of Office Manager ; exhibits (2) (jf) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (jf) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
1011 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [627-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726, granting motion to expend funds for compensation of Office Manager [1010-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $29,598.98 which represents compensation for services and expenses; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $29,598.98 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 8/19/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $36,731.99 pursuant to order dated 07/07/99. (jf) (Entered: 08/12/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $11,875.00 pursuant to order dated 03/16/99 (jf) (Entered: 08/12/1999)
1012 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to vacate the August 03,1999 order to expend funds for compensation of Office Manager , and to substitute the attached order referencing the correct account (jf) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
1013 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to vacate the August 03,1999 order to expend funds for compensation of Office Manager [1012-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, granting motion to substitute the attached order referencing the correct account [1012-2] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider in the amount of $30,000.00 drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System account; Special Officer shall deposit these monies into her operating account and draw from them in order to make regular payroll payments to her secretary/officer manager. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
1014 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; attachments (1) (jf)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 118 of 137

08/17/1999
08/30/1999 09/02/1999 09/07/1999
09/13/1999 09/30/1999 10/05/1999 10/06/1999
10/06/1999 10/13/1999

(Entered: 08/17/1999)
1015 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [1014-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; Clerk of the Court shall issue a check in the amount of $14,693.99, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System account; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure that these funds are used to pay for the supplies and equipment included in the appendix to the 8/16/99 motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds; defts. shall report periodicially, in writing to the Special Officer on the status of these expenditures. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/18/1999)
DEPOSIT of $9,375.00 into Court registry per Order of March 16, 1999. (lkn) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (jf) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [629-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER ; Ordered that the Clerk of the Cour pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $31,827.22 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Sandalow; it is further ordered, that the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account. (N) (jf) (Entered: 09/14/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry in the amount of $29,598.98 pursuant to Court order dated 08/03/99 (jf) (Entered: 09/15/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/29/99 for special officer to file report [650-1] by ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, JAMES F. PALMER; Special Officer Lopes shall file her final accounting report 60 days thereafter. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (jf) (Entered: 10/06/1999)
1016 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [631-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer the sum of $44,769.98 as compensation for services and expenses; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previoius orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $44,769.98 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 10/22/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/07/1999)
1017 NOTICE OF FILING RE: modified transfer process agreen by parties and the Special Master by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136; attachment (1) (tb) (Entered: 10/07/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $31, 827.22

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 119 of 137

10/25/1999 10/28/1999 10/28/1999 11/02/1999 11/02/1999
11/22/1999 11/24/1999 11/29/1999 12/02/1999 12/07/1999
12/07/1999

pursuant to order dated 09/07/99 (jf) (Entered: 10/14/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $ 10,250.00 pursuant to the Court's order of 03/16/99 (jf) (Entered: 10/31/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting consent motion to extend time to 11/19/99 to file report [653-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; final accounting report is due 60 days thereafter. (N) (mlp) Modified on 10/28/1999 (Entered: 10/28/1999)
SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 10:30 12/14/99 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 before Judge June L. Green in Courtroom 7, Second Floor. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (jf) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
1018 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [633-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Schneider the sum of $33,768.04 which represents compensation; check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $33,768.04 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 11/23/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 03/16/99 in the amount of $10,250.00. (jf) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
MOTION (CONSENT)filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time,nunc pro tunc, for Special Officer Lopes to file report :EXHIBIT (Joint recommendations report) (lkn) Modified on 11/26/1999 (Entered: 11/26/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 03/16/99 in the amount of $5,000.00. (jf) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (jf) (Entered: 12/05/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting consent motion to modify the Court's Order of 11/30/99, to provide that a check for the money referenced in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Order be issued, not to the Dept. of Corrections, but to Special Officer Karen Schneider, who will thereafter deposit said checks in her operating account and disburse the money upon proper application for funds by the Dept. of Corrections, consistent with the terms of the 11/30/99 Order. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
1019 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [635-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Schneider the sum of $33,148.35 which represents compensation; check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 120 of 137

12/14/1999 12/14/1999 12/16/1999 01/04/2000 01/05/2000
01/06/2000 01/18/2000 01/21/2000
01/21/2000

orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $33,148.35 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 12/21/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
1020 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by (tb) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
1021 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 by Ralph M. Muoio (tb) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: according to the agreement reached by the parties, D.C. shall pay the National Prison Project the sum of $16,058.06 in complete settlement of all of pltfs.' remaining claim for fees and costs associated with this civil action. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
1022 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
1023 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and by Judge June L. Green for Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1022-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136; directing Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer Schneider $29,500.40 for compensation for services and expenses; check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $29,500.40 to Clerk of the Court in order to replenish Crestar Savings account by 1/20/00. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
DEPOSIT of 11,657.00 and 33,148.35 by special officer; attachments (tb) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
1024 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for consolidation of accounts and disbursement of contempt fine funds ; attachments (tb) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
1025 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for consolidation of accounts and disbursement of contempt fine funds [1024-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; directing that the financial administrator shall place the funds in the Inmates of Modular Court Registry Investment System account (90-0727) into the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System account (80-2136); directing the financial administrator to close the Inmates of Modular Court Registry Investment account (90-0727); directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check, in the amount of $23,718.54 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment system account; and directing that any funds not expended for the items listed in the defts' proposal shall be returned to the Registry of the Court (N) (jaw) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
1026 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defts to confer with and inform pltfs. and the Special Officer about defts' action with regard to each of the areas testified to at the hearing held 12/14/99 ; directing that by 1/21/00, defts. shall report to the pltfs., the Special Officer and the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 121 of 137

01/21/2000
01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/24/2000 02/02/2000 02/03/2000
02/07/2000 02/28/2000 03/03/2000 03/03/2000 03/06/2000
03/23/2000 03/29/2000

Court on a plan to address and implement certain measures; and setting the next hearing date for 6/20/00 at 10:30 AM (N) (jaw) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order directing defts to confer with and inform pltfs. and the Special Officer about defts' action with regard to each of the areas testified to at the hearing held 12/14/99 [641-1], order [641-2]; attachment (1) (tb) (Entered: 01/22/2000)
1027 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to set compensation rate for assistant (tb) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
DEPOSIT of $29,500.40 in the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 01/05/00 (tb) (Entered: 02/02/2000)
DEPOSIT of $11,000.00 in the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 03/16/99 (tb) (Entered: 02/02/2000)
1029 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; attachments (tb) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
1028 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to set compensation rate for assistant [1027-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136; directing that Ms. Julianelle's compensation rate shall be set at $50.00 per hour. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
1030 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1029-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER (N) (jeb) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
DEPOSIT of $36,048.21 into the Registry of Court pursuant to court order of 02/22/00 by the District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 03/01/2000)
DEPOSIT of 8,125.00 into the Registry of the court pursuant to court's order of 03/16/00 (tb) (Entered: 03/06/2000)
1031 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (2) (tb) (Entered: 03/06/2000)
1032 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryantn : granting motion for compensation [1031-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in CA 80-2136; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $33,793.69 for the services & expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle; directing that the check be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; and directing the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA to pay $33,793.69 to the Clerk of the Court by 3/21/00 to replenish the Crestar Savings Account. (N) (jaw) (Entered: 03/07/2000)
1033 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend fine funds ; exhibit (1) (tb) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
1034 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fine funds

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 122 of 137

03/29/2000 04/03/2000 04/06/2000 04/14/2000 04/24/2000 05/03/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/31/2000 05/31/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/13/2000 06/22/2000 06/27/2000 06/29/2000

[1033-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER (N) (jeb) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of Court in the amount of 33,793.69 pursuant to court's order of 03/21/00 by District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 03/30/2000)
1035 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (tb) (Entered: 04/04/2000)
1036 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [1035-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/06/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of Court in the amount of 55,250.00 pursuant to court's order of 03/09/00 by the District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $11,000.00 pursuant to Court's Order of 3/16/99. (tth) (Entered: 04/25/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 05/05/2000)
1037 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [647-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726 (N) (jeb) Modified on 05/05/2000 (Entered: 05/05/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $42,474.76 pursuant to order of April 6, 2000. (tth) (Entered: 05/09/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $8,125.00 pursuant to order of March 16, 1999. (tth) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $31,544.01 pursuant to order dated May 5, 2000. (tth) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
1038 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
1039 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1038-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (jaw) (Entered: 06/09/2000)
SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 10:30 6/22/00 in 1:79cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 ; before Judge June L. Green courtroom 7, second floor. (rew) (Entered: 06/13/2000)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Susan Harris, Miller Reporting (jeb) (Entered: 06/22/2000)
1040 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; appendixes (2) (dot) (Entered: 06/29/2000)
1041 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for disbursement of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 123 of 137

07/06/2000 07/06/2000 07/07/2000
07/24/2000 07/27/2000
07/31/2000 08/01/2000 08/03/2000

contempt fine funds [1040-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of Court shall issue a check in the amount of $70,000 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court registry Investment System. (See Order for details) (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
1042 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726, special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 for compensation for services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of 32,477.15 pursuant to order to June6, 2000 (tb) (Entered: 07/13/2000)
1043 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation for services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle [1042-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136, 1:79-cv-01726; and directing that the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA shall pay $38,004.99 to Clerk of the Court by 7/24/00 to replenish the Crestar Savings account (N) (jaw) Modified on 07/12/2000 (Entered: 07/12/2000)
1044 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for expend funds for compensation of office manager ; exhibits (2) (tb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
1045 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for expend funds for compensation of office manager [1044-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136, the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check to Special Officer Schneider in the amount of $17,000 from the court Registry. The Special Officer shall deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make employer's contributions and regular payroll payments for her office manager. The defendants shall issue a check payable to the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $17,000.00 within 45 days. The Clerk of the Court shall deposit the check into the Crestar Savings account and immediately issue a check in the amount of $17,000.00 payable to Special Officer Schneider. Special Officer Schneider shall deposit these monies into her operating account and draw them in order to make employer's contributions and regular payroll payments for her officer manager. (N) (dam) (Entered: 07/27/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amoun 38,004.09 pursuant to court's order of July 24, 2000 (tb) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
MOTION (CONENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant USA in 1:79-cv-01726, special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff MARCOS VEGA in 1:79-cv01726 for order concerning basic facilities repairs (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
1046 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (tb) (Entered: 08/04/2000)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 124 of 137

08/04/2000 08/04/2000 08/09/2000 08/24/2000 08/29/2000 08/29/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000
09/14/2000 10/03/2000 10/03/2000 10/04/2000
10/04/2000

1047 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL for defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, substituting Robert C. Utiger for Martin Grossman (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL for defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, substituting Robert C. Utiger for attorney Richard Stuart Love for DC in 1:79-cv-01726, attorney Paul A. Quander Jr. and Martin Grossman for DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
1048 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1046-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in CA 80-2136, CA 79-1726, CA 71-1462 & CA 75-1668 (N) (jaw) Modified on 08/11/2000 (Entered: 08/10/2000)
DEPOSIT in the amount of 10,000,00 into the Registy pursuant to court's order 03/16/99; attachment (tb) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry in the amount of $17,000.00 pursuant to court's order of 07/26/00 (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
DEPOSIT in the Registry in the amount of $28,829.33 pursuant to court's order of 08/08/00 (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
1050 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (tb) (Entered: 09/09/2000)
1049 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [654-1] by MARCOS VEGA, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, USA, DC; that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $42,358.67 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Julianelle and Dr. Greifinger; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $42,358.67 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 9/22/00. (Original Order filed in CA 80-2136) (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
DEPOSIT by District of Columbia into the Registry of the Court the amount of $9,125.00. (ks) (Entered: 09/15/2000)
1053 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation (tb) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
1054 MEMORANDUM RE: accounting of contempt fine funds by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 (tb) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
1051 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : That the Special Officer shall issue a check, in the amount of $1,848.00, to the Clerk, U.S. District Court; and that the Court's financial administrator shall deposit the funds into the Twelve John Does Court registry investment System (CRIS) account (802136A). (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
1052 ORDER (Copy) by Judge William B. Bryant and William B. Bryant for

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 125 of 137

10/06/2000 10/11/2000 10/17/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/25/2000
11/03/2000 11/06/2000

Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [1050-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $57,645.03 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Julianelle and Mr. Becker; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $57,645.03 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 10/20/00. (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
1055 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to enter proposed order (tb) (Entered: 10/07/2000)
1056 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to file a status report with the court; and status hearing set for 11:00 11/14/00 in 1:79cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 ; (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
1057 NOTICE OF FILING RE: memorandum from James Anthony to counsel dated 08/02/00 by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136; attachment (tb) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia in the amount of 57,645.30 into the Registry of the Court. (tb) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia in the amount of 11, 875.00 into the Registry of the Court (tb) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia in the amount of 9,375.00 into the Registry of the Court (tb) Modified on 10/24/2000 (Entered: 10/24/2000)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia in the amount of $42,358.67 (tb) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
1058 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of attorney Jacques Philippe Lerner for DC in 1:80-cv-02136, attorney Jacques Philippe Lerner for MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136, attorney Jacques Philippe Lerner for DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, attorney Jacques Philippe Lerner for MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv-02136, attorney Jacques Philippe Lerner for SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv02136, attorney Jacques Philippe Lerner for ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80cv-02136. (jf) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
1059 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (tb) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
1060 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1059-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $43,472.36 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $43,472.36 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 11/22/00. (Original filed in CA 80-2136) (N) (ks) (Entered: 11/09/2000)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 126 of 137

12/01/2000 12/05/2000 12/06/2000
12/06/2000 12/07/2000
12/13/2000 12/14/2000 12/15/2000 01/03/2001 01/04/2001

1061 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to enter proposed order (tb) (Entered: 12/06/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of Court in the amount of 43,472.36 pursuant to court's order (tb) (Entered: 12/06/2000)
1062 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that defendants shall continue to confer with and inform plaintiffs and the Special Officer about defendant's actions with regard to each of the areas testifed to at the 11/14/00 hearing to ensure the procurement of essential supplies and services and to ensure compliance with the Court's Orders; and the parties and the Special Officer shall confer about whether any correctional officials shoud testify at the next status hearing on procurement issues. (N) (ks) (Entered: 12/06/2000)
1063 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (tb) (Entered: 12/11/2000)
1066 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1063-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $27,894.70 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle; and that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the court; and that DC shall pay $27,894.70 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 12/22/00. (N) (ks) (Entered: 12/19/2000)
1065 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
1064 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting the Special Officer's motion for disbursement of contemt fine funds; the Clerk of Court shall issue a check, in the amount of $34,547.87 payable to Special Officer karen M. Schneider and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System (N) (adc) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
DEPOSIT $10,875.00 pursuant to order filed 3/16/99. (td) (Entered: 12/22/2000)
1067 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136, and in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
1068 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle [1067-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of Court pay Special Office Karen Schneider the sum of $28,762.39 for services and expenses; the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; that the District of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 127 of 137

01/10/2001 01/10/2001 01/10/2001 01/31/2001 02/01/2001
02/01/2001
02/01/2001 02/01/2001 02/14/2001 02/14/2001

Columbia shall pay 28,762.49 to the Clerk of Court by 01/22/01. (N) (tb) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
CASE REASSIGNED from Judge June L. Green to Judge William B. Bryant (ks) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of 11, 000.00 pursuant to court order of 03/16/99 by the District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of 37,269.70 pursuant to court's order of 12/07/00 by the District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
1071 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; Appendices (5) (tth) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
1069 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [1065-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check inthe amount of 99,145.95, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does; the Special Officer shall ensure that these funds are used exclusively for the purposes set forth in 01/31/01 proposals; recipients of these funds shall report periodically in writing to the Special Officer on status of these expenditures; any funds that are not expended shall be returned to the Registry of the Court (N) (tb) (Entered: 02/01/2001)
1070 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle [663-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of Court pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of 29,996.76 representing compensation for services and expenses for Schneider, Wiley, Julianelle and Dr. Shansky; check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; teh District of Columbia shall pay 29,996.76 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 02/15/01 (N) (tb) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
1072 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726, special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Julianelle and Dr. Shansky ; Exhibits (5) (tth) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of motion seeking judgment and motion to amend complaint by BRUCE L. MENTION (tb) Modified on 06/11/2001 (Entered: 06/11/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC of the amount of $9,375.00 into the registry pursuant to Court's 3/16/99 order (cjp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
DEPOSIT by District of Columbia $9,375.00 to Court's registry. (td) (Entered: 03/01/2001)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 128 of 137

03/06/2001
03/06/2001 04/04/2001
04/20/2001 05/01/2001 05/04/2001
06/06/2001 06/07/2001 06/13/2001 06/14/2001
07/09/2001

1073 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant granting special master's motion for compensation for services and expenses rendered by Karen M. Schneider and Ed Wiley III; the Clerk of Court shall pay Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley the sum of 23,542.40; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; and the District of Columbia shall pay 23,52.40 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the savings account : (N) (tb) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
1074 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation (tb) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
1075 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant that the Clerk of Corut pay Karen M. Schneider the sume of 25,977.67 for compensation and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia 25,977.67 to the Clerk of Court ot replenish the Crestar Savings account by 04/18/01 : (N) (tb) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendants of $9,735.00 pursuant to Court's 3/16/99 order (cjp) (Entered: 04/24/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant of $25,977.67 pursuant to Court's 4/4/01 order (cjp) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
1076 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant instructing the Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of 21, 172.88 for compensation and expenses; check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay 21, 172.88 to the Clerk of Court to replensih Crestar savings account : (N) (tb) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
1078 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
1077 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant that the Clerk shall pay Karen Schneider the sumof 27,179.18; check shall be drawn from Crestar account; the District of Columbia shall pay 27,179.18 to the Clerkof Court to replenish Crestar account : (N) (tb) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
1080 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 06/21/2001)
1079 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant directing the Clerk of Court to issue check in the amount of 105,000 payable to Karen Schneider drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System; Special Officer shall dispurse 35,000 to Lorton Art Program; 40,000 to Visitor's Services Center; 30,000 to My Sister's Place; recipients shall report periodically to Special Master on status of expenditures : (N) (tb) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
1081 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant granting motion for compensation by the Special Officer Schneider; directing the Clerk of Court to pay

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 129 of 137

07/17/2001 07/31/2001 08/02/2001 08/06/2001 08/17/2001 08/20/2001
09/07/2001
10/03/2001
10/03/2001 10/16/2001 10/17/2001

Special Officer K. Schneider 23,960.77 for compensation of services and expenses; check to be drawn from Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay 23,960.77 to the Clerk of Court by 07/23/01 : (N) (tb) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant of $9,875.00 pursuant Court's 3/16/99 order (cjp) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in the amount of $23,960.77 pursuant to Court's 7/9/01 order (cjp) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
1082 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; Exhibits (3) (tth) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
1083 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1082-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER (N) (lin) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
1085 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend funds for compensation of office manager (cas) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
1084 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [1080-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, and directing the Clerk to issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider from the Court registry and with instructions to the Special Officer on deposit of these monies and directing defendants to issue a check payable to the Clerk of Court for deposit into the Crestar Savings account and issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider for deposit for employer contributions and payroll payments. (N) (rew) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
1086 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant ordering the Clerk to pay Special Office Karen Schneider the sum of 21, 885.91 for compensation for services and expenses; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay 21,885.91 to the Clerk by 09/21/01 to replenish the Crestar account : (N) (tb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
1087 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : directing the Clerk of the Court to pay special officer Karen Schneider the sum of $21,644.39 which represents compensation for services and expenses; instructing the District of Columbia to pay $21,644.39 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 10/19/01. (N) (dcn) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
1088 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (cjp) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
DEPOSIT by Special Officer in the amount of $8,500.00 into the registry of the court pursuant to order. (nmr) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
1089 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1088-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk shall issue a check to Special Officer in the amount of 8,500.00 drawn from the Twelves John

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 130 of 137

10/25/2001
11/06/2001 11/07/2001 11/20/2001
12/03/2001 12/05/2001
01/02/2002 01/03/2002 01/07/2002

Does; the defendants shall issue a check payable to the Clerk withing forty-five (45) days; (SEE ORDER MORE DETAILS) (N) (tb) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
1090 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for order granting the disbursement of contempt fine funds to be used to purchase recreational items for the inmates at Central Facility and subsidize a variety of programs that will assist District of Columbia inmates at Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities ; exhibit (4) (bjsp) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant of $21,644.39 pursuant to Court's 10/3/01 order (cjp) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
1091 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant ordering the Clerk to pay Special Officer Schneider the sum of 24,918.20 for expenses and services; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay 24,918.20 to the Clerk to replenish Crestar Savings account by November 21, 2001. : (N) (tb) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
1092 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for order granting the disbursement of contempt fine funds to be used to purchase recreational items for the inmates at Central Facility and subsidize a variety of programs that will assist District of Columbia inmates at Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities [1090-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of Court shall issue a check in the amount of 35,099.00 to the Special Officer drawn from the Twelve John Does (CRIS) account; the recipients shall report to the Special Officer on status of expenditures (N) (tb) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
1093 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; affidavit (1); attachments (cjp) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
1094 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1093-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of Court shall pay the special officer the sum of 24,549.73, this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings accout; the District of Columbia shall pay the Clerk the sum of 24, 549.73 to replenish savings account (N) (tb) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
DEPOSIT of 24,918.20 by the District of Columbia pursuant to Order dated 11/07/01. (cas) (Entered: 01/03/2002)
1096 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (cjp) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
1095 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman for Judge William B. Bryant granting motion for compensation filed on 01/03/02; the Clerk of Court to pay the Special Master the sum of 21,568.34; check shall be drawn from Crestar Savings account the District of Columbia shall replenish the Crestar account in the sum of 21,568.34 by 01/21/02 : (N) (tb) Modified on 01/07/2002 (Entered: 01/07/2002)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 131 of 137

02/01/2002 02/04/2002 02/06/2002
02/19/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/06/2002
03/06/2002
03/12/2002 03/12/2002

DEPOSIT of $21,568.34 in the registry fund of the Court. (td) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
1097 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (2) (td) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
1098 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: granting motion for compensation [1097-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $24,607.19 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $24,607.19 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by the 20th day of February, 2002. (N) (dam) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
DEPOSIT $24,607.19 into registry of the court. (td) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
1101 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 fo disbusement of contempt fine fundsr ; attachments (2) (td) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (td) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
1099 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [1096-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check in the amount of $68,670.00, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System ((CRIS) account; Special Officer Schneider shall deliver a check in the same amount to the Director of Hope House; the Director of Hope House shall report periodically in writing to the Special Officer on the status of these expenditures; any funds that are not expended for the purposes specified in this Order shall be returned to the Registry of the Court. (N) (dam) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
1100 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Julianelle and Dr. Shansky [665-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $23,233.49 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $23,233.49 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by the 19th of March, 2002. (N) (dam) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
DEPOSIT into the registry of the Court in the amount of $24,549.73 pursuant to order dated 12/05/01. (jf) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $21,885.91

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 132 of 137

03/19/2002 04/04/2002 04/05/2002 04/11/2002
04/25/2002 04/25/2002 04/26/2002
05/02/2002 05/03/2002
05/06/2002 05/06/2002

pursuant to order dated 09/07/01. (jf) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
DEPOSIT of $23,233.49 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
1102 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for cmpensation ; exhibit (1) (bjsp) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
DEPOSIT of $23,233.49 into the Court's Registry. (td) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [670-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $23,187.17 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $23,187.17 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenisb the Crestar Savings by the 24th day of April to 2002. (N) (dam) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
1103 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees. (td) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees. (td) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
ORDER (CONSENT) by Judge William B. Bryant: that the District of Columbia shall pay Covington & Burling the sum of two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000) in settlement of all of plaintiffs' remaining claims for fees and costs associated with monitoring compliance with the Orders entered in both of the above-referenced civil actions; if the settlement amount is not paid within 120 days of entry of this Consent Order it shall, thereafter, bear interest running from the date 120 days after entry of this Consent Order at the rate prescribed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1961. (N) (dam) (Entered: 04/26/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation (dam) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [674-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $24,776.90 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $24,776.90 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 5/17/02. (N) (dam) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
MOTION (consent) filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to dismiss this civil action. (td) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
1104 MOTION (consent) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to vacate orders entered herein relate to the conditions of confinement at an institution operated by the DC Department of Corrections. (td) (Entered:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 133 of 137

05/07/2002 05/29/2002 06/05/2002 06/06/2002 06/21/2002 06/24/2002
06/27/2002 07/03/2002
07/03/2002

05/07/2002)
CONSENT ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: all Orders entered herein are vacated, except for those Orders regarding the duties of the Special Officer of the Court to assist and advise the Court regarding the expenditure of the contempt fine funds that have already been deposited with the Court pursuant to Orders entered in this civil action. (N) (dam) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
DEPOSIT of $47,964.04 into registry of the Court pursuant ot order filed 4/11/02. (td) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
1105 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
1106 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1105-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; ordering the Clerk of Court to pay Karen Schneider the sume of $28,759.65; check to be drawn from Crestar account; the District of Columbia shall pay $5,526.16 to the Clerk to replenish Crestar account; this amount is reduce due to defendant' overpayment on 04/15/02 (N) (tb) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; appendix (2) (mpt) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
1107 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check, in the amount of $80,000.00 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) account; that Special Officer Schneider shall disburse $40,000.00 to Lorton Art Program, Inc., for the general operating expenses of the Program; that Special Officer Schneider shall disburse $40,000.00 to the Visitors' Services Center for the general operating expenses of the Program; that the recipients shall report periodically in writing to the Special Officer on the status of these expenditures. (N) (dam) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
DEPOSIT by District of Columbia in the sum of $5,526.16 into the Registry of the Court (bcs) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $24,376.51 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $24,376.51 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 7/17/02. (N) (dam) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
1108 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for order for compensation ; exhibits (3) (td) (Entered: 07/05/2002)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 134 of 137

08/05/2002 08/06/2002 08/07/2002
08/07/2002 09/06/2002 09/09/2002 09/09/2002 09/17/2002
10/04/2002 10/22/2002
11/12/2002

1109 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for special officer for compensation. (td) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
1111 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for expend funds for compensation of office manager (mpt) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $29,519.18 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $29,519.18 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by the 8/20/02. (N) (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
DEPOSIT of $24,376.51 into the registry of the Court. (td) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
1110 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursment of contempt fine funds ; appendix (1) (mpt) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
1112 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation of Karen Schneider and Ed Wiley III, directing that account be replenished by the District of Columbia by 9/23/02 (N) (lin) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
1113 ORDER directing that certain sum be paid to Special Officer by Judge William B. Bryant : (N) (lin) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
1114 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting the Special Officer's motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds. The Clerk of the Court shall issue a check, in the amount of $40,000, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) account. Special Officer Schneider shall disburse $40,000 to Georgetown University Law Center for the operating expenses of the D.C. Family Literacy and Street Law programs. The recipient shall report periodically in writing to the Special Officer on the status of these expenditures. (N) (dot) (Entered: 09/17/2002)
DEPOSIT of $36,524.04 to court's registry. (td) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
1115 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer karen Schneider the sum of $30,812.18 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $30,812.18 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 11/5/02 (N) (adc) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
1116 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of $30,792.24 which represents

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 135 of 137

11/14/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/18/2002
01/06/2003 01/08/2003
03/20/2003
04/07/2003 04/08/2003
05/02/2003

compensation for the services and expenses; the District of Columbia shall pay $30,792.24 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 11/22/02 (N) (adc) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
DEPOSIT by DC of $30,812.18 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
DEPOSIT of $30,792.24 into registry of the court. (td) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
DEPOSIT of $29,518.18 into registry of the court. (td) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
1117 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant :granting motion for compensation; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sumof $23,015.54 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; the District of Columbia shall pay $23,015.54 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 1/2/03 (N) (adc) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
1118 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 of special officer for compensation ; exhibits (3) (td) Modified on 01/08/2003 (Entered: 01/07/2003)
1119 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion of special officer for compensation [1118-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of $19,993.47 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; DC shall pay $19,993.47 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 1/21/03 (N) (adc) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
1120 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $28,696.03 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; the District of Columbia shall pay $28,696.03 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 4/3/03 (N) (adc) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia of $27,704.89 into Court's registry. (td) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
1121 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $33,331.40 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay $33,331.40 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 4/22/03 (N) (adc) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
1122 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (bcs) (Entered: 05/05/2003)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 136 of 137

05/02/2003 05/02/2003
05/07/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/13/2003 05/14/2003 05/14/2003 05/16/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/23/2003 05/29/2003
06/02/2003

1123 REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER: filed by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 accounting of Occoquan contempt fine funds.; exhibits (4) (bcs) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
1124 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to return fine funds to the District Court's account , and to consolidate the District Court's fine fund accounts ; exhibits (4) (bcs) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
1125 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1122-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (lin) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
1126 FINAL ACCOUNTING by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 of Twelve John Does contempt fine funds; attachments (3) BULKY PLEADING (bm) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
1127 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to return fine fund money ; attachments (3) BULKY PLEADING (bm) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
DEPOSIT of $33,331.40 into Court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
1128 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to return fine fund money in the sum of $3,449.95 to the Court's Suntrust bank account [1127-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER (N) (adc) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
1129 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to return fine funds to the District Court's account in the amount of $43,443.70 [11241] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER (N) (adc) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
DEPOSIT of $20,414.82 into the court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
Text not available. (Entered: 05/22/2003)
DEPOSIT of $3,449.95 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/26/2003)
DEPOSIT of $43,443.70 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/26/2003)
DEPOSIT of $6,688.56 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/26/2003)
1130 MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; exhibits (5) (td) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
1131 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [1130-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER. Special Officer Schneider shall disburse the checks to the recipients; after the referenced checks clear, the Suntrust Account shall be closed (N) (adc) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
1132 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to approve accounting; Special Officer Schneider is authorized to transfer to the Court's Suntrust bank account the sum of $3,726.02 (N) (adc) (Entered:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 137 of 137

06/04/2003
06/04/2003 06/26/2003

06/04/2003)
1133 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation; District of Columbia shall pay $23,599.74 to the Clerk of the Court to be deposited in the Suntrust Account by 6/20/03; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of $23,599.74 (N) (adc) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
1134 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting the motion to approve the accounting; Special Officer Schneider's accounting of $20,000 account is approved (N) (adc) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
DEPOSIT of $23,599.74 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 07/07/2003)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/16/2005 13:14:47

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:80-cv-02136-WBB

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

2.40

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101112578919911-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

 
 668 F.Supp. 20 (1987)
TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Marion S. Barry, Jr. and
Edwin Meese, Attorney General of the United States, Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 80-2136.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
July 31, 1987.
21 *21 Peter J. Nickles, Alan A. Pemberton, John F. Seymour, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.
Michael E. Zielinski, Asst. Deputy Corp. Counsel, District of Columbia, Civ. Div., Edward Allen, Asst. Corp. Counsel, District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections, Correctional Litigation Section, Joseph E. DiGenova, U.S. Atty., Royce C. Lamberth, John Oliver Birch, John Faciolla, Bradley L. Kelly, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., for defendants.
OPINION
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in this prison conditions litigation request the Court to enjoin the Attorney General of the United States from designating newly sentenced individuals to facilities operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections ("DCDC") at the Lorton Correctional Complex until the Court determines that those facilities are "available, suitable and appropriate institutions" within the meaning of D.C.Code § 24-425 (1981). In consideration of the persistent and unacceptable overcrowding at DCDC's Lorton facilities, the Court will grant plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
I. Background
The Court has confronted in three separate lawsuits the prison conditions that prevail at the Lorton Correctional Complex. On April 28, 1982, the Court entered a Final Settlement and Consent Decree in Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 80-2136 ("No. 80-2136"); on March 23, 1984, the Court entered a similar Final Settlement and Consent Decree in John Doe v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 79-1726 ("No. 79-1726"); and on December 22, 1986, the Court entered an opinion and order in Inmates of Occoquan v. Marion Barry, Civil Action No. 86-2128 ("No. 86-2128"). In each case the Court addressed extensively the conditions at the particular institutions and, inter alia, set inmate population limits.
Central to the relief ordered in each case, was the imposition of inmate population limits. E.g., No. 79-1726, March 23, 1984, Consent Decree at 12-14; No. 80-2136, April 28, 1982, Consent Decree at 54 ("[T]he elements of [the Consent Decree] rest fundamentally on the number of residents committed to the Central Facility."); No. 86-2128, 650 F.Supp. 619, 632-33 (D.D. C.1986). In the intervening years, the Court has entertained countless motions from the parties, conducted hearings, and issued numerous orders and memoranda as it has struggled to bring prison conditions at Lorton up to constitutionally acceptable standards.
The pace of events has accelerated considerably in recent months. Despite DCDC's efforts over the past 10 years to increase prison space and develop suitable alternatives to incarceration, more inmates enter the Lorton facilities each month than are released. See, e.g., Report of Specially Appointed Officer of the Court, filed July 20, 1987, in Civil Action Nos. 79-1726, 80-2136, 86-2128; Declaration of Hallem H. Williams, Jr. of April 17, 1987.

Indicative of the mounting population pressure at the Lorton Complex, is the recent population increase at the Central Facility in violation of the April 28, 1982, Consent Decree in No. 80-2136. See July 13, 1987, Letter from Hallem H. Williams, Jr., Director, Department of Corrections, to Peter J. Nickles, Esq. Further, despite years of compliance with the population limits set forth in the Consent Decree in No. 80-2136, Director Williams indicated that the violation of the Consent Decree occurred because of the need to transfer inmates from seriously 22 overcrowded Occoquan facilities to Central. Id. There is no indication that the Central *22 population increase is temporary. Indeed, with continued innovative law enforcement efforts such as the laudable "Operation CleanSweep," and the other Court orders imposing population limits on the Maximum and Occoquan facilities, there is every reason to believe that the violation of the Consent Decree in No. 80-2136 will only become more severe.
II. Discussion
A. D.C.Code § 24-425 (1981)
D.C.Code § 24-425 provides that prisoners convicted in the District of Columbia shall be committed "to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States ..., who shall designate the places of confinement where the sentences of all such persons shall be served." The statute provides further that "[t]he Attorney General may designate any available, suitable and appropriate institutions, whether maintained by the District of Columbia government, the federal government or otherwise, or whether within or without the District of Columbia." (Emphasis added). Plaintiffs assert that the Lorton facilities are no longer "available, suitable and appropriate institutions" by reason of the present population crisis, and thereby rely on D.C.Code § 24-425 in seeking to enjoin the Attorney General from designating any new prisoners to the Lorton facilities.
Persuasive support for plaintiffs' assertion is found in the July 21, 1987, affidavit of Hallem H. Williams, Director of DCDC ("Williams Affidavit"). He states:
After personal inspection of the conditions of [various Lorton facilities] and consultation with the officials charged with the day-to-day operation of those institutions, it is my considered judgment as Director of [DCDC] that those institutions are not suitable or appropriate for the housing of additional prisoners and that they should not be available for that purpose.
B. The Standard for Injunctive Relief
In order to be entitled to injunctive relief, plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) they are likely to prevail on the merits, (2) that they will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is denied, (3) that the other parties will not suffer substantial injury if injunctive relief is granted, and (4) that the granting of injunctive relief is consistent with, or at least not contrary to, the public interest. Washington Metropolitan Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C.Cir.1977); accord Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C.Cir.1958); see also Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C.Cir.1985) (Relief may be granted "with either a high probability of success and some injury, or vice versa."). Applying this standard to the exigent facts of this case, the Court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that continued designations of sentenced prisoners to the Lorton facilities by the Attorney General violates D.C.Code § 24-425. Supplemental Complaint, ¶¶ 22-25. There is no doubt that the Lorton facilities are so overcrowded that they cannot be considered "available," let alone "suitable" or "appropriate," for housing additional prisoners. See, e.g., Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. 619, 620-31 (D.D.C.1986); Williams Affidavit. Indeed, to continue designating prisoners to the Lorton facilities under the present conditions can only be considered an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion granted to the Attorney General under D.C.Code § 24-425.

The DCDC Director's letter to Peter C. Nickles, Esq., of July 13, 1987, is a blunt confession that on June 30, 1987, the system-wide prison overcrowding reached such a point that DCDC was compelled to violate the Court's Consent Decree in No. 80-2136 setting a population limit at the Central Facility, after years of abiding by its terms. See also Williams Affidavit at ¶¶ 6-7. While in the past year DCDC has been able to "manage" by using other Lorton facilities as "escape valves," and has overcrowded these facilities as part of an effort to remain in 23 compliance with the *23 Consent Decree in No. 80-2136, the systemic overcrowding has now reached such a point that DCDC has concluded that it simply cannot warehouse safely any more inmates in such other facilities. See, e.g., Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. at 634 (referring to Occoquan facilities as "the system safety valve"); Williams Affidavit at ¶¶ 13-14.
As a further indication of the unbearable pressure that the Lorton facilities are experiencing, the Mayor of the District of Columbia has declared a state of emergency pursuant to the Prison Overcrowding Emergency Act of 1987, initiating the emergency release of certain inmates. See Williams Affidavit at ¶¶ 8-9. Still, DCDC is compelled to violate the Court's orders in attempting to cope with this crisis.
Although D.C.Code § 24-425 has not previously been employed by the courts to relieve overcrowding in the District of Columbia, courts have indicated that the statutory duty to designate "suitable and appropriate" facilities imposes substantial and reviewable obligations on the Attorney General. In Murphy v. United States, 653 F.2d 637 (D.C.Cir.1981), an inmate plaintiff, injured in an assault at Lorton, sought to hold the United States liable in tort for the Attorney General's failure to designate an "appropriate" prison. While the plaintiff did not prevail, the court recognized that D.C.Code § 24-425 might impose an obligation to assign the plaintiff to an appropriate institution. Id. at 642 n. 16.
In Board of Sup'rs of Fairfax County, Va. v. United States, 408 F.Supp. 556 (E.D. Va.1976), appeal dismissed, 551 F.2d 305 (4th Cir.1977), the County of Fairfax sought to obtain injunctive relief and recover monetary damages against the United States, the Attorney General, and the District of Columbia for injuries resulting from the operation of the Lorton Reformatory. In pertinent part, the court noted that:
Should the plaintiff prove that the Lorton Complex is in fact a public nuisance, then it would not be a `suitable' place of confinement for persons convicted of crimes in the District of Columbia courts. D.C.Code § 24-425 (1973 ed.). The Attorney General in that event could properly be enjoined from exceeding his statutory authority in so designating the Lorton Reformatory.
Id. at 561.
The present case presents extreme circumstances. The systemic overcrowding at the Lorton facilities has now manifested itself in a blunt violation of the Consent Decree in No. 80-2136, at minimum, with no relief in sight. Accordingly, the Court is justified in acting to preserve the integrity of its orders. See Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1275, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971) ("Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies."); see also Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 612 F.Supp. 874 (W.D.Pa.1985) (court ordered relief affecting lock-up facility because conditions at lock-up facility had deteriorated as a result of defendants' efforts to comply with the court's order setting maximum population at county jail).
2. Failure to Enjoin the Attorney General Will Irreparably Injure Plaintiffs
The continued designation of prisoners by the Attorney General to Lorton facilities will surely result in further and increasingly serious violations of the Consent Decree in this case. In recent months DCDC has made serious efforts, however belatedly, to address the chronic overcrowding at Lorton. See Williams Affidavit. These efforts have included swift implementation of the District of Columbia Good Time Credit Act, expedited processing of parole applications, and invocation of the Mayor's emergency powers under the Prison Overcrowding Emergency

Act of 1987. Despite these and other measures, the inmate population continues to rise. See, id.; Report of Specially Appointed Officer of the Court, filed July 20, 1987.
24 As the history of this case has woefully revealed, DCDC has experienced great difficulty *24 in complying with, inter alia, environmental health requirements, security requirements, and food service requirements of the Consent Decree in No. 80-2136. See, e.g., Amendments to April 28, 1982 Consent Decree of December 17, 1982; August 18, 1983; and March 4, 1985; see also Order filed March 27, 1986, in No. 80-2136 (holding defendants in contempt for violations of Consent Decree). The introduction of additional inmates into Central will invariably upset the delicate balance achieved by the Consent Decree, under which much-needed maintenance work is at long last progressing, in addition to various areas concerning environmental, health, and security conditions. Simply put, additional prisoners designated to Lorton mean more overcrowding at Central Facility, thereby aggravating an already bad situation, with all attendant dangers.
3. The Balance of Harm Favors Plaintiffs
The Court is faced with a "no-win" situation, in that both DCDC and the federal prison system are suffering from overcrowding. Such a situation does not excuse the Court from acting, but, rather, compels the Court to balance the hardships that will be borne by the parties as a result of the Court's decision.
Failure to grant injunctive relief will cause plaintiffs to be confined in ever more overcrowded open-bay dormitories for the foreseeable future. As a result, Central inmates will be subject to the debilitating effects of overcrowding throughout their terms of imprisonment. Such overcrowding will result in deteriorating levels of safety and security, not to mention areas of sanitation and health. Cf. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. at 620-31.
In contrast, the issuance of injunctive relief will not result in undue hardship to the Attorney General as regards his responsibility for the proper functioning of the federal correctional system. While the court is cognizant of the overcrowding also plaguing the federal system, the Federal Bureau of Prisons is clearly not faced with the crisis state in which DCDC finds itself. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has a large number of facilities (most much more modern than Central) with which to work, and thus can elect to designate District of Columbia inmates to facilities where overcrowding and the effects of overcrowding is less severe.
4. The Public Interest Supports the Issuance of an Injunction
The public interest also favors granting injunctive relief to prohibit the Attorney General from designating Lorton facilities as suitable places of confinement for newly sentenced District of Columbia prisoners. As evidenced by the July 1986 riot at the Occoquan facilities, overcrowding presents a serious risk of a major disturbance. Crowding inmates into dormitories with minimal privacy creates enormous tension and exacerbates normal prison management difficulties.
The public interest would be far better served by restricting the Attorney General's authority to designate newly sentenced District of Columbia prisoners to Lorton facilities than by other immediately available alternatives. Prohibiting DCDC from admitting any new prisoners to the Lorton facilities and/or resorting to an order directing the untimely release of additional classes of inmates would threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system, not to mention the public safety.
III. Conclusion
While long-term measures to address the chronic overcrowding problem at DCDC's Lorton facilities are being discussed, the present population crisis demands attention. The Court enters the present injunction reluctantly, but does so in recognition of the Attorney General's unique authority over District of Columbia prisoners, the public good, and in an effort to safeguard the safety of plaintiffs.

The Court is entering the injunction to be effective on August 5, 1987. Noting the present crisis situation, the Court will not stay its order pending any appeal. An appropriate order is attached.
25 *25 ORDER
Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; the Attorney General's opposition thereto; the District of Columbia defendants' response; exhibits and affidavits; the arguments presented by counsel at the hearing in this matter; the entire record herein; and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is by the Court this 31st day of July 1987,
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is granted; it is further
ORDERED that defendant Edwin Meese, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, is enjoined effective August 5, 1987, to cease designating any facilities located at the Lorton Correctional Complex under the control of the District of Columbia as the place of confinement for prisoners convicted and sentenced in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia without outstanding or open charges; it is further
ORDERED that this injunction shall not apply to individuals receiving sentences under the District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985, D.C.Code §§ 24-801 to 807 (1981); it is further
ORDERED that this injunction shall not apply to individuals sentenced under the District of Columbia Work Release Act, D.C.Code §§ 24-461 to 469 (1981); it is further
ORDERED that this injunction shall continue until such time as the Court shall determine, upon motion of any party, that the Lorton facilities under the control of the District of Columbia are again "available, suitable and appropriate" facilities within the meaning of D.C.Code § 24-425 (1981); it is further
ORDERED that defendant Attorney General's request for a stay of this order is denied; it is further
ORDERED that Honorable John D. Fauntleroy shall continue in his position as Special Officer of the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, until at least January 1, 1988. At that time, should Judge Fauntleroy decide not to continue in this position, a successor will be sought; and it is further
ORDERED that a status conference is scheduled for September 16, 1987, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 7, in No. 80-2136, for the purpose of reviewing the overcrowding situation at the Lorton facilities.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 117 F.3d 571 (1997)
TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Appellees, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Nathaniel McQueen, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 96-5089, 96-5106 and 96-5107.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 14, 1997. Decided July 1, 1997.
572 *572 Mary L. Wilson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Washington, DC, argued the cause for the District of Columbia, et al. With her on the briefs were Jo Anne Robinson, Acting Principal Deputy, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, and Richard Love, Counsel.
Kemi Morten, Washington, DC, argued the cause for appellants Nathaniel McQueen, et al. With her on the brief was Brian Lederer.
Alan A. Pemberton, Washington, DC, argued the cause for appellees Twelve John Does. With him on the brief were Peter J. Nickles and Michael S. Labson.
Before WILLIAMS, GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS.
STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:
These appeals all arise out of a consent decree entered in 1982 and intended to resolve a suit initially filed in 1979 and refiled later as a class action. The suit sought broad changes in living conditions at the Central Facility at the District of Columbia's prison in Lorton, Virginia. It was one of a number of class actions brought on behalf of prisoners at different Lorton facilities. For a brief description, see Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133, 1134-36 (D.C.Cir.1988).
After the District was exposed to the risk of heavy contempt fines for alleged violations of the 1982 decree, it and the lawyers for the plaintiff class negotiated a settlement under which some of the fines would be held in abeyance and ultimately returned if the District met certain staffing levels at Central. After learning of the proposed settlement, six prisoners at Central filed pro se motions in district court, styled motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the motions asked the court to oust class counsel and to substitute therefor Kemi Morten (who later entered an appearance for the dissident inmates), to appoint a receiver to run Central, and to grant a protective order against retaliation. Besides being a lawyer, Morten is executive director of a substance abuse treatment program known as Unfoldment, which once operated at Central.
The court denied the T.R.O. On December 5, 1995 it held a hearing on the preliminary injunction, and Morten represented to the district court that her clients were supported by 1,100 of 1,300 inmates at Central, as evidenced by petitions circulated and signed by the inmates during the month of November after the filing of the motions. The petitions identified the six movant prisoners as representatives of the "Blacktop Coalition," and asked for relief akin to that sought in the motions, plus restoration of the Unfoldment program. Together with 573 some *573 of the dissident inmates themselves, Morten argued for the self-styled motion for a preliminary injunction, proposing broad changes in conditions at Central, some with only limited reference to the Twelve John Does consent decree. She also asked that the dissidents' motion be considered one to intervene in the class action as a subclass, arguing that class counsel and the plaintiffs' committee, the Twelve John Does, no longer adequately represented the inmates' interests.

At the end of the hearing the district court observed that class counsel had said that the Blacktop representatives "will be added to the group who customarily meet with [class counsel], and that is what the court is granting today, and that is all the court is granting today." Asked by Morten about the motion to intervene as a subclass, the court said, "No, denied." In an order filed the next day, the district court formalized its disposition of the motions. Noting that the "motion for a preliminary injunction" was in reality a motion for substitution of counsel and appointment of a receiver, the court denied it, expressing doubt that the signers of the petition were fully informed of the limited nature of the pending case and stating, "In the 15 years since this case began, the Court has had the opportunity to observe the level of representation provided by [class counsel] and is satisfied that the class is receiving legal representation of the highest quality." Order, Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. December 6, 1995) ("December 6, 1995 Order") at 3. The court also reiterated its oral denial of the six dissidents' motion to intervene as a subclass, finding that the "class is receiving quality representation; that class counsel listens to and communicates with members of the class and advocates zealously for the class." Id. at 4. The court rejected the notion that class counsel had in any way slacked in pursuit of contempt findings where appropriate, and also said, apropos the dissident inmates' substantive claims, "While inmates have been important to enforcement of the consent decree through reporting to the special officer and to class counsel, many of the concerns stated by the petitioners at the hearing on this matter are not properly a part of the consent decree." Id.
The district court also granted the six dissidents' request for a protective order, of which there had been no mention at the oral hearing. See id. at 5.
Both the dissidents and the District moved for reconsideration of the December 6, 1995 Order. The dissidents renewed their request for the relief they had sought but not attained, and the District sought to overturn the one item the dissidents had secured, the protective order. The court denied both motions in an order filed March 4, 1996. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. March 4, 1996) ("March 4, 1996 Order").
In the meantime, class counsel and the District worked out their resolution of the looming contempt issues, and on February 26, 1996 the court entered a consent order reflecting that agreement. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. February 26, 1996) ("February 26, 1996 Consent Order"). The dissident prisoners filed a notice of appeal from the entry of the order, which the district court struck on the grounds that they were not parties.
From this tangle of events we have before us three appeals. (1) In No. 96-5106, the dissident prisoners challenge the district court's denial of their motion for reconsideration of its earlier denial of the bulk of the relief they had sought. (2) In No. 96-5107, the dissident prisoners appeal the district court's order striking their notice of appeal of the February 26, 1996 Consent Order. (3) In No. 96-5089, the District of Columbia appeals the court's grant of the protective order and the denial of its motion for reconsideration.
We affirm in Nos. 96-5106 and 96-5107 and reverse in No. 96-5089.
I. The Prisoner Appeals, Nos. 96-5106 and 96-5107
Class counsel argue that these appeals are barred by a prior decision of this court and are in any event moot. 574 The claim of bar arises from our disposition of an appeal *574 from the court's initial order denying the moving
prisoners' motions 0907 recall that in No. 96-5106 they appeal from the district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration of that order. In the earlier appeal the prisoners obscurely raised the issue of the denial of their motion to intervene, and in an unpublished order, Nathaniel El McQueen v. District of Columbia, 1996 WL 453633, No. 96-5003 (D.C.Cir. July 18, 1996), reh'g denied, (D.C.Cir. Sept. 6, 1996), which focussed on the challenge to class counsel and did not mention the intervention issue, we dismissed the appeal for want of a final judgment. The direct appeal from the district court's order denying the prisoners' motion having been ruled interlocutory, class counsel say that this disposes of both appeals. It eliminates No. 96-5106 because that appeal at best replicates the dismissed appeal from the initial order; it eliminates No. 96-5107 because if the dissident prisoners are without party status, the district court was clearly right to strike their notice of appeal.

We need not examine whether the case might fall within one of the exceptions to the doctrine of the law of the case. See LaShawn v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389, 1393 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (noting limited character of exceptions). Compare Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. B & O R Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524-25, 531-32, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 1389-90, 1393, 91 L.Ed. 1646 (1947) (denial of intervention immediately appealable where intervention as of right is sought). The Sixth Circuit has held that where members of a class have unsuccessfully sought to intervene separately but have not appealed the denial, and later seek to appeal a final order, they are entitled to raise the intervention issue on appeal from the final order (even though, by hypothesis, they have not yet acquired party status). Shults v. Champion International Corp., 35 F.3d 1056, 1059-61 (6th Cir.1994). See also Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304, 108 S.Ct. 586, 587, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (1988) (non-parties adversely affected by consent decree approving settlement should "seek intervention for purposes of appeal; denials of such motions are, of course, appealable"). We need not consider whether we would adopt the Shults approach for a would-be intervenor that had failed to avail itself of an available opportunity for appeal. Where, as here, the would-be intervenors had no earlier opportunity for appeal, they should be able to raise the supposed error in the denial of intervention simultaneously with their appeal of the later appealable order whose imminent entry was precisely the occasion for their intervention effort. Thus, assuming that the movants' appeal in No. 96-5106 is barred by law of the case as to the interlocutory character of the denial of intervention, they remain free to press the intervention issue in their appeal in No. 96-5107, seeking relief from the February 26, 1996 Consent Order.
There remains, of course, the question whether the 1996 consent decree itself is a final order or among the exceptional class of interlocutory orders over which we have jurisdiction. The decree mandates certain primary conduct (i.e., conduct in the real world, outside the litigation itself) and in addition modifies the terms of a prior consent decree controlling the defendant's primary conduct. Thus, whether or not final, it qualifies as an order "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions ...," for which 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provides appellate jurisdiction. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1455-56 (D.C.Cir.1995).
In exercising jurisdiction over the movants' appeal in No. 96-5107 (attacking the district court's striking of their notice of appeal from the consent decree), of course we have jurisdiction to review the prior rejection of their motion to intervene as a subclass, on which that appeal inextricably depends. This is so regardless of whether we classify the intervention issue as denial of intervention as of right, which is appealable in itself, see Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 331 U.S. at 524-25, 531-32, 67 S.Ct. at 1389-90, 1393-94 or as denial of permissive intervention or denial of certification as a subclass, which normally would not be. See id.; McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 562 F.2d 1269, 1276 (D.C.Cir. 1977) (denial of class certification normally not immediately appealable). As Gilda Marx, Inc. v. Wildwood Exercise, Inc., 85 F.3d 675 (D.C.Cir.1996), illustrates, our pendent 575 appellate jurisdiction encompasses at least determinations that are inextricably intertwined *575 with ones over which we have direct jurisdiction.
Class counsel argues that the movants' appeals are moot because they have been transferred from Central to other facilities. The movants have not legally sought retransfer back to Central, as Morten conceded at oral argument, so it would appear that they no longer have individual interests in conditions at Central.
But the movants have not sought to vindicate only their individual concerns. They also sought to intervene as a subclass. A party certified as class representative may pursue the class claim even after his purely individual claim becomes moot, Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975), and a named plaintiff who has merely asked for class certification may appeal the denial of class certification even after his individual claim becomes moot, United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397-404, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1208-1212, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980). The Court reasoned in Geraghty that the proposed class representative's interest was akin to that of a private attorney general, a right deliberately created in order to make it possible to realize the benefits of the class action form. Id. at 403, 100 S.Ct. at 1212. Geraghty's logic, in finding that that interest was significant enough to preserve the case from mootness, appears to apply to the interest of a party that has sought to intervene as representative of a subclass. Superficially, it may not seem within the stated purpose of Geraghty to allow the representative interest of persons seeking to splinter a class to save that splintering effort from mootness. But the use of a subclass makes it possible to preserve the class action form where the named representative cannot be found to adequately represent all the interests in the class, see 7B

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1790 at 276-84 (2d ed.1986); see also Fink v. National Savings and Trust Co., 772 F.2d 951, 960-61 (D.C.Cir.1985) (finding that district judge ought to have considered possibility of subclasses before denying class certification and citing Geraghty), so application of Geraghty to subclass claims seems within its spirit. Thus at last we turn to the issue of whether the district court correctly denied the dissidents' motion to intervene as a subclass.
We review the decision for abuse of discretion. Because the balance between keeping class litigation manageable and allowing affected parties to be adequately heard turns on a myriad of case-specific facts, the abuse-of-discretion standard governs most of the related issues 0907 the decisions to certify a class, see Fink, 772 F.2d at 960, to allow permissive intervention under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), Hodgson v. United Mine Workers, 473 F.2d 118, 125 & n. 36 (D.C.Cir. 1972), and to allow intervention as of right to the extent that it turns on the adequacy of representation by existing parties, id. As Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(4)(B) authorizes the district court to create subclasses "when appropriate," it implies the same need for reasonable discretion, even recognizing that any subclass must independently meet the standards for class certification. See 7B Wright et al. § 1790 at 276-85. Particularly as the parties agree that the district court correctly framed the issue as whether the would-be intervenors were adequately represented, cf. id. § 1799 at 440-41 ("if the court determines that the nonparty class members are adequately represented, intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) should be unavailable"), the abuse of discretion standard appropriately controls.
Among the many factors governing the district court's decision that the prisoners are adequately represented are the quality of class counsel, any disparity in interest between class representatives and members of a would-be subclass, communication between class counsel and the class, and the overall context of the litigation. 7A Wright et al. § 1766 at 297-98, § 1768 at 326. Or, as this court once put it: "Two criteria for determining the adequacy of representation are generally recognized: 1) the named representative must not have antagonistic or conflicting interests with the unnamed members of the class, and 2) the representative must appear able to vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel." National Association of Regional Medical 576 Programs, *576 Inc. v. Mathews, 551 F.2d 340, 345 (D.C.Cir.1976).
In this case, we see no reason not to accept the district court's finding that the members of the class are receiving adequate representation. The dissidents make no real challenge to the general finding of the district judge that class counsel has performed at the highest level. Nor do they argue that their interests are in some fundamental, structural way different from those of the members of the Twelve John Does committee. Cf. Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs, 600 F.2d 470, 472 & n. 1 (5th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of intervention in school desegregation suit by persons seeking to represent black professional employees as a subclass in larger class action). In fact, then, the dissidents' claim that they are inadequately represented depends solely on their claims that class counsel has failed to maintain adequate communication with, and to be sufficiently responsive to, members of the class.
Here, of course, the district court's experience overseeing the case for nearly two decades has given it a unique familiarity with the issues and the performance of class counsel. See McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1167 (10th Cir.1991) (noting that district court directly familiar with adequacy of class counsel's representation need not hold hearing on challenges to adequacy). To the extent that the would-be intervenors point to the dispute over the scope of the February 26, 1996 Consent Order as evidence of unresponsiveness, the claim is weak. The district court observed:
At the hearing held on this motion on December 5, 1995, it became apparent to the Court that petitioners believed they could achieve concessions not contained in the consent decree including: preventing the out of state transfer of inmates; inmate participation in the Central Facility's food preparation and service; and, greater educational and vocational programs.
December 6, 1995 Order at 3 n.2. Although the movants point to general language in the Consent Decree calling for an "effort to develop and to expand the institutionally operated programs at Central," see "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Reconsider December 6, 1995 Order," at 19 n.6 (quoting Consent Decree at 32), they appear to recognize that a ban on out-of-state transfers is no more than a possible subject for negotiations to modify the Consent Decree, which could be said of any issue. They see the food preparation proposal as pertinent to the decree only in the sense of lying within its general language on program

development. Furthermore, the original lawsuit itself focussed on security issues, chiefly the prevention of inmateon-inmate violence. See Complaint at 3, 26-28, ¶¶ 1, 84-92, Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 1980). Although the complaint described inadequate living conditions, including inadequate and unhygenic food facilities, it did so in the context of the anger that such conditions are likely to engender, with a resulting increase in the risk of violence. See Complaint at 23, ¶ 75. Given class counsel's continuing efforts to secure the District's compliance with specific, numerical criteria provided in the Consent Decree that are directly linked to the original lawsuit, its failure to embrace the dissidents' agenda 0907 even the portions technically within the scope of the original complaint and the 1982 decree 0907 hardly undermines the district court's findings as to adequacy of representation. This is especially true for the first item in the dissidents' proposed consent order, that the court require the District to set aside money specifically for Kemi Morten's Unfoldment program. Joint Appendix at 196-97. It is also true for the second, a food preparation or "culinary arts" program under which prisoners would be paid the minimum wage and the prison members of the Blacktop Coalition would choose the prison guards with whom inmates would work. Id. at 197. The movants have by no means shown that counsel's advocacy of the February 26, 1996 Consent Order in preference to the Coalition's agenda was not in the best interests of the class. Cf. Kincade v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 635 F.2d 501, 508 (5th Cir.1981).
Nor have the prisoners made out the other aspects of the claim that there is a failure to communicate, namely, 577 that the named representatives *577 and class counsel have lost touch with the class members and are
proceeding without appropriate consultations, and that the class members' views are more accurately reflected by the Blacktop Coalition. What sparked the Blacktop Coalition's intervention effort was news of an October 11, 1995 agreement in principle to resolve the dispute over the District's failure to comply with the 1982 decree, as amended. Apart from their attack on its substantive terms (already reviewed), the Coalition complains about inadequate advance consultation over the agreement. But class counsel explained that since the agreement was initially reached at a court hearing, it did not have an opportunity to present it to the class earlier.
There is little information before us about the role of the named representatives. We know that their names were placed under seal by court order 0907 hence the eponymous Twelve John Does Committee 0907 and that the Committee (like the Blacktop Coalition) is a self-constituted body whose membership has evidently changed over the years. But its constitution, however informal, has not sharply constrained class counsel's access to the prison population. Counsel meets as well with other inmates who prove to be reliable sources of information, and has offered to meet with members of the Blacktop Coalition. In addition, class counsel accepts all collect phone calls from Central. There is also a court appointed special officer overseeing implementation of the Consent Decree, who can report any problems in communication either to the court or to class counsel. Thus the movants have not successfully made out a claim of systemic failure of communication.
At the most, the prisoner movants demonstrated that they feel left out of what is clearly a very important matter in their lives; and, of course, the petitions signed by 1100 inmates suggest that the feeling is widespread. But a class action of this sort in any case risks becoming "in ways more akin to congressional hearings than judicial proceedings," Jones v. Caddo Parish School Bd., 735 F.2d 923, 938 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc) (Higginbotham, J., concurring), with every possible issue on the table. As class counsel is pursuing the interests of the class energetically and skillfully, and much of the Blacktop Coalition's alternative program is outside or marginal to the 1982 consent decree (so that its pursuit would further aggravate the formlessness of the suit), we have no grounds to reject the district court's decision to deny intervention.
II. The District's Appeal, No. 96-5089.
The District objects to the district court's prohibition, in its December 6, 1995 Order, of retaliation against any of the six movants or the 1100 or so inmates who signed the supporting petition. The District's primary claim is (as it was in their motion for reconsideration) that the order was entered without any factual basis, such as evidence of prior retaliatory action, in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Casey, ___ U.S. ___, ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2179, 2183, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), as well as of our own decision in Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413 (D.C.Cir.1996), antedating Lewis, which makes clear that, at least where judicial action aimed at protecting constitutional claims would involve broad control over a local government's management of

its affairs, injunctive relief can be granted only if there is "a pervasive pattern ... flowing from a deliberate plan by the named defendants." Id. at 1424 (internal quotations omitted).
Class counsel, defending the protective order, relies in large part on the ground that until its motion for reconsideration the District did not oppose the movants' request for such an order, either in writing or at the December 5, 1995 hearing. The District retorts that the movants' failure to present any support (or even argument) for the motion led it to believe that the request had been abandoned.
In fact, Local Rule 108(b) of the district court requires that a party respond to a motion within 11 days. If not, "the court may treat the motion as conceded." D.C. District Court Local Rule 108(b) (emphasis added). Where the district court relies on the absence of a response as a basis for treating the motion as conceded, we honor its 578 enforcement of the rule. See Geller v. Randi, *578 40 F.3d 1300, 1304-05 (D.C.Cir.1994). Here, however, the district court did not exercise its discretion to treat the motion as conceded, but acted on the merits. Rule 108(b) thus does not appear to be a bar. Cf. Moy v. Howard University, 843 F.2d 1504, 1504 (D.C.Cir.1988).
Class counsel makes the related point, however, that the District's failure to object to the lack of fact-finding until the motion for reconsideration waives the argument for appeal. But Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes relief from a judgment on grounds of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." In fact, we have construed Rule 60(b)(6)'s catchall provision, allowing correction for "any other reason justifying relief," as calling for relief in extreme cases even where the moving party has been guilty of inexcusable neglect:
When a party timely presents a previously undisclosed fact so central to the litigation that it shows the initial judgment to have been manifestly unjust, reconsideration under rule 60(b)(6) is proper even though the original failure to present that information was inexcusable.
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility v. United States Secret Service, 72 F.3d 897, 903 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quoting and following Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C.Cir.1980)). Here the circumstances call for a finding that the District's neglect was excusable.
The primary issue at the December 5, 1995 hearing was the one we have already addressed 0907 whether the movants' claims about adequacy of representation justified either the grant of their motion to intervene as a subclass or any other relief altering the system of representation. No one said a word to support the motion for a protective order. As the hearing drew to a close, the court said that the six dissidents would "be added to the group who customarily meet with [class counsel], and that is what the court is granting today, and that is all the court is granting today"; it also said explicitly that the motion to intervene as a subclass was "denied." Although the motion for a protective order was in a formal sense on the table during the hearing, its proponents never advanced it, and the court unequivocally rejected the idea that its proponents should have any formal status in the lawsuit. While class counsel had said that it did not object to the motion, see Opposition on Behalf of Plaintiff Class to Motion of Pro Se Movants for a Preliminary Injunction, at 1-2, Joint Appendix 100-01, it never offered affirmative support. Thus the motion appeared to be a complete orphan. Indeed, later, in denying the District's motion for reconsideration, the district court relied on its "inherent authority" to issue the order. March 4, 1996 Order at 2. In the circumstances the District's silence on the subject was excusable. Finally, once the issue was raised the district court justified its decision issuing the order without factual support by saying it was doing so "prophylactically," id., which suggests that no earlier objection on that ground would have made any difference.
On the merits, class counsel's answer to Lewis v. Casey and Ellis v. District of Columbia is twofold. First, it points to Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 910 (D.C.Cir.1996), where we upheld an anti-retaliation order based on evidence that women "who had filed complaints ... were occasionally the victims of retaliation." Id. at 931. It is unclear why class counsel believes that this supports issuance of an order in the absence of any such evidence. Further, although class counsel argues that in Women Prisoners the District sought reversal on the theory that there was no evidence of systemwide retaliation, the relevant passage of the opinion says nothing of such a claim, or of Lewis or Ellis (though Lewis is noted earlier in the opinion, id. at 920, 923).
Second, class counsel argues that a ban on retaliation is free of the demands of Lewis because, unlike the order there, it has nothing to do with the management of the prison; it bars only retaliatory conduct that would be illegal

in any event. Counsel also points to our decision in Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 566, 571 (D.C.Cir.1987), in which we upheld the district court's jurisdiction to enjoin retaliation by the Interstate Commerce Commission against a Title VII plaintiff who asserted that he might be subject to reprisals pending administrative adjudication of his 579 claim. But a ban on retaliation plainly does *579 impact the management of the prison. Every act adverse to one of the protected parties (here, almost the entire prison population) creates at least a risk of contempt proceedings whose outcome would turn on elusive questions of motivation. As for Wagner v. Taylor, it yields no support for the order. Having found district court jurisdiction to provide such relief, 836 F.2d at 570-75, we noted that any decision to actually grant the relief depended on satisfying the usual criteria for injunctions, and affirmed the district court's denial of one, in large part because the plaintiff "offered no supporting evidence" that retaliation was imminent, other than copies of his own complaints, id. at 576. Thus the complete absence of factual support for the ban in the record is a fatal deficiency. In these circumstances it was an abuse of discretion for the court to deny the motion for reconsideration. See Lepkowski v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 804 F.2d 1310, 1311 (D.C.Cir.1986) (review of Rule 60(b)(1) rulings is for abuse of discretion).
* * *
The district court order against retaliatory action is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings on that issue; the orders under review are in every other respect affirmed.
So ordered.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 841 F.2d 1133 (1988)
TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al. v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. Appeal of Edwin A. MEESE, III, Attorney General of the United States.
No. 87-5254.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued September 25, 1987. Decided March 11, 1988.
As Amended March 28, 1988.
John D. Bates, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Royce C. Lamberth, John Oliver 1134 Birch, John M. Facciola, and Bradley L. Kelly, *1134 Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for
appellant.
Peter J. Nickles, with whom Alan A. Pemberton and John F. Seymour, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees, Twelve John Does, et al.
Edward E. Schwab, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Frederick D. Cooke, Jr., Acting Corp. Counsel, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Lutz Alexander Prager, Asst. Deputy Corp. Counsel, and Michael E. Zielinski, Trial Asst., Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee, District of Columbia.
Before RUTH BADER GINSBURG, D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges, and ROBINSON,[*] Chief Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge D.H. GINSBURG.
D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judge:
The Attorney General of the United States appeals from (1) a district court order reinstating him in this case, from which he had been dismissed as a defendant in 1980, and from (2) a preliminary injunction barring him from designating District of Columbia prisons as the place of confinement for prisoners convicted under the laws of the District in D.C. Superior Court. 668 F.Supp. 20.
The Attorney General was originally named as a defendant not only in this case, in which appellees challenge the constitutionality of the conditions in one of the prisons maintained by the District, but also in one of two other cases consolidated with it before the district court. Each of the three cases raises a similar challenge to one or more of the various D.C. prison facilities. The district court dismissed the Attorney General from both cases in which he had been named as a defendant, and the remaining parties thereafter negotiated consent decrees governing conditions at the prisons.
After the District had repeatedly violated the population limits imposed by the consent decrees, the district court granted appellees' motions to reinstate the Attorney General pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to issue the preliminary injunction. Because we find that the district court improperly reinstated the Attorney General, we reverse.
I. BACKGROUND
This appeal is only the most recent chapter in the long history of litigation over the problem of overcrowding at the District of Columbia's prison facilities. Three civil actions, each involving a separate facility at the District's prison complex in Lorton, Virginia, are consolidated before the district court:[1]John Doe v. District of Columbia, No. 79-1726 (D.D.C.), was filed on behalf of inmates at the District's Maximum Security Institution ("Maximum");

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, No. 80-2136 (D.D.C.), involves prisoners at the Lorton Central facility ("Central"); and Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. 619 (D.D.C.1986), appealed docketed, No. 87-5055 (D.C.Cir. Jan. 14, 1988), was brought by inmates at the District's three Occoquan facilities ("Occoquan"). We will sketch only briefly the tortuous history of these cases, mentioning only the events that bear upon the disposition of this appeal.
The complaint in John Doe, which was filed in 1979, alleged that prisoners at Maximum were exposed to "unchecked violence" and a "pervasive risk of harm" as a result of improper prisoner classification, an inadequate 1135 and unqualified prison staff, and insufficient security measures that allowed inmates access to weapons, drugs, *1135 and alcohol. The prisoners maintained that these conditions violated their right under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Because section 24-425 of the D.C. Code commits all prisoners convicted in the District to the custody of the Attorney General, and provides that he is to designate their places of confinement, the John Doe inmates also named the Attorney General as a defendant, alleging that he had failed to confine them in an "available, suitable, and appropriate" institution as required by the statute.[2] The complaint, which sought damages and injunctive relief, also named the District and various District officials as defendants.
The Attorney General immediately moved to be dismissed from the case on the grounds that he was immune from a suit for damages and that his duties under section 24-425 were purely technical. Shortly thereafter, in September of 1979, the district court granted his motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs did not seek certification of the court's order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), which would have allowed them immediately to appeal the dismissal of the Attorney General.
Less than a year later, in August of 1980, inmates housed at Central filed the complaint in Twelve John Does. They sought damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that a number of prison conditions, including overcrowding, violated their Eighth Amendment rights; and like the John Doe plaintiffs, they sued not only the District and several District officials, but also the Attorney General, claiming that he had violated section 24-425 by failing to assign them to a suitable and appropriate institution.
In November of 1980, the Attorney General moved to be dismissed from Twelve John Does, advancing essentially the same arguments he had made in the earlier case. The plaintiffs filed an opposition, arguing that in order to remedy overcrowding, the Attorney General might be ordered to cease committing prisoners to Central pursuant to section 24-425. As in John Doe, however, the district court dismissed the Attorney General as a defendant; these plaintiffs, too, failed to request Rule 54(b) certification of the dismissal.
Following months of discovery and negotiation in both cases, and a trial and an appeal in John Doe, plaintiffs in both suits separately entered into consent decrees with the District. The consent decrees, which the district court approved in Twelve John Does in April 1982 and in John Doe in March 1984, require the District to undertake numerous specific reforms designed to improve prison conditions. Significantly, they also establish specific population limits for each facility 0907 1166 inmates for Central and 536 for Maximum. The consent decree in Twelve John Does, moreover, explicitly recognizes that all its elements "rest fundamentally on the number of residents committed to the Central Facility."
Unfortunately, the consent decrees did not mark the end of this litigation. The district court's efforts over the last five years to monitor the decrees have been almost continually hampered by the failure of the District to abide by the terms of the decrees. The District has achieved only modest success in expanding the capacity of its prison system and in improving conditions at its current facilities. Until recently, however, the District had at least 1136 generally *1136 complied with the population limits imposed by the consent decrees. As the Honorable John D. Fauntleroy, a retired Judge of the D.C. Superior Court appointed to oversee the Twelve John Does decree, reported to the court in July, 1986, the District had managed to comply with the population limit at Central only by diverting inmates to the few D.C. prison facilities, such as Occoquan, that were not under court-imposed ceilings, which had the effect of overcrowding those facilities.
Less than ten days after Judge Fauntleroy issued his report, inmates at Occoquan rioted. In the aftermath of this disturbance, the Attorney General, who had recently accepted into federal prisons almost 1600 prisoners convicted of D.C. offenses, agreed to take roughly 300 more District inmates into federal facilities, and the

inmates of Occoquan filed their case. Unlike the plaintiffs in John Doe and Twelve John Does, however, the Inmates of Occoquan plaintiffs did not name the Attorney General as a defendant, but sought relief solely from the District and its officials. The district court consolidated Inmates of Occoquan with John Doe and Twelve John Does in order to "address the prison overcrowding issue as a whole." After a full trial, the district court held that the conditions at the Occoquan facilities violated the inmates' Eighth Amendment rights, and ordered, among other things, that the District reduce to 1,281 the combined number of inmates at the three Occoquan facilities by June 1, 1987. Inmates of Occoquan, 650 F.Supp. at 634.
As the June 1 deadline approached, however, it became apparent that the District would violate the Occoquan population limit; and on May 20, 1987, the district court stayed the deadline and asked Judge Fauntleroy to recommend further means by which the overcrowding problem could be addressed. The population at Occoquan continued to swell over the course of the summer, and on July 20 peaked at 1,954, or more than 600 inmates over the population limit imposed by the district court. On July 13, the District notified counsel for the Central inmates that, because of transfers from Occoquan, the population cap on Central imposed by the Twelve John Does consent decree had also been exceeded.
Three days later, plaintiffs in Twelve John Does filed an Emergency Motion Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for Leave to Join the Attorney General as an Additional Defendant, and for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint, along with motions seeking contempt sanctions against the District and temporary and preliminary injunctive relief against the Attorney General. The supplemental complaint alleged that the overcrowding at Central was at least in part the fault of the Attorney General, who concededly had the power to designate federal prisons as the places of confinement for D.C. prisoners, but who continued to assign them to District prisons that were not "suitable and appropriate institutions" within the meaning of section 24-425. Later, that same day, the district court, after denying the Attorney General's request to respond to the motions, vacated its 1980 order of dismissal, and granted the motion to reinstate him in the case. On July 21, the District moved to join the Attorney General as a party in the Inmates of Occoquan case, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Attorney General from continuing to designate prisoners to the D.C. prison system. Plaintiffs in that case, however, opposed not only the joinder of the Attorney General and the preliminary injunction sought by the District, but also the reinstatement of the Attorney General in Twelve John Does. Instead, they filed a motion to enforce the population cap of 1,281. The district court has not yet ruled on the District's motion for joinder and a preliminary injunction in Inmates of Occoquan. On July 30, however, the district court imposed a civil contempt sanction against the District in Twelve John Does, and granted plaintiffs' motion to enforce the decree in Inmates of Occoquan by requiring the District to achieve a staged reduction of 100 inmates per month at those facilities.
The following day, the district court issued the preliminary injunction in Twelve John Does that is the subject of 1137 this appeal. In that order, the court enjoined the *1137 Attorney General from designating any of the Lorton
facilities as the place of confinement for additional District of Columbia prisoners until the court should determine that those facilities "are again available, suitable and appropriate facilities within the meaning of D.C.Code § 24-425."[3] In an accompanying opinion, the court concluded that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their claim against the Attorney General, relying in part on an affidavit filed by Hallem Williams, the Director of the D.C. Department of Corrections. Mr. Williams stated in the affidavit that "no additional prisoners could be placed into those institutions which were not subject to judicially imposed limits" and that after personal inspection of the Lorton facilities, it was his "considered opinion" that those facilities were "not suitable or appropriate for the housing of additional prisoners." In balancing the hardship that granting the injunction would impose on the federal prison system against the hardship that denying the injunction would leave with the inmates at Lorton, the district court recognized that it was "faced with a `no-win' situation." Ultimately, however, the court held that the balance of harms favored plaintiffs, since, while "overcrowding [is] also plaguing the federal system [it] is clearly not faced with the crisis state in which [the District of Columbia Department of Corrections] finds itself."
In a separate memorandum opinion issued the same day, the district court also denied the Attorney General's motion to reconsider the July 16 order rejoining him as a defendant in the case. The court stated that "[a]t the inception of this case in 1980, population issues were peripheral to the central issues of safety and security raised in the complaint. Today, the chronic overcrowding plaguing all of the Lorton facilities has rendered all other issues academic.... This overcrowding is an entirely new development in this litigation...." Because it believed that the dismissal of the Attorney General would otherwise continue to have the inequitable "prospective effect" of

precluding renewal of the plaintiffs' claim against him notwithstanding these changed circumstances, the court, refused to reconsider its July 16 order reinstating him in the case pursuant to Rule 60(b).
The Attorney General moved in this court for an emergency stay pending appeal and for summary reversal, and we entered a temporary administrative stay to permit time for full consideration of the motions. Following further briefing, on August 11 a motions panel of this court denied the Attorney General's motion for summary reversal, but entered a stay pending resolution of this appeal.
II. ISSUES
The Attorney General raises several challenges on appeal. First, he argues that the district court improperly applied Rule 60(b) to reinstate him as a party in Twelve John Does. Second, he asserts that in light of the opposition of the Inmates of Occoquan plaintiffs to his joinder in that case, and because he was rejoined as a defendant only in Twelve John Does, the district court abused its discretion by entering an injunction barring him from designating D.C. prisoners not only to the Central facility involved in that case, but to any of the District's Lorton facilities.
The Attorney General also argues that the district court's preliminary injunction is based on a fundamental misreading of section 24-425. The language and history of that provision, he claims, show that Congress intended that the District be responsible for housing its own prisoners; and judicial decisions, he avers, recognize in the Attorney General an unlimited discretion to designate the places of confinement for prisoners, unfettered by judicial review. Subsidiarily, he argues that even if his designation decisions are reviewable, in view of the 1138 substantial overcrowding in the *1138 federal prison system and the District's persistent failure to increase the capacity of its own prison facilities, the court erred in finding that he was unreasonable in continuing to assign D.C. prisoners into the District's prison system. Finally, he argues that the district court erroneously evaluated the balance of harms in this case, inasmuch as the federal prison system is 56% over its rated capacity, whereas Central, the prison involved in Twelve John Does (the only suit to which he is a party), is only about 4% over its rated capacity.
Because we find, contrary to the district court, that Rule 60(b) does not provide a proper basis for the reinstatement of the Attorney General, we do not address the other issues raised by his appeal.[4]
III. ANALYSIS
Rule 60(b) provides that "upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" for any of several specified reasons. Regardless of the particular reason for providing such relief, however, under Rule 60(b) the trial judge must strike a "`delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments ... and the incessant command of a court's conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.'" Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C.Cir.1980) (quoting Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73, 77 (5th Cir.1970) (emphasis in original)). Consequently, the district judge, who is in the best position to discern and assess all the facts, is vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion, and the district court's grant or denial of relief under Rule 60(b), unless rooted in an error of law, may be reversed only for abuse of discretion. See Browder v. Director, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560 n. 7, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Randall v. Merrill Lynch, 820 F.2d 1317, 1320 (D.C.Cir.1987); 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2872 (1973). Applying this standard of review to the case before us, we are nonetheless constrained to reverse the order of the district court, which relied upon both Rule 60(b)(5) and Rule 60(b)(6) to reinstate the Attorney General as a defendant in Twelve John Does.
A. Rule 60(b)(5)
Rule 60(b)(5) provides, in relevant part, that the district court may give relief from a final order if "it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application." Thus, as the parties in this case acknowledge,

an order or judgment may be modified under this portion of Rule 60(b)(5) only to the extent that it has "prospective application."
Virtually every court order causes at least some reverberations into the future, and has, in that literal sense, some prospective effect; even a money judgment has continuing consequences, most obviously until it is satisfied, and thereafter as well inasmuch as everyone is constrained by his or her net worth. That a court's action has continuing consequences, however, does not necessarily mean that it has "prospective application" for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(5). Although neither the rule itself nor the accompanying Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules attempts to define the term "prospective application," the concept is given content at its core by two venerable Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932), and State of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1856), from which the prospective application portion of Rule 60(b) was derived. See 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2863 (1973); 7 J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice 60.26[4] (2d ed. 1982).
In an earlier stage of the Wheeling litigation, the Court had held that a bridge spanning the Ohio River was an 1139 impermissible obstruction to navigation of the river, which Congress had reserved for the free *1139 and
unobstructed use of shipping, and ordered that the bridge be either elevated or removed. Shortly thereafter, however, Congress passed a statute declaring the bridge to be lawful. The company that owned the bridge argued that the subsequent congressional action superseded the Court's original judgment, and that the Court's order could therefore no longer be enforced. The State of Pennsylvania argued that an Act of Congress could have no effect on a judgment already rendered by the Court.
In determining whether its original judgment should be modified in light of the statute, the Court distinguished the prospective from the other aspects of its decree. The Court first noted that "if the remedy in this case had been an action at law, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for damages, the right to these would have passed beyond the reach of the power of congress." 59 U.S. at 431. Reasoning that the same principle governed its original judgment to the extent that it assessed the costs of the earlier proceeding against the company, the Court held that the company remained liable for them. In contrast to the assessment of costs, the Court found that "part of the decree, directing the abatement of the construction, is executory, a continuing decree, which requires not only the removal of the bridge, but enjoins the defendants against any reconstruction or continuance." Id. The Court held that this prospective or "executory" part of its judgment could be modified in light of the new statute altering the legal rights of the parties, and dissolved its original order to the extent that it required the removal or elevation of the bridge.
In Swift, the Court was again asked to modify an injunction in light of changed circumstances. Although it declined to do so, the Court, speaking through Justice Cardozo, acknowledged that "[a] continuing decree of injunction directed to events to come is subject always to adaptation as events may shape the need." 286 U.S. at 114, 52 S.Ct. at 462. Such decrees are "continuing", said Justice Cardozo, only if they "involve the supervision of changing conduct or conditions and are thus provisional and tentative." Id.
Thus, the standard we apply in determining whether an order or judgment has prospective application within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(5) is whether it is "executory" or involves "the supervision of changing conduct or conditions," within the meaning of Wheeling and Swift. Under this standard, we have no difficulty concluding that the order dismissing the Attorney General in Twelve John Does did not have the requisite prospective application. The order did not compel him to perform, or order him not to perform, any future act; it did not require the court to supervise any continuing interaction between him and the other parties to the case; rather, it definitively discharged the Attorney General from any further involvement in the case.
Indeed, under the analysis of Wheeling and Swift, it is difficult to see how an unconditional dismissal could ever have prospective application within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(5). This view of the rule is generally supported by the case law of other circuits. See Gibbs v. Maxwell House, 738 F.2d 1153, 1155-56 (11th Cir.1984) ("That plaintiff remains bound by the dismissal is not a `prospective effect' within the meaning of rule 60(b)(5) any more than if plaintiff were continuing to feel the effects of a money judgment against him."); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Sarkisian, 794 F.2d 754, 757 n. 4 (2d Cir.1986) (dictum). An intimation to the contrary, however, can be found in Kirksey v. City of Jackson, 714 F.2d 42 (5th Cir.1983), upon which the district court relied in this case.

After their previous case had been dismissed on the merits, the appellants in Kirksey sought to reopen the case pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), claiming that intervening changes in statutory and decisional law required a different result. The court held that the dismissal was not an order with prospective application because it would not bar relitigation of the same claims "in light of any significant changes" in the law, id. at 44; and consequently, that the 1140 case could not be reopened under Rule *1140 60(b)(5). In a dictum, however, the court suggested that under other circumstances, a dismissal could come within the rule:
If a dismissal would bar a new and independent action between the same parties based on the same claims, reasserted on the basis of the alleged changes in controlling law, and thus denies the plaintiffs the right to retry their claims in light of the changes in the statutory and decisional law applicable to their action, then it would have "prospective application" by virtue of the continuing effect of the bar.
Id. at 43.
This dictum not only appears to be at odds with the teaching of Swift and Wheeling, but also seems unsound for other reasons. Read narrowly, it suggests only that a dismissal has "prospective application" if it is accorded res judicata effect and if there has been a change in applicable law. Whether an order has prospective application is made to depend, therefore, not only upon the nature and terms of the order itself, but also upon whether there has been a change in the law. The change in law seems logically to be relevant, however, only after the court has determined that the order has prospective application under Rule 60(b)(5); it may then be altered if it is no longer equitable as originally framed, because of a change in applicable law or otherwise. Read broadly, as urged by appellees, the dictum suggests that any order that precludes relitigation of a claim has "prospective application" for that reason alone. Under this reading, any final order or judgment on the merits could potentially be reopened under Rule 60(b), which is plainly inconsistent with the requirement of prospective application as it has been applied thus far. Indeed, this view of Rule 60(b) is inconsistent with the approach in Swift and Wheeling. Hence, we decline to adopt the reasoning of the Kirksey dictum as our own.
Inasmuch as the dismissal of the Attorney General was not an order with prospective application, the district court's reliance on Rule 60(b)(5) to reinstate him as a defendant was erroneous as a matter of law.
B. Rule 60(b)(6)
While subsections (1)-(5) of Rule 60(b) identify specific situations in which the court may modify final orders and judgments, the final subsection of the rule, Rule 60(b)(6), is a catch-all, residual clause. It provides that the court may alter a final order, "upon such terms as are just," for "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Although the language of this residual clause is essentially boundless 0907 giving it the potential to envelop completely the principle of finality 0907 the Supreme Court has held that it applies only to "extraordinary" situations, Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202, 71 S.Ct. 209, 213, 95 L.Ed.2d 207 (1950); and this court has cautioned that it "should be only sparingly used." Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C.Cir.1980). It is clear, for example, that a more compelling showing of inequity or hardship is necessary to warrant relief under subsection (6) than under subsection (5); otherwise, the ready availability of subsection (6) would make meaningless the limitation of subsection (5) to judgments with prospective application.
Two Supreme Court cases roughly demarcate the bounds within which district courts may exercise their discretion to grant or deny motions under Rule 60(b)(6). In Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 69 S.Ct. 384, 93 L.Ed. 266, 1099 (1949), the Court held that a default judgment stripping the petitioner of citizenship was properly vacated under the rule when, at the time of the judgment, the petitioner was serving a prison term, was facing health and financial hardships, and was not represented by counsel. In Ackermann, a superficially similar denaturalization case, the Court held that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) was not warranted, essentially because the petitioner had been represented by counsel at the denaturalization proceeding, but had chosen not to appeal the decision depriving him of citizenship. Four years after his denaturalization proceeding, an appellate court 1141 reversed a similar judgment against his brother-in-law "on the Government's admission that the evidence" *1141 0907 which was "substantially the same" as that against the petitioner 0907 "was insufficient to support it." 340 U.S. at

204, 71 S.Ct. at 214 (Black, J., dissenting). In light of this development, the petitioner asked to have his judgment vacated, arguing that he was in prison at the time he could have appealed, was financially unable to pursue an appeal, and had been advised by an official of the U.S. Naturalization Department that an immediate appeal was unnecessary. The Court, however, rejected petitioner's contention that he was unable to appeal, and found instead that "[p]etitioner made a considered choice not to appeal, apparently because he did not feel that an appeal would prove to be worth" the financial sacrifice it would require. Id. at 198, 71 S.Ct. at 198. In refusing relief, the Court stressed that Rule 60(b)(6) could not be used to relieve a party of the consequences of his voluntary choice not to pursue an appeal. Id. at 200, 71 S.Ct. at 212.
Indeed, it is a commonplace that Rule 60(b)(6) may not be used as a substitute for an appeal not taken. See, e.g., DeFilippis v. United States, 567 F.2d 341, 343 n. 5 (7th Cir.1977); Martinez-McBean v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 562 F.2d 908, 911 (3rd Cir.1977); Lubben v. Selective Service, 453 F.2d 645, 651-52 (1st Cir.1972) . Therefore, a party who has not pursued an appeal may obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6) only if there are "circumstances ... so extraordinary as to bring him within Klapprott or Rule 60(b)(6)," Ackerman, 340 U.S. at 202, 71 S.Ct. at 213, i.e., circumstances that essentially made the decision not to appeal an involuntary one. See Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729 (9th Cir.1971); see also Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises, Inc. v. Smithsonian Institute, 500 F.2d 808 (D.C.Cir.1974) (relief under Rule 60(b)(6) granted where failure to appeal attributable to clerk's failure to notify either party that summary judgment had been entered, prevailing party not prejudiced by the appeal, and motion to vacate filed promptly after learning of summary judgment).
In this case, as we noted above, there is no indication in the record that appellees attempted to appeal the dismissal pursuant to the certification procedure of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), which would have allowed them immediately to challenge the dismissal in this court. Nor did they reserve the right to appeal the Attorney General's dismissal when they entered into the consent decree. Instead, it appears that appellees made a strategic choice not to appeal the dismissal of the Attorney General, choosing instead to pursue their claim solely against the District and its officials. The Supreme Court's decision in Ackermann makes it clear that where the parties seeking relief have made a "free, calculated, deliberate" decision not to appeal, Rule 60(b)(6) is simply not available to relieve them of the consequences of that decision, absent extraordinary circumstances not found here.
We are troubled, moreover, by the rationale the district court relied upon to invoke Rule 60(b) in this case. As a basis for reinstating the Attorney General as a defendant, the district court referred to changed circumstances at the prison:
The circumstances under which the Court entered its December 5, 1980, order have changed markedly. At the inception of this case in 1980, population issues were peripheral to the central issues of safety and security raised in the complaint. Today, the chronic overcrowding plaguing all of the Lorton facilities has rendered all other issues academic.
We concede that the district court, having grappled steadfastly with this litigation for a number of years, is in a better position than this court to determine the degree to which circumstances have changed over its long course. After carefully reviewing the record, however, we cannot agree that the current population crisis presents the type of extraordinary change in circumstance that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b). Both the complaint and the consent decree in Twelve John Does seem to belie the notion that overcrowding has only recently become a 1142 central issue in the case. Overcrowding and its attendant problems are mentioned prominently and repeatedly in *1142 the complaint;[5] and as we noted above, the consent decree specifically states that "[i]t is understood by the parties that the elements of this Agreement rest fundamentally on the number of residents committed to the Central Facility" 0907 a statement that would be rather curious if overcrowding were not a primary concern.
Until this most recent stage of the litigation, moreover, appellees apparently viewed overcrowding as having been a central issue in their suit from the beginning rather than a recent change in circumstances. Indeed, less than two years before entry of the order now before us, when the District sought to modify the consent decree under Rule 60(b)(5) in order to raise the population limit at Central, appellees scoffed at the suggestion that overcrowding at D.C. prisons was unexpected and unforeseen:

Although the District points to the increase in the population at the Jail as the "changed circumstance" justifying modification, it is clear that overcrowding at the Jail is neither unexpected nor unforeseen.
....
... Thus, contrary to the District's representation, the District's facilities were overcrowded at the time of the Decree and have remained so since.
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to Modify the Consent Decree, at pp. 14-15 (Aug. 21, 1985). While overcrowding may indeed be more severe than in the past, in light of this evidence we are hard pressed to find in the record the extraordinary change in circumstances that might justify the grant of relief under Rule 60(b)(6).[6]
IV. CONCLUSION
The district court relied on Rules 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) to reinstate the Attorney General as a defendant in Twelve John Does almost seven years after dismissing him from the case. Because the dismissal did not have "prospective application" for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(5), we hold that the court's reliance on that rule was misplaced as a matter of law. In light of the appellees' failure to appeal the dismissal, and the absence of any extraordinary change in the circumstances of this litigation, we further hold that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 60(b)(6).[7] Accordingly, the district court's order reinstating the Attorney General as a 1143 defendant is reversed, *1143 and the preliminary injunction barring him from designating District of Columbia prisons as the place of confinement for prisoners convicted and sentenced in D.C. Superior Court is vacated.
So ordered.
[*] The Honorable Aubrey E. Robinson Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(a) (1982).
[1] Two other cases, Inmates of the D.C. Jail v. Jackson, No. 75-1668 (D.D.C.), and Campbell v. McGruder, No. 77-1462 (D.D.C.), involve prisoner challenges to conditions at the District's Central Detention Facility (the "D.C. Jail"), which is located in the District of Columbia. They were consolidated separately from the cases on appeal here, and resulted in a consent decree imposing limits on the D.C. Jail's population and in a stipulation requiring other reforms. The district court continues to monitor those arrangements.
[2] D.C.Code Ann. § 24-425 (1981) provides:
All prisoners convicted in the District of Columbia for any offense, including violations of municipal regulations and ordinances and acts of Congress in the nature of municipal regulations and ordinances, shall be committed, for their terms of imprisonment, and to such types of institutions as the court may direct, to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative, who shall designate the places of confinements where the sentences of all such persons shall be served. The Attorney General may designate any available, suitable, and appropriate institutions, whether maintained by the District of Columbia government, the federal government, or otherwise, or whether within or without the District of Columbia. The Attorney General is also authorized to order the transfer of any such person from one institution to another if, in his judgment, it shall be for the well-being of the prisoner or relieve overcrowding or unhealthful conditions in the institutions where such prisoner is confined, or for other reasons.
[3] The district court's order did not bar designation to Lorton of prisoners who had outstanding or open charges against them, or of inmates sentenced under either the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985, D.C.Code Ann. §§ 24-801 to 807 (Supp.1987), or the D.C. Work Release Act, D.C.Code Ann. §§ 24-461 to 469 (1981).

[4] Nor do we address the District's contention that the reinstatement of the Attorney General was authorized under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1982), as it was neither urged nor relied upon below.
[5] In its brief in support of the reinstatement of the Attorney General, the District claims that the complaint mentions overcrowding only "four times, in passing," and cites to four paragraphs in the complaint. We count in the complaint more than twice that many references to overcrowding. One such reference that was not cited by the District is directly beneath the heading Archaic and Overcrowded Living Facilities. It states:
The herding of a large number of inmates into overcrowded single-room and outmoded dormitories creates substantially increased tensions and resulting violence. The packing together of beds, lockers, and personal belongings makes the addition of a new resident in a dormitory under the "find a spot" classification system [under which new inmates are not assigned to a specific area but are simply told to find a spot wherever they can] a cause of melees and violence. New residents have been beaten and their beds and possessions hurled out of the dormitory when they attempted to find places on their own.
While we assume that the District's omissions were simply an oversight, it is the kind of oversight that compels us to look carefully at a party's other submissions.
[6] The parties disagree over whether the reinstatement of the Attorney General would effectively bind him to the consent decree, to which he never consented, and in the framing of which he had no hand. In light of our disposition of the case, we need not address this issue, nor decide whether reinstatement pursuant to Rule 60(b) may ever have such an effect.
[7] If the appellees commence a new action against the Attorney General, the district court will have to decide whether the 1980 order dismissing the Attorney General should be accorded preclusive effect. On this record, it is unclear whether the district court, when it reinstated the Attorney General and enjoined him from assigning additional prisoners to D.C. prisons, considered fully the views of the plaintiffs in the Inmates of Occoquan case, who strongly opposed such an order for fear that it would take many inmates far from their families. We therefore note only that if a new action against the Attorney General is filed, all of the prisoners affected (or their class representatives) should be joined as parties necessary for a just adjudication of the suit.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 861 F.2d 295 (1988)
TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al. v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellants.
No. 88-5254.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued September 26, 1988. Decided November 18, 1988.
296 *296 Edward E. Schwab, with whom Charles L. Reischel, Frederick D. Cooke, Jr., Washington, D.C., and Paul A. Quander, Jr. appeared on the brief, for appellants.
Peter J. Nickles, with whom Alan A. Pemberton, Gaines H. Cleveland and David L. Russo, Washington, D.C., appeared on the brief, for appellees.
Before MIKVA and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges, and ROSENN,[*] Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MIKVA.
MIKVA, Circuit Judge:
This court is yet again faced with a dispute over the much-litigated condition of the District of Columbia's prison system. The District appeals from various orders upholding and enforcing the population lid established by consent decree for the Central Facility at the Lorton prison complex ("Central"). This opinion is in support of our previous speaking order affirming the district court's decision in the largest part. We vacate that portion of the district court's order which requires the District to make certain representations to the district court before transferring Central inmates to other D.C. facilities.
I. BACKGROUND
Most of the District's prison facilities at Lorton have generated litigation from inmates protesting conditions as violations of the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Two lines of complaints resulted in consent decrees; two others went to trial. The suits protesting conditions at the Central Facility were resolved through one of the consent decrees, entered April 28, 1982. Inmates had complained that Central, built in the 1920s and arranged as a series of open-bay dormitories, subjected inmates to virtually unchecked violence, was over-crowded, dilapidated, understaffed, unsanitary and lacked necessary medical care. Inter alia, the District consented to a provision that prohibited it from incarcerating more than 1166 inmates in the facility.
On August 6, 1988, five days after the district court order now under review issued, there were 1491 inmates at 297 Central, *297 excluding the 86 prisoners in the P.G. Modular Unit which is not subject to the decree. This dropped
to 1379 by August 31, climbed to 1451 on September 4 and dropped again to 1346 by September 26, the day this appeal was argued. The District of Columbia admits that it has failed to comply with the population ceiling for all but a two-month period since July 1987.
On July 16, 1987, plaintiffs moved that the District be held in contempt for violating the consent decree. The district court held the District in contempt and fined it $250 per day per overcrowded dormitory. But the District continued to pack more inmates into Central than permitted by the consent decree. In December, plaintiffs moved that sanctions be substantially increased. By the time of the hearing, on December 16, the District had removed a sufficient number of inmates that it was in compliance, and higher sanctions were denied. Only two months later, the District was violating the population lid again and has continued to do so since. This court upheld the contempt order on August 26, 1988, rejecting the District's claim that it was impossible for it to comply with the

consent decree. Nonetheless, the District has continued to flout the order, seemingly treating the fines as license fees that buy it the right to prolong the dangerously congested conditions at Central.
While the District's appeal of the contempt order was pending, on May 25, 1988, plaintiffs moved to enforce the consent decree 0907 if necessary, by an order that prisoners be released. After the hearing on that motion, the District moved to modify the population ceiling in the consent decree. The District did not request a specific change, but only that the parties be directed to meet and agree. The District rejected a proposal that the ceiling be raised 10 percent along with an increase in medical and correctional staff. The District also declined to file a breakdown of how many additional inmates it was requesting and what plans it had for additional personnel.
On August 1, 1988, the district court denied the motion to modify and issued several orders to specifically enforce the decree. It refused to issue a release order as requested but enjoined the District from assigning any more prisoners to Central and required it to remove at least 150 prisoners per month from Central until the population reached the decree's specified maximum of 1166. Compliance was to be reached by November 1 at the latest. In addition, in the certification provision which we vacate, the court enjoined any transfers of inmates from Central to another District prison unless the Director of the Department of Corrections first certified to the district court that the transfer would not threaten to violate his duty to provide for the adequate care, safekeeping, protection, instruction, and discipline of persons housed in the institution to which the inmates were being transferred.
The District contends that modification of the decree should have been granted because: there are changed circumstances unforeseen at the time it was entered 0907 a massive increase in felony drug convictions; the District has made a good faith effort to comply with the decree; forced compliance would imperil the public interest by requiring release of prisoners. Further, the District maintains that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunctions.
II. DISCUSSION
A consent decree, though negotiated by the parties, is a decree entered by a court and subject to the same judicial power to revoke or modify as any other court order. See United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114, 52 S.Ct. 460, 462, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932); System Federation v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 650-51, 81 S.Ct. 368, 372-73, 5 L.Ed.2d 349 (1961).
In Swift & Co., the Supreme Court laid out the principle by which such decrees are to be construed: "The inquiry for us is whether the changes are so important that dangers, once substantial, have become attenuated to a shadow ... [and those subject to the decree are] suffering hardship so extreme and unexpected as to justify us in 298 saying that they are the victims of oppression." Swift & Co., 286 U.S. at 119, 52 *298 S.Ct. at 464. Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to modify a court order if "it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5). Modification is an extraordinary remedy, as would be any device which allows a party 0907 even a municipality 0907 to escape commitments voluntarily made and solemnized by a court decree.
In the past decade, several circuits have suggested that a more flexible standard is appropriate where the decree stems from litigation aimed at institutional reform. See Philadelphia WRO v. Shapp, 602 F.2d 1114 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1026, 100 S.Ct. 689, 62 L.Ed.2d 660 (1980); N.Y. Ass'n for Retarded Children Inc. v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 915, 104 S.Ct. 277, 78 L.Ed.2d 257 (1983).
Several of our sister circuits have considered the circumstances under which it is appropriate to modify consent decrees entered in prison reform litigation. In some cases, material changes in operative law or circumstances have been found to warrant modification. E.g., Nelson v. Collins, 659 F.2d 420 (4th Cir.1981). But predictable changes in circumstances have been found not to meet this standard. E.g., Ruiz v. Lynaugh, 811 F.2d 856 (5th Cir.1987). Modification has also been held appropriate where the danger to the public of enforcement outweighed the interests of the prisoners in compliance, as courts sitting in equity are obliged to consider the interests of all those affected by a decree. See Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756, 759 (7th Cir.1985) (Duran II).

The Supreme Court has said that wide discretion must be accorded to the district court in deciding whether to modify a consent decree because such a decision requires "a balance of imponderables." System Federation, 364 U.S. at 648, 81 S.Ct. at 371. There are limits to this discretion, though, and the district court's decision may be overturned if unreasonable or based on clearly erroneous findings. We have applied these teachings to our review and we are satisfied that the District of Columbia did not demonstrate such changed circumstances as would warrant modification or that the public would be harmed by enforcement of the decree as originally entered.
A. Changed Conditions Not Shown
The District maintains that the number of prisoners in its system increased dramatically and unforeseeably, attributable entirely to increased felony drug convictions. This court has already found that overcrowding in the D.C. prison system was not unforeseen or unforeseeable. Judge Spottswood Robinson said in a prior appeal concerning this very decree: "The District has for years been aware of recurrent overcrowding in its prisons, and has not taken steps adequate to eradicate the problem." Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 855 F.2d 874, 877 (D.C.Cir.1988) (Twelve John Does I). Indeed, the population ceiling was included in the original 1982 decree because overcrowding was already an issue.
The District is correct that the number of prisoners has increased in the years since the decree was entered; it is incorrect in its implication that the increases occurred mostly in the past two years and in such a way that it was unable to prepare for them. According to the District's own figures, the number of prisoners in the entire system has increased every year since the lawsuit resulting in the consent decree was filed. For example, the average daily population of prisoners in the D.C. correctional system increased by 557 in 1984 over 1983, by 1260 in 1985 over 1984, by 924 in 1986 over 1985, and by 588 in 1987 over 1986. See Office of Criminal Justice Plans and Analysis, District of Columbia, 1987 Crime & Justice Report 21 (1988); Appellant's Brief at 5.
Thus, not only were continued increases entirely predictable but the District was forewarned to expect greater increases than have actually occurred, as the increase in prisoners in 1987 was markedly less than it had been in the two previous years. The District has not even attempted to explain why it did not, when the increase was 299 1260 inmates in one year (an *299 increase of 17.7 percent), plan for a future of major annual increases in prison population. In the three to four years since, it could have planned, constructed and opened new prisons. If it had based growth on the 1985 figures, it would now not only have solved its recurrent overcrowding problems, it would have room to spare.
The District complains that the system-wide increases have so badly overcrowded the other facilities in its system that it was forced to transfer prisoners to Central. But the extensive history of litigation for virtually every D.C. prison facility has long put the District on notice of the system-wide overcrowding. Moreover, the District was specifically warned more than two years ago, by retired Judge John D. Fauntleroy who was serving as a special assistant to the Mayor to monitor compliance with the Central decree, that the District's overcrowding of other facilities would soon force it to violate the Central decree.
Furthermore, the felony drug convictions situation is one the District itself made. When the District passed strong drug laws with greatly increased maximum sentences and, two years later, added mandatory minimums of as much as four years, the need for more prison space was obvious. The price for longer prison terms is always the need for more prison space. The District has had since 1981 to provide that space. It has not used those seven years to sufficient advantage.
B. Harm to the Public Not Shown
Courts must weigh the public interest in having lawful sentences carried out and in being protected from dangerous criminals. Plyler v. Evatt, 846 F.2d 208, 213-14 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding to lower court to consider evidence that compliance would require releases from pool of high risk prisoners and that recidivism rate for such prisoners was 44.7 percent). The District maintains that its only means of complying with the decree is to release

prisoners or to refuse new prisoners. Its claim to this effect must be rejected because it has made no showing as to who was in the prison system nor how long they had left on their sentences. The district court found that compliance was possible by applying the procedures of the Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, D.C.Code § 24-901 (Supp.1988) to a greater number of inmates. See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting a Temporary Stay, No. 80-2136, at 3 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 1988). That act permits corrections officials to shorten the sentences of non-violent offenders. The District did not even attempt to refute the finding that the population lid could be met by releasing such prisoners as misdemeanants with only a few weeks left to serve. Instead, it seems more interested in precipitating the maximum crisis by threatening to refuse to take any new prisoners into the system 0907 even though it is obvious (and admitted in open court) that there are misdemeanants in the prisons who are far less dangerous to the public than the newly convicted felons who are being rejected. This may be an effective way to play a game of "chicken" with the U.S. Department of Justice to scare it into taking responsibility for housing new prisoners; it hardly is the way to establish the legal prerequisites necessary to effectuate a change in a consent decree.
The District's argument that Central is a medium-security facility housing felons is beside the point. The District is only being required to maintain an inmate population at Central of no more than 1166 prisoners. How the District arranges and rearranges the prison system to comply with that requirement is entirely its own concern. It could release misdemeanants or detainees from other facilities and transfer inmates from Central to those facilities. It could put misdemeanants in Central instead of felons. It has many options. But it is the District which is choosing which options to exercise, not this court.
The District's argument that the Emergency Powers Act is limited and that it has already used up its ability to release prisoners under it is also unavailing. Counsel would have this court accept some kind of schism between 300 the District government and the District's prison system 0907 as if there were two warring sovereignties to be *300 recognized. Patently, the District government is viewed as an entity in this court, and its inter se problems cannot excuse the District's legal commitments. It is within the power of the District of Columbia government to amend the Emergency Powers Act, to pass a new act or to provide whatever enabling legislation is necessary to comply with the decree to which it is legally bound. Nor would the District's position be improved by a showing that such legislation would encounter political difficulties. This court has already ruled that political obstacles do not reach the lack of power due to circumstances beyond one's control necessary to constitute an impossibility defense. Twelve John Does I, 855 F.2d at 878.
Furthermore, the District failed to make any showing that previous releases of prisoners under the Emergency Powers Act had placed the public in any danger. In Duran II, the Seventh Circuit did find that a significant percentage of released detainees became fugitives or committed serious felonies when released and this was sufficiently probative for the court to conclude that the danger of further releases outweighed the detainees' interest in defeating a temporary (seven-week) period of double-celling. 760 F.2d at 760-61, 763. The District, by contrast, provided no information at all about the results of its Emergency Powers Act release program thus far. Therefore the district court's conclusion that the results have not been inimical to the public interest must be sustained.
The District also failed to show that meeting the population ceiling at Central necessitates closing the prison system to new convicts. The district court found that closing the entire system would not be required; rather the District would have to, at most, make choices about which inmates should be confined. See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting a Temporary Stay, No. 80-2136, at 3 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 1988). As discussed above, the District made no showing that such choices could not be made in harmony with the public interest. Counsel's argument before this court that the District would keep misdemeanants and arrested-but-stillpresumed-innocent detainees in prison but refuse to incarcerate a convicted murderer is irresponsible bluster in a serious crisis. Nothing presented by the District suggests that the lower court's finding was clearly erroneous.
C. District's Good Faith Attempt to Comply Not Shown
Many courts have considered whether the party moving for modification has shown a good faith attempt to comply in determining whether modification should be granted, especially in institutional reform situations. See

Philadelphia WRO v. Shapp, 602 F.2d at 1120-21 (finding good faith and permitting modification); Plyler v. Evatt, 846 F.2d at 213 (same); see also Duran v. Elrod, 713 F.2d 292 (7th Cir.1983) (finding that the state was deliberately trying to avoid compliance and denying modification), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1108, 104 S.Ct. 1615, 80 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984). It is not clear whether these courts considered good faith to be a necessary predicate to modification or only a factor to be weighed. We need not reach this issue, however, because the record does not disclose that the District of Columbia has even begun to show a good faith attempt to comply with the Central decree.
The district court did not make an express finding on good faith. But its findings,
a. that no new guards have been hired to cope with the overcrowding at Central,
b. that the rate of assaults has risen,
c. that the danger to both inmates and guards is exacerbated by the crowding,
d. that if enforcement hearings had not been held, there would be even less progress toward building new facilities,
voice that court's certainty that the District has been remiss. See Memorandum, No. 80-2136, at 2-4, 6 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 1988). We conclude that the district court's findings on these issues deserve especial deference because the district judge has personally supervised the implementation of this decree for the past six years and is 301 uniquely *301 privy to the behavior and motives of the parties.
D. Enforcement Injunctions Were Not Abuses of Discretion
The District argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering it not to admit any new prisoners into Central and to transfer 150 prisoners out of Central each month until it complied with the population ceiling in the decree. The District claims that it cannot comply without closing the D.C. system to new inmates and that a finding of an eighth amendment violation is a prerequisite to such orders.
The District has wholly misstated the law of consent decrees. Even more disturbing, these are the very issues that have already been raised by the District and decided to the contrary by this court. In upholding the recent contempt order, this court found that the District could comply with the population lid, that it must comply with the population lid and that its constitutional arguments were beside the point where the District had voluntarily avoided eighth amendment litigation by signing the consent decree. Twelve John Does I, 855 F.2d at 878 n. 30. The "necessity" of closing the prison system, as discussed above, is merely a posture to once again avoid compliance.
E. Certification Requirement
The District also challenges the district court's certification requirement as beyond the powers of the court. The order required that, before Central inmates could be transferred to another D.C. facility, the Director of the Department of Corrections was to certify to the court that the transfer would not threaten to violate his obligation to provide adequate care to the inmates in the facility to which the Central inmates were transferred.
Courts may not expand relief beyond the scope of a consent decree, even if the relief would further the purposes of the decree. Firefighters Local 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 574-75, 104 S.Ct. 2576, 2585-86, 81 L.Ed.2d 483 (1984). The certification requirement imposed here would extend relief to prisoners who were not parties to the original proceedings and are not encompassed by the provisions of the Central consent decree. Thus it is not a valid means of enforcing the decree. We vacate the certification requirement and remand for the district court to consider whether it wishes to add any additional orders in its place.
Nonetheless, had the District made a compelling case for modification, it would have been appropriate for the district court to consider the implications of any modification on other D.C. facilities, as well as the general public,

in order to determine what change would be most appropriate for all concerned. See Duran II, 760 F.2d at 759. Since the District has utterly failed to make such a showing, that issue is not yet presented.
III. CONCLUSION
Progress in achieving the terms of the Central decree has required numerous contempt motions by plaintiffs and an appointment of a special assistant to the mayor (in lieu of a special master) to monitor compliance. The limited prison construction effected by the District appears to have been largely prodded by court action. Time after time, the District has withheld taking even preliminary steps in the creation of new prison facilities until the eve of a court hearing on the District's contumely.
This court, in upholding the recent contempt order, excoriated the District for its "apathetic" response to overcrowding in its prison system and its "intransigence" in the face of the consent decree. Twelve John Does I, 855 F.2d at 877, 878. The court concluded: "We share ... the District Court's sentiment, albeit obliquely expressed, that the limits of judicial tolerance have been reached." Id. at 878.
The sorry record of dereliction amassed by the District, its lack of creativity in fashioning ways to reduce overcrowding and its relentless recalcitrance suggest that the district court would be justified in reassessing what sanctions will finally guarantee the District's compliance.
302 *302 The order of the district court denying appellant's motion to modify the consent decree is affirmed. The orders of the district court enjoining the District of Columbia from transferring any further inmates to the Lorton Central Facility until the population of Central is in compliance with the consent decree and enjoining the District to reduce the population of Central is in compliance with the consent decree and enjoining the District to reduce the population at Central by 150 inmates every 30 days until the population returns to the levels required by the consent decree are affirmed.
The certification order is vacated.
The cause is forthwith remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[*] The Honorable Max Rosenn, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 291(a).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 855 F.2d 874 (1988)
TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Appellees, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellants.
No. 87-5296.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 14, 1988. Decided August 26, 1988.
Edward E. Schwab, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Frederick D. Cooke, Jr., Corp. Counsel, District of Columbia, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, and Michael E. Zielinski, Trial Asst., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Alan A. Pemberton, with whom Peter J. Nickles and John F. Seymour, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Michael J. Ryan, John D. Bates and John Facciola, Asst. U.S. Attys., entered appearances for Edwin A. Meese, III, Atty. Gen. of the U.S., Washington, D.C.
Before WALD, Chief Judge, and ROBINSON and STARR, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROBINSON.
Concurring Statement filed by Circuit Judge STARR.
SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III, Circuit Judge:
This case is yet another chapter in the long and unfortunate history of efforts to control overcrowding and improve 875 conditions in the prison system of the District of Columbia.[1] The instant appeal is from an *875 order of the
District Court holding the District in contempt for exceeding the limit set by a consent decree on the number of inmates that could be incarcerated in the Lorton Central facility (Central). We affirm.
I. THE BACKGROUND
On August 20, 1980, appellees, a class of inmates confined at Central, brought an action challenging as unconstitutional the conditions at the facility. After extensive discovery and negotiations, the parties reached agreement, the terms of which were incorporated into a consent decree, approved and entered by the District Court on April 28, 1982, which prescribed various improvements in the conditions at Central.[2] Of relevance here is Article IX, which imposed a population ceiling for that facility of 1,166 inmates, based on a standard of 60 square feet of sleeping space and 35 square feet of day-room space per prisoner, subject, however, to adjustment in the event that any dormitory space was closed or converted to other uses.[3] The decree reflected the understanding of the parties "that the elements of [the] [a]greement rest[ed] fundamentally on the number of residents committed to the Central facility,"[4] but also recognized that that number "is a matter over which [the District has] little or no control...."[5]
The consent decree established a procedure for monitoring the District's compliance,[6] which we need only briefly summarize. The District was to provide appellees' counsel with monthly reports of population levels at Central. If, after reviewing these reports, counsel felt that the District was not abiding by the terms of the decree, they were to notify the District of the breach. The District was given two weeks to respond by either defending its actions or explaining the reason for noncompliance. If the response did not satisfy counsel, the parties were to

meet within three weeks and attempt to resolve their differences. Either side was at liberty to apply to the court for assistance if agreement remained unattainable. The decree also supplied a means of bypassing this negotiation process if "counsel for [appellees] determin[ed] that there [was] imminent danger to the health or safety of the residents" in which event immediate recourse to the court was permitted.[7]
Since issuance of the decree, the District has periodically been out of compliance with its provisions, and counsel for the inmates have made several trips to the District Court to enforce its terms. The instant case was the upshot of one such journey, which occurred after the District in July, 1987, began to exceed the population maximum. At that time, Occoquan, another Lorton facility, was also under a court-imposed population restriction, and the Lorton administrators found it necessary to alleviate overcrowding at Occoquan by transferring some inmates incarcerated there to Central.[8] Almost immediately after receiving notice of the overcrowding resulting at 876 Central, appellees moved for an order adjudging the District in contempt, *876 and requested a sanction of $250 per day for each dormitory at which the population limit was surpassed.[9] After a hearing on the motion, the court found the District in contempt for failure to observe the population cap and imposed the fine sought by appelles. [10] The present appeal followed.
II. THE DISTRICT'S CONTENTIONS
The District maintains that the contempt adjudication is infirm because it lacks essential factual findings. The District insists that a significant increase in the number of inmates in the prison system has made it impossible to conform to the maximum-population specification, and that this constitutes a complete defense to the contempt charge. The District complains that this defense was rejected without benefit of specific findings on the issue.
The District also presses two additional arguments. First, the District asserts that a contempt adjudication was not an appropriate remedy because appellees ignored the negotiation procedure set out in the decree and went straight into court upon notification that Central's inmate population was excessive. Second, the District asserts that the maximum-population specification was never intended to be an absolute limit, but only a target figure which both parties knew might be impossible to maintain.
III. THE TERMS OF THE DECREE
We may readily dispose to the District's arguments respecting appellees' alleged circumvention of the decree's negotiation provisions and the proper interpretation of the maximum-population specification. The decree explicitly conferred upon appellees the prerogative to go directly into court if, in their counsel's estimation, noncompliance posed "imminent danger to the health or safety of [Central] residents."[11] That, counsel avow, is why litigation was favored over negotiation, and the reasonableness of that choice is not questioned. It is of no consequence that appellees did not expressly invoke this clause at the contempt hearing because the District did not challenge their right to be in court.
Contrary to the District's strained interpretation, it is clear that the maximum-population specification was designed as an absolute ceiling, violation of which would subject the District to a contempt charge. If this was not manifest from the original language of the decree, two subsequent amendments negated any uncertainty. The first prescribed that "[the District] shall reduce the total population of Central to the adjusted rated capacity established [by the decree]," and imposed automatic monetary sanctions for failure to comply within 90 days.[12] The second amendment reemphasized that "the maximum rated capacity of Central as a whole shall not be exceeded."[13] These unequivocal provisions remove any doubt that the population restriction was meant to be anything other than an unconditional command.

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE
The District Court unquestionably had power to hold the District of Columbia in civil contempt for violations of the 877 consent decree.[14] Indeed, there is no dispute in this *877 regard. Rather, the District argues that the contempt
sanction was inappropriate because the circumstances it faced made compliance with the decree impossible. The District claims that it made every good faith effort to adhere to the numerical restriction, but that a significant increase in the number of inmates in the system prevented it from doing so. The District asserts that this impossibility furnishes a complete defense to the contempt charge.
After hearing argument on this point, the District Court orally acknowledged that prison officials had encountered "a very difficult time"[15] in conforming to the decree. But noting the long-term nature of the problem of endemic overcrowding in the District prisons, the court stated:
[T]his has all been happening over the years. It hasn't suddenly occurred overnight. It was the duty of the District of Columbia to prevent its happening and to cope with it. And they haven't done so.[16]
The court then announced that it would hold the District in contempt.[17] A short written memorandum accompanied the contempt order, but did not elaborate further on the District's contention that compliance was impossible.[18]
We have repeatedly stressed the need for findings of fact when a colorable claim of impossibility is presented as a defense to a contempt motion.[19] The District relies on these pronouncements as ground for overturning the contempt order, claiming that it lacks findings sufficient to sustain it. This argument fails for two reasons.
First, although rulings on contempt motions fall within the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a) that district courts "find the facts specifically and state separately [their] conclusions of law,"[20] failure to do so does not destroy the jurisdictional basis for review.[21] As an appellate court, we may review the contempt decision without necessity for remand so long as "`a complete understanding of the issues may be had without the aid of separate findings.'"[22] To be sure, the District Court's oral pronouncements are not a model of clarity and the absence of written findings has made our task more burdensome, but the court's conviction that the District had not done all within its power to avert overpopulations of Central is evident, and the court's disposition of the contempt motion is amply supported by both the history and the record of this litigation.
The District has for years been aware of recurrent overcrowding in its prisons, and has not taken steps adequate to eradicate the problem. The lengthy duration of this litigation and the frequency of inmates' resorts to the courts suggest a degree of intransigence on the District's part. Furthermore, the District has failed to build a sorelyneeded new prison facility, or even to utilize fully the less burdensome measures available to it. No new halfway house space was added between September, 1986 and December, 1987.[23] Additionally, the District has only recently enacted into permanent law the Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act of 1987, which allows the 878 "Mayor to declare a state of emergency in the prisons whenever the *878 population of the prison system exceeds the rated design capacity for 30 consecutive days," and then to take specified steps to reduce sentences of designated inmates to alleviate overcrowding.[24] Finally, the District Judge has presided over various proceedings in this case for six years, as well as litigation over other local prison facilities, and is intimately familiar with the District's apathetic response to the problem. It is clear from her oral statements, viewed against the backdrop of the record as a whole, that she rejected the impossibility defense because in her well-informed estimation the District had not done all it could to comply. We will not disturb that conclusion.
Second, findings of fact are necessary only if a colorable claim of impossibility is presented. In the case at bar, the District urges a novel use of the defense. Heretofore, it has been invoked largely in circumstances in which it was literally impossible for a party to accomplish the court-ordered action 0907 for example, where the litigant is financially unable to comply with a court order.[25] The logic underlying the defense is apparent. An adjudication

of civil contempt is designed to coerce the contemnor to obey a judicial order. If he is unable to do so because of circumstances beyond his control, any attempt at coercion is pointless because it cannot produce the desired result.[26]
The record before us does not support the contention that it is impossible, in the traditional sense of the term, for the District to comply with the population ceiling. The District may well face political difficulties that prompt it to shun acquisition of the additional facilities needed to house the constantly increasing prison population, or dissuade it from taking other action to accommodate the overflow. Conditions such as these, however, do not establish a lack of power to alleviate the overcrowding, even if that means release of or refusal to accept prisoners. Since the contempt order under review may well have the intended effect of forcing the District to comply with the decree, it is not appropriate to countenance the District's disobedience.
In a similar situation, the Second Circuit refused to extend the impossibility defense to prison officials who had failed to abide by a court-ordered population cap.[27] The court pointed out that nothing prevented those officials from declining to accept more inmates until population requirements were met.[28] Thus, the court reasoned, because the contempt order would serve the goal of coercing adherence to the cap, it would be inappropriate to allow prison officials to escape its dictates by pleading impossibility.[29] In concert with the Second Circuit, we hold that the impossibility defense is in apposite to the situation presented here.
We do not gainsay the difficulty of the District's task. We share, however, the District Court's sentiment, albeit obliquely expressed, that the limits of judicial tolerance have been reached. It is our hope that, confronted by the prospect of heavy fines, the District will at last face up to its responsibilities and proceed to meet the obligations to which it agreed in the decree.[30] The order of the District Court is accordingly
Affirmed.
879 *879 STARR, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur fully in Judge Robinson's opinion for the court. Prison litigation continues to befall the District Court with regularity, as revealed by both the daily newspapers and the growing docket of this court. I write only to emphasize one obvious point about this case: the issue here pertains to the District's non-compliance with the terms of a consent decree. See Maj.Op. at 878 n. 30. This case thus provides no occasion for consideration of issues that might well arise (and indeed have arisen) outside the setting of an agreement by parties to litigation.
[1] The District maintains a Central Detention facility 0907 better known as the "D.C. jail" 0907 within its territorial boundaries, and a prison complex located in Lorton, Virginia. Three actions, each involving a distinct Lorton unit, have been consolidated in the District Court: Doe v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 79-1726 (D.D.C.) (Maximum Security facility); Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 80-2136 (D.D.C.) (from which this appeal stems) (Central facility); and Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, Civ. No. 86-2128 (D.D.C.) (three Occoquan facilities). There also have been challenges to conditions at the D.C. jail. Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, Civ. No. 75-1668 (D.D.C.) and Campbell v. McGruder, Civ. No. 77-1462 (D.D.C.). This court has previously ruled on various aspects of these disputes. See Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 269 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 844 F.2d 828 (1988) (overturning population ceiling imposed responsively to allegations of Eighth Amendment improprieties at Occoquan facilities); Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia (Does I), 268 U.S.App.D.C. 308, 841 F.2d 1133 (1988) (reversing order reinstating Attorney General as a defendant); Campbell v. McGruder, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 258, 580 F.2d 521 (1978) (holding overcrowding at D.C. jail violative of detainees' constitutional rights and affirming order to take steps to improve conditions).
[2] Final Settlement and Consent Decree, Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 1982), Appendix for Appellants (A. App.) 35-93 [hereinafter Consent Decree].
[3] Id. at 54, A. App. 88.
[4] Id.; see also Does I, supra note 1, 268 U.S.App.D.C. at 316-317, 841 F.2d at 1141-1142.

[5] Consent Decree, supra note 2, at 55-56, A. App. 89-90.
[6] Id. at 55-56, 57-58, A. App. 89-90, 91-92.
[7] Id. at 58, A. App. 92.
[8] The population cap set for Occoquan was eventually overturned by this court. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, supra note 1.
[9] Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Contempt and Imposition of Sanctions, Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 80-2136, A. App. 94.
[10] Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. July 30, 1987) (order), A. App. 126.
[11] Consent Decree, supra note 2, at 58, A. App. 92.
[12] Consent Decree Amending Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree, Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 1983) at 8-9, Appellees Appendix (Ae. App.) 84-85.
[13] Consent Decree Amending Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree of December 17, 1982 and The Amended Decree of August 18, 1983, Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 1985) at 8, Ae. App. 152.
[14] See 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) (1982); Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, Inc., 653 F.2d 93, 97 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092, 102 S.Ct. 658, 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Combs v. Ryan's Coal Co., 785 F.2d 970, 980 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 853, 107 S.Ct. 187, 93 L.Ed.2d 120 (1986).
[15] Transcript, Proceedings of July 30, 1987, at 66, A. App. 281.
[16] Id. at 66-67, A. App. 281-282.
[17] Id. at 67, A. App. 282.
[18] See Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 80-2136 (D.D.C. July 30, 1987) (order & memorandum), A. App. 121.
[19] Tinsley v. Mitchell, 256 U.S.App.D.C. 225, 227, 804 F.2d 1254, 1256 (1986); SEC v. Ormond Drug & Chem. Co., 238 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 266-267, 739 F.2d 654, 656-657 (1984); WMATA v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 174 U.S.App.D.C. 285, 289, 531 F.2d 617, 621 (1976).
[20] Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
[21] Clark v. Marsh, 214 U.S.App.D.C. 350, 354, 665 F.2d 1168, 1172 (1981).
[22] Id. at 354, 665 F.2d at 1172 (quoting Swanson v. Levy, 509 F.2d 859, 861 (9th Cir.1975)); accord Louie v. United States, 776 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir.1985).
[23] See Transcript Proceedings of Dec. 17, 1987, at 12-13, Ae. App. 318-319.
[24] D.C. Code Ann. § 24-902 (1988 Supp.).
[25] See, e.g., Tinsley v. Mitchell, supra note 19; SEC v. Ormond Drug & Chem. Co., supra note 19.
[26] Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 69, 68 S.Ct. 401, 408, 92 L.Ed. 476, 487 (1948) (contempt appropriate "only when it appears that obedience is within the power of the party being coerced by the order").
[27] Badgley v. Santacroce, 800 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067, 107 S.Ct. 955, 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
[28] Id. at 37.

[29] Id.
[30] The District's argument that the conditions at Central do not implicate the Eighth Amendment is of no avail. The District voluntarily agreed to the terms of the consent decree in lieu of litigating the constitutional issues raised by appellees' complaint. The requirements of the decree, not the Eighth Amendment, are the measure of the District's responsibilities. The District cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the decree in its endeavor to erect a defense to the contempt motion.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Doe v. District of Columbia, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

1987 WL 11422 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, District of Columbia.
John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. Twelve John DOES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Marion S. BARRY, et al., Defendants.
Nos. 79–1726, 80–2136, 86–2128. | May 20, 1987.
Opinion
ORDER
JUNE L. GREENE, District Judge.
*1 Upon consideration of defendants’ motion for a stay of the Court’s Order of December 22, 1986, of the memorandum in support thereof, of plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition to the motion, and of the suggestion of plaintiffs John Doe, et al. and Twelve John Does, et al. regarding the motion, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Court’s order of December 22, 1986 is stayed until July 1, 1987, or until further order of the Court. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, effective immediately, the Honorable John D. Fauntleroy (retired), is appointed as a special officer of this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, to assist the Court in the finding of fact and devising appropriate measures to effect compliance with this Court’s Orders. Judge Fauntleroy’s term of appointment shall be two months from the date of this Order, subject to extension of the term at the request of the parties. Judge Fauntleroy’s tenure as Special Assistant to the Mayor shall be terminated during the

period that he is serving as special officer of the Court. His compensation for service as special officer of the Court shall be paid by Defendants. Judge Fauntleroy shall advise and assist the parties to fullest extent possible. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Fauntleroy shall submit a report to the Court by June 19, 1987. Such report shall identify factors that affect defendants’ compliance with the Orders of this Court limiting the population at the Occoquan, Maximum and Central facilities, and shall provide recommendations to the Court concerning further Orders and other means by which this Court may effectuate compliance by defendants with its population orders. In preparing this report, Judge Fauntleroy may employ such experts and consultants as he finds necessary, the reasonable expenses and fees of such experts to be paid by defendants. Defendants shall continue to provide Judge Fauntleroy with office space and clerical assistance during his service as special officer of the Court. Judge Fauntleroy shall have unlimited access to any Department of Corrections (“Department”) records, files or papers. Defendants shall grant Judge Fauntleroy such access at any time and no advance notice shall be required. Judge Fauntleroy shall be authorized to conduct interviews and discussions, on a confidential basis or otherwise, with counsel for plaintiffs, any Department official or employee, with any Department inmate, and with any other person. Judge Fauntleroy shall be permitted to attend any institutional or Departmental meetings or proceedings. He may require written reports from any Department official or employee with respect to compliance with this Court’s population orders, and may require such reports from plaintiffs’ counsel as well. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may file comments on Judge Fauntleroy’s report by June 25, 1987. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing shall be held on June 29, 1987, to consider such further measures as may be appropriate to promote compliance with the Court’s Orders regarding population limits.
*2 SO ORDERED.
	  

1

 
 Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

1988 WL 83163 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, District of Columbia.
TWELVE JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
CIV. A. No. 80–2136. | Aug. 1, 1988.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the consent decree. A hearing was held on July 6, 1988, followed by the submission of proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by both parties. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion in part and denies it in part.
Findings of Fact
On July 6, 1988, a hearing was held on plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the consent decree. Testimony was heard from two correctional officers who have worked at the Central Facility at Lorton Reformatory for seven and eight years, respectively. Both testified as to the serious security and safety problems caused by overcrowding.
The Central Facility is made up of 26 dormitories which differ entirely from protected cells. Each dormitory contains beds placed so close together that there is very little space for the resident to place his feet by the side of the bed, with only the bed to sit upon. In 16 of the dormitories there are double bunks. The day room at one end of each dormitory customarily has facilities (four sofas) for the use of the residents for games or television watching; bunks have now been placed in every day room in Central except Dormitory No. 1. See Transcript filed July 14, 1988, at 22, 54.
The presence of these residents in the day room causes a dangerous situation for the guards who testified that having residents behind them in the day room could effectively cut off the officer’s escape to the outside if it became necessary. Id. at 19–20. “Double bunking means poor visibility through the dorm. Usually, we are placed

in a situation whereas one officer has to go in a dorm alone, and it’s an intimidating type of situation where one officer has to enter a dorm with 75 residents and his visibility is real poor.” Id. at 23–24.
No additional guards have been hired and the regular complement has been depleted by overwork, exhaustion, and resultant leave taking. This depletion requires the drafting of some officers for a second shift for a total of 16 hours a day. This “burn out” creates a vicious circle. Id. at 26.
The excessive number of residents prevents the officers from conducting regular “shake downs” to confiscate homemade weapons and other contraband. This results in more assaults of inmate upon inmate, and inmate upon guard. There were eight assaults in the month of May alone. Id. at 94, lines 10–12.
Another serious problem is the inability of Reception and Diagnosis, or Orientation to screen new residents before placing them in the general population as is required by Article V of the Consent Decree. As a result, persons with psychiatric, medical, or other problems are not identified at all.
The guards are frightened to enter overcrowded dormitories on occasion when alone and sense there is a problem. One officer testified that under these conditions, for his own safety, he would “pivot” and not enter. The obvious consequence is that the weak or unarmed resident is left to fend for himself.
More residents than ever before are seeking protective custody. Id. at 31. Protective custody is afforded in cells which are presently doubled-bunked with a third person lying on a mattress on the floor. Id. at 47.
*2 Defendants called Mr. Hallem Williams Jr., Director of the D.C. Department of Corrections, who conceded that the situation is intolerable, id. at 74, and that the overcrowding at Central carries potential for dangerous consequences. Id. at 94.
Mr. Williams reaffirmed his previous testimony and his affidavit of a year ago, see Plaintiffs’ Exhibit # 6, that every facility under the District’s jurisdiction is unsafe for additional inmates, “threaten[ing] the District’s ability to provide for the safety, care, protection, instruction and discipline of prisoners in those institutions.” Id. at 3, 5. Mr. Williams, however, did acknowledge that substantial numbers of additional residents have been placed into the institutions from that year to the present. See Transcript at 82.
All of the witnesses who testified were credible and the
1

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

Court accepts their testimony. The two corrections officers were in an excellent position to see the conditions about which they testified. Senior Correctional Officer Dupree enters and exits each dormitory in each building on a daily basis and has contact with the residents on a daily basis. Id. at 16. Correctional Officer Wynne testified that he is stationed at numerous posts from time to time. Among those, he has served at the control cells where he conducted the count every hour. He has also been assigned to the dining hall and he checks the dormitories at night and accompanies ill or injured patients to the hospital when required. Id. at 46–49.
Mr. Williams was forthright in his testimony and admitted that conditions in all of the facilities are more overcrowded than in 1987. He has not been able to indicate any lessening of any of the overall problems. He admits that by the end of 1988, it is expected that there will be an increase of residents at Lorton of approximately 2,000. Id. at 95. Further, Mr. Williams testified that it was his opinion in July 1987 that it was inappropriate to use these institutions beyond those levels and his judgment continues that “we should not have the numbers of people we have in these institutions.” Id. at 97. Mr. Williams did indicate that some plans have been made for obtaining additional incarceration or halfway house space as previously proposed in 1987.
At the present, the District of Columbia has begun demolition to prepare for the building of an 800–bed facility at the D.C. Jail. Completion is estimated for late 1990 or early 1991. The 130–bed halfway facility was started two or three weeks prior to this hearing and had been ordered by Judge Bryant in 1985. A 100–bed facility has not been contracted for yet. Forty work-release residents are being housed at the Superior Court Building, B cellblock. A 25–bed facility for females is still in negotiation status. An 800–bed, single-cell medium custody facility at Lorton was requested by the Mayor the day before the hearing.
The Court can only assume that if hearings were never held, even less progress would be made.
*3 In addition to the testimony of the witnesses for both sides, the Court relies upon the exhibits entered by agreement as follows:
1. Letter from the Mayor signed by Ms. Carol Thompson to the Honorable David Clark, dated July 5, 1988, re: suggestions for a new 800–bed facility to be built at Lorton;
2. Letter from Chairman of Fairfax County Board of Supervisors relating to matter of enlarging Lorton;
3. Daily Population Report as of July 2 through July 5, 1988;

4. Population reports for last few months;
5. Court Master Judge Fauntleroy’s report of June 17, 1988; and
6. Affidavit submitted by Mr. Hallem Williams, Jr., on July 21, 1987.
It is uncontested that defendants are in violation of the Consent Decree and have been for many months. The overcrowding has resulted in the lack of adequate protection to residents and guards; the failure to screen new residents; the lack of sufficient medical attention; the failure to have regular “shake downs;” and the lack of sanitation.
Conclusions of Law
Defendants’ sole position is that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this case. After finding the defendants in noncompliance with the population limits set in Article IX of the Consent Decree, this Court imposed sanctions against the defendants as provided for in Article X of the Consent Decree. See Order filed July 30, 1987. The defendants appealed the contempt order which is still pending before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Defendants rely upon Donovan v. Mazzola, 761 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir.1985), for the proposition that the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiciton over the matters appealed. In Donovan, however, the Ninth Circuit was addressing the district court’s ability to alter or amend a previous contempt order, then pending before the court of appeals. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the contempt order quantifying sanctions. Id. at 1415. In the case at bar, the Court is addressing an entirely new motion to enforce the Consent Decree, not to alter or amend its previous order of contempt.
The Court has the power to enforce an unstayed judgment (such as the Consent Decree), notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal dealing with other issues. See Deering Milliken, Inc. v. FTC, 647 F.2d 1124, 1129 (D.C.Cir.1978). If it were not so, defendants could totally disable the Court from enforcing its orders by taking an appeal. Further, the Consent Decree provides in Article X, Section 2:
Enforcement
Should counsel for plaintiffs determine that there is imminent danger to the health or safety of the residents,
2

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

counsel for plaintiffs may seek assistance from the Court at any time.
Upon application from either party, the Court in its discretion may enforce any provision of this Agreement as a Consent Judgment, may determine that the District of Columbia is in Contempt of Court and impose appropriate sanctions, may appoint a Master to monitor and/or supervise compliance with this Agreement or any of its provisions.
Consent Decree, Article X, Section 2 (emphasis added).
*4 Although the defendants argue that the motion to enforce the Consent Decree is a form of contempt, the Court disagrees. Under the above enforcement provision, contempt is only one form of enforcement. The Court finds that the relief the plaintiffs seek in their motion to enforce the Consent Decree is separate and distinct from the previous entry of contempt.
Defendants argue that compliance is impossible on the basis of politics. This is not a satisfactory excuse. In Badgley v. Santacroce, 800 F.2d 33, 37 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 955 (1987), the court of appeals pointed out that if a catastrophe, fire, or disease struck, the prison authorities would find some other place to put the inmates.
Some 16 days after the hearing in this case, on July 22, 1988, defendants filed a motion to modify the Consent Decree of April 28, 1982, “to allow an increase in the number of inmates who may be properly housed in the Central Facility within the limits of the consent decree and within the limits of constitutional boundaries. The defendants realize that the Central [F]acility is severely overcrowded and out of compliance with the terms of the consent decree. Defendants submit that efforts are ongoing to reduce the number of inmates at the Central Facility, but that total compliance with the population levels established in the 1982 consent decree will be impossible to meet.” Defendants’ Motion to Modify the Consent Decree at 1–2.
In other words, because defendants have violated the Consent Decree so badly, they need to violate it more. Defendants rely upon Plyler v. Evatt, 846 F.2d 208 (4th Cir.1988). The Plyler case is readily distinguishable from the present one. In Plyler, the State had spent millions of dollars building new, clean, sanitary, comfortable cells. The sole question was whether or not double-bunking would be permitted. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be allowed. Unlike the Plyler facilities, the Central Facility is comprised of dormitories, not individual cells. It is not a question of double-bunking in a clean cell, but of piling hundreds of inmates in dormitories.
The District defendants have not pointed to one

improvement which has been made to offset the problems of massed humanity in deteriorating buildings with too little correctional help. At an informal meeting with counsel for both sides, the Court gave permission to defendants to file a breakdown of how many additional inmates the defendants were requesting and what offsetting plans with regard to additional security, medical, etc., were proffered. The Court later received a message that nothing would be filed.
The Court finds that the Consent Decree is still in effect; that the present population of Central exceeds not only the 1,166 specified, but is increasing monthly; and that the conditions in the old, unrehabilitated buildings are worse, not better.
Defendants cite Newman v. Graddick, 740 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir.1984). The plaintiffs sought a court order for contempt, claiming that (1) the state had failed to adhere to the conditions of a consent decree, and (2) it was appropriate to release several hundred prisoners from custody.
*5 The Eleventh Circuit reversed the release order, stating that “[t]he decision prohibited any consideration of less intrusive measures and eliminated any exploration of alternatives to effecting a prisoner release.” Id. at 1521.
It is curious that defendants would cite this case since it, in fact, reinforces this Court’s recommendations. Attention is invited to the following language taken from Newman:
In taking the prisioners from those facilities, the state is free to continue their confinement in any constitutional facility. If indeed the result of such a court order is the release of prisoners from state custody, that result is the fault of the state officers in not providing alternative constitutional housing for its prisoners.
Id.
It is precisely the “consideration of less intrusive measures” and “exploration of alternatives” that the Court is urging upon the defendants.
An appropriate order is attached.
ORDER
Upon consideration of plaintiff’s motion to enforce the consent decree; defendants’ motion to modify the consent decree; the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motions; the record of the hearing on the motion to enforce the consent decree held on July 6, 1988,
3

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

and the entire record herein, it is by the Court this 1st day of August 1988,
ORDERED that effective within five days of the date of this Order, defendants shall not cause any further inmates to be transferred to the Lorton Central Facility for housing there, until the population of the Central Facility returns to the levels required by Article IX of the Consent Decree; it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, cause the population of the Central Facility to be reduced by at least 150 inmates, and shall cause the population to be reduced by at least 150 inmates every 30 days thereafter, until the population of the Central Facility returns to the levels required by Article IX of the Consent Decree; it is further
ORDERED that if the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections decides to comply with this Order by transferring inmates to any other

facility within his jurisdiction, he shall certify to the Court prior to any such transfer that the transfer will not threaten to violate his responsibility to provide for the adequate care, safekeeping, protection, instruction, and discipline of persons housed in the institution to which the Central inmates are transferred; it is further
ORDERED that effective November 1, 1988, defendants shall have achieved full compliance with the population limits established by Article IX of the Consent Decree; it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to modify the consent decree is denied, and it is further
*6 ORDERED that all of the terms of the Consent Decree shall remain in effect.
	  

4