Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

TYRELL JACKSON and RANDALL

)

CHAPMAN, on behalf of themselves and

)

on behalf of a class of persons

)

similarly situated, and MABLE ESTES,

)

on behalf of herself and on behalf of

)

a class of persons similarly situated;

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Case No. _1__3_-_c_v_-__2_5_0_4___EFM/JPO

)

DONALD ASH, in his official capacity as )

CLASS ACTION

Sheriff for Wyandotte County, Kansas,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Tyrell Jackson, Randall Chapman, and Mabel Estes, all on behalf of themselves

and all others similarly situated, sue defendant Donald Ash (“Ash”) in his official capacity as

Sheriff for Wyandotte County, Kansas, and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs challenge defendant’s policy and practice (“Postcard-Only Mail Policy”) of forbidding inmates of the Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center (the “Jail”) and

their parents, children, spouses, relatives, friends and other correspondents from sending letters

enclosed in envelopes to and from the Jail. Instead, Jail inmates and their outside correspondents

must write all of their correspondences on postcards no larger than five (5) inches by seven (7)

inches. The only exception to this Postcard-Only Mail Policy applies to “Official Mail,” which

the policy defines as mail to and from attorneys, the courts, officials of the confining authority,

state and local chief executive officers, administrators of grievance systems, members of the

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 15
paroling authority and public officials, and local, state and federal government correspondence. This policy impermissibly restricts the ability of inmates and their outside correspondents from exercising their rights to communicate with correspondents in writing, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
2. Plaintiffs ask this court to enjoin the Postcard-Only Mail Policy and declare that it violates their constitutional rights.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 4. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights). 5. Venue is proper in this judicial district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Tyrell Jackson (“Jackson”) is a Jail inmate. He was booked into the Jail as an inmate on or about May 17, 2012. As set forth more fully below, plaintiff Jackson has been, and continues to be, deprived of constitutional rights as a result of the defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy. 7. Plaintiff Randall Chapman (“Chapman”) is a Jail inmate. He was booked into the Jail as an inmate on or about March 13, 2013. As set forth more fully below, plaintiff Chapman has been, and continues to be, deprived of constitutional rights as a result of the defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy. 8. Mabel Estes (“Estes”) is a private citizen who resides in Wyandotte County in the City of Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff Estes is the girlfriend of plaintiff Chapman. As set forth
2

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 15
more fully below, plaintiff Estes has been, and continues to be, deprived of constitutional rights as a result of the defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy.
9. Tyrell Jackson and Randall Chapman and the class of similarly-situated inmates in the Jail shall be referred to collectively as “Jail Inmate Plaintiffs.”
10. Mabel Estes and the class of similarly-situated outside correspondents of Jail inmates shall be referred to collectively as “Outside Correspondent Plaintiffs.”
11. Defendant Donald Ash is now, and at all material times has been, the Sheriff of Wyandotte County, Kansas. As Wyandotte County Sheriff, defendant is charged with the care and custody of inmates at the Jail. Defendant Ash exercises overall responsibility for the policies and practices of the Jail, including the Postcard-Only Mail Policy. Plaintiffs sue defendant Ash in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys fees and costs.
12. Defendant Ash at all times relevant hereto was acting and continues to act under color of law.
13. The jail administrator, supervisors, correction officers, deputies, and other staff persons who are responsible for implementing and enforcing the Jail’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy are agents and employees of defendant Ash.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 14. The Jail is located in Kansas City, Kansas. It houses convicted prisoners, pretrial detainees, and civilly committed individuals. It has a capacity to house 327 inmates, including 289 male inmates and 38 female inmates. 15. Effective on or about June 9, 2009, defendant Ash instituted a policy that required all outgoing and incoming mail, except legal or privileged mail, sent by or to a Jail inmate to be written on a postcard (hereinafter “Postcard-Only Mail Policy”). Only mail to or from attorneys,
3

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 15
courts, officials of the confining authority, state and local chief executive officers, administrators of grievance systems, members of the paroling authority, public officials, and local, state and federal governments is considered legal or privileged mail (“Privileged Mail”).
16. Plaintiff Tyrell Jackson has been, and continues to be, deprived of constitutional rights as a result of the Postcard-Only Mail Policy:
(a) Plaintiff Jackson would like to exchange letters with his family and friends, but cannot do so because of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy.
(b) Plaintiff Jackson would like to communicate with his friends and family about a wide variety of private subjects, including but not limited to issues dealing with family and romantic relationships, health and medical treatment, and finances. In particular, plaintiff Jackson would like to be able to communicate in the form of letters in order to maintain and further develop his relationships with his four children.
(c) Prior to implementation of the Postcard-Only Mail Policy, plaintiff Jackson regularly wrote numerous letters to family members, including his mother, girlfriend, and four children. In these letters, plaintiff Jackson would discuss and share personal information about his health and finances with his correspondents.
(d) As a result of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy, however, plaintiff Jackson may no longer send these personal letters. Though he would like to continue discussing these sensitive topics with his correspondents, he can no longer include this information in messages because on postcards they may be easily read by a host of people once they leave the Jail. Additionally, he must now express all of his thoughts and messages in an abbreviated and incomplete form as there is insufficient room on the postcard to fully develop and communicate
4

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 5 of 15
his thoughts and ideas. As a result, plaintiff Jackson now sends fewer pieces of mail and is no longer able to fully discuss his thoughts, feelings and ideas.
(e) Because his family and friends cannot often visit him and because of the expense of telephone calls, mail correspondence is the best way for him to stay in contact with his family and friends.
17. Randall Chapman has been, and continues to be, deprived of his constitutional rights as a result of the Postcard-Only Mail Policy:
(a) Plaintiff Chapman would like to send letters immediately to his mother and girlfriend, Mabel Estes, but cannot do so because of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy.
(b) Plaintiff Chapman has a serious mental illness and takes powerful medications to control the symptoms of that illness. He would like to share personal and private information, including medical, financial, and legal information, with his correspondents.
(c) Prior to implementation of the Postcard-Only Mail Policy, plaintiff Chapman regularly wrote numerous letters to family members, including his mother and girlfriend. In these letters, plaintiff Chapman would discuss and share personal information about his health and finances with his correspondents.
(d) As a result of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy, however, plaintiff Chapman may no longer send these personal letters. Though he would like to continue discussing these sensitive topics with his correspondents, he can no longer include such information on postcards because they may be easily read by a host of people once they leave the Jail. Additionally, he must now express all of his thoughts and messages in an abbreviated and incomplete form as there is insufficient room on the postcard to fully develop and communicate
5

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 6 of 15
his thoughts and ideas. As a result, plaintiff Chapman now sends fewer pieces of mail and is no longer able to fully discuss his thoughts, feelings and ideas.
(e) Because his family and friends cannot often visit him and because of the expense of telephone calls, mail correspondence is the best way for plaintiff Chapman to stay in contact with his family and friends.
18. Plaintiff Estes has been, and continues to be, deprived of her constitutional rights as a result of the Postcard-Only Mail Policy:
(a) Plaintiff Estes would like to send letters immediately to her boyfriend, plaintiff Chapman, but cannot do so because of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy.
(b) Plaintiff Estes would like to correspond with plaintiff Chapman regarding such private and sensitive matters as family matters, personal relationships, romantic thoughts, health care and conditions, and financial matters.
(c) As a result of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy, however, plaintiff Estes may no longer send these personal letters. Though she would like to continue discussing these sensitive topics with plaintiff Chapman, she can no longer do so because of the restrictions imposed by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy on privacy and space. Additionally, she must now express all of her thoughts and messages in an abbreviated and incomplete form as there is insufficient room on the postcard to fully develop and communicate her thoughts and ideas. As a result, plaintiff Estes now sends fewer pieces of mail and is no longer able to fully discuss her thoughts, feelings and ideas..
(d) Although plaintiff Estes does occasionally visit plaintiff Chapman, visitation is not an adequate substitute for written communications about these private and sensitive matters, as more fully set forth below.
6

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 7 of 15
(e) Moreover, the Jail’s rules prohibit Estes from placing a telephone call to Chapman.
(f) Because of these limitations on visitation and telephone calls, mail correspondence is the best way for plaintiff Estes to stay in contact with plaintiff Chapman.
19. All Jail inmates are in the custody and under the control of defendant Ash. As Jail detainees, the Jail Inmate Plaintiffs remain subject to the policies, practices, and customs of defendant Ash.
20. Before defendant Ash instituted the Postcard-Only Mail Policy, Jail inmates freely sent letters consisting of one or more sheets of paper enclosed in an envelope to correspondents outside the jail. Inmates enclosed outgoing letters in unsealed, open envelopes and then placed those envelopes in the mailbox in their pods. An assigned Sheriff’s deputy would collect the non-privileged outgoing mail from the mailboxes in the pods and would read or scan the letters for content that violated the Jail’s mail policy. After reading or scanning the outgoing letter mail, the deputies would seal the envelope and place it in the possession of the United States Postal Service.
21. Similarly, before defendant Ash adopted the Postcard-Only Mail Policy, outside correspondents freely sent letters consisting of one or more sheets of paper enclosed in an envelope to inmate correspondents inside the jail, and these letters were transmitted to Jail inmates without incident..
22. Now, defendant Ash and those acting under his authority will not transmit to an inmate or an outside correspondent mail that does not conform to the Postcard-Only Mail Policy. Under that policy, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. could not have sent the now famous letter
7

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 8 of 15
he sent from the Birmingham Jail on April 16, 1963, to his fellow clergymen. Nor could the Apostle Paul have sent his Epistles to his fellow Christians while imprisoned by the Romans.
23. Under the Postcard-Only Mail Policy, inmates may obtain postcards from Jail officials. Jail officials will give indigent inmates two postcards per week as part of the weekly indigent supply packet, for which the Jail charges indigent inmates $3.00 per week. Alternatively, Jail inmates must purchase postcards from the Jail’s commissary.
24. Defendant Ash requires that the front of the postcard contain only the addressee’s name and address, the sender’s name and return address, and postage. Only the back of the postcard may contain a substantive message.
25. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy is set forth in the Detainee Mail Policy (No. F115), which was originally adopted on October 8, 2008, and subsequently revised on June 9, 2009 and December 2, 2010. On information and belief, Postcard-Only Mail Policy was added as part of the June 9, 2009 revision.
26. Jail inmates and their friends and family have few alternatives by which to communicate privately and freely with family, friends, and other loved ones:
(a) Telephone calls are an inadequate substitute for letters. (1) Pursuant to Jail policy, friends and family members cannot telephone inmates at the Jail. (2) While Jail inmates are permitted to call out to friends and family members, the cost of such calls are prohibitively expensive. Telephone calls from Jail inmates in the housing areas cost $7.00 for a fifteen (15) minute call.
8

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 9 of 15
(3) Even when an Jail inmate can afford to make such phone calls, the manner in which these calls are conducted prevents the discussion of sensitive and/or personal topics, as fellow Jail inmates may easily overhear these telephone calls.
(b) Jail visits are an inadequate substitute for letters. (1) The Jail does not permit contact visitation. Instead, Jail inmates are separated from their visitors by glass and must talk to visitors over a telephone system. In many pods, the telephones do not work properly so that it is often difficult or impossible to hear what the other party is saying. Moreover, there are no privacy booths for visitation so that other inmates or visitors may overhear conversations. (2) Family and friends may only visit Jail inmates during a specific one-hour time period once a week, which prevents many friends and family with a conflict during this time period from visiting at all. (3) Friends and family who do not live near the Jail or in another state cannot easily visit Jail inmates.
(c) Therefore, for all these reasons, mail correspondence for many Jail inmates and their family and friends is the most feasible, practical, and private way to communicate and maintain a relationship.
27. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy impermissibly curtails the ability of Jail inmates and their outside correspondents to send and receive private and/or sensitive expressions and
9

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 10 of 15
communications. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy also prevents Jail inmates and their outside correspondents from fully expressing their thoughts. Instead, Jail inmates and their outside correspondents must express these messages in an abbreviated and incomplete form as there is insufficient room on the postcard to fully develop and communicate the inmates’ thoughts and ideas. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy prevents inmates and their friends and family members from receiving these fully developed and complete messages.
28. In addition, the postcards required by defendant’ Postcard-Only Mail Policy expose the content of the inmates’ and their correspondents’ communications to anyone who handles, processes, or views the postcards in route, both within the Jail and outside the facility. Prior to the Postcard-Only Mail Policy, Jail inmates, civil committees, and outside correspondents would regularly write letters to family and friends that contained sensitive information, including medical, spiritual, intimate, and financial information. Because these letters were enclosed in envelopes and only subject to review by a Sheriff’s deputy, the writers felt confident that this sensitive information would not be exposed for others to see, including postal carriers. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy has forced Jail inmates, civil committees, and outside correspondents to either abandon including sensitive information in their non-privileged correspondence or risk divulging confidential, sensitive information to unknown third-parties who can easily intercept these messages on postcards. Including sensitive financial information on a postcard increases the chance that these writers may become a victim of identity theft or fraud.
29. The defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy has and continues to inhibit, infringe, limit, chill, suppress, and interfere with the Plaintiffs’ constitutionally-protected communications.
10

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 11 of 15
30. The plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer an injury as a result of the defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy infringes on plaintiffs’ constitutional right of free speech to communicate in a complete and meaningful way and to express themselves fully.
31. Defendant Ash has acted under color of state law to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs face a real and immediate threat of irreparable injury as a result of these actions and the existence, operation, and threat of enforcement of the defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 32. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 33. The individual Jail Inmate Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as “all current and future detainees in the Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center who are subject to or affected by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy.” 34. The individual Outside Correspondent Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as “all current and future outside correspondents who wish to write letters to inmates in the Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center and who are subject to or affected by the PostcardOnly Mail Policy.” 35. The proposed classes are so numerous and so fluid that joinder of all members is impracticable and uneconomical. With thousands of persons admitted to the Jail annually and an average Jail inmate population of roughly 327 persons, the approximate size of the class consists of thousands of inmates and their correspondents, and consists of at least 300 persons at any given time.
11

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 12 of 15
36. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of each plaintiff class. These common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) the scope and nature of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy; b) the scope, criteria, and process for invoking the alleged “privileged mail”
exception to defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy; c) the scope and nature of defendant’s interests and/or justifications in instituting
and maintaining the Postcard-Only Mail Policy; d) whether the application of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy violates the
rights of the members of the Jail Inmate Class under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and e) whether the application of defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy violates the rights of the members of the Outside Correspondents Class under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 37. The claims of the class representatives are typical of the claims of the members of each class. The class representatives have suffered injuries similar in kind and degree to injuries suffered by the members of each class. The defendant has acted the same with respect to the class representative and all class members. The class representatives make the same claims and seek the same relief for themselves and for all class members. 38. The named class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class. The named class representatives have no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the interests of any of the classes. Plaintiffs understand the duties and responsibilities of serving as class representatives. Plaintiffs have no conflicts, and have retained experienced class counsel to represent each class.
12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 13 of 15
39. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the members of each class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to each class as a whole.
SUPPRESSION OF PROTECTED SPEECH 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs in this complaint. 41. The defendant has deprived, and continues to deprive, Jail Inmate Plaintiffs and Outside Correspondent Plaintiffs of their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which are secured through the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant’s PostcardOnly Mail Policy is the cause in fact of the constitutional violations. 42. Absent intervention by this court the named plaintiffs and the members of each plaintiff class will suffer injury as a result of the defendant’s unconstitutional practices. 43. Unless restrained by this court, defendant will continue to enforce the PostcardOnly Mail Policy. Named plaintiffs and the members of each plaintiff class have been and will continue to be irreparably harmed by defendant’s denial of plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right to free speech. 44. Named plaintiffs and the members of each plaintiff class have no adequate remedy at law for the denial of their fundamental constitutional rights. 45. In depriving plaintiffs and the members of each plaintiff class of these rights, defendant acted under color of state law. This deprivation under color of state law is actionable under and may be redressed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
13

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 14 of 15
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief: A. An order certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. Pro.; B. An order declaring defendant’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy to be in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; C. An order permanently enjoining defendant and his officers, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, servants, employees, successors, and all other persons or entities in active concert or privity or participation with him, from continuing the unlawful Postcard-Only Mail Policy or any other policy that limits incoming and outgoing mail to postcards, thus restoring the status quo that previously existed; D. An order requiring defendant to provide notice to all current Jail inmates and Jail officials implementing the defendant’s policies that the Postcard-Only Mail Policy is terminated; E. An order permanently enjoining defendant and his officers, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, servants, employees, successors, and all other persons or entities in active concert or privity or participation with him, from taking retaliatory action against plaintiffs for bringing this lawsuit; F. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this action from defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; G. An order retaining the court’s jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of the court’s orders; and H. Such further and different relief as is just and proper or that is necessary to make plaintiffs whole.
14

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 15 of 15
Place of Trial & No Jury Demand Pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 40.2, plaintiffs designate Kansas City as the place for trial. Plaintiffs do not request a jury trial.
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Stephen Douglas Bonney Stephen Douglas Bonney, KS Bar #12322 ACLU Foundation of Kansas 3601 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Tel. (816) 994-3311 Fax: (816) 756-0136 E-mail: dbonney@aclukswmo.org and Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.* Kansas Bar No. 25889 Social Justice Law Collective, PL P.O. Box 11563 Overland Park, KS 66207 Tel. (913) 213-3064 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com *Admitted in Kansas and pending admission in the U.S. District Court, District of Kansas Counsel for Plaintiffs
15

 
 Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

TYRELL JACKSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and on behalf of classes of persons similarly situated;

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 13-cv-2504 EFM/JPO

DONALD ASH, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Wyandotte County, Kansas,

Defendant. /

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiffs Tyrell Jackson, Randall Chapman, and Mabel Estes, individually and on behalf

of the Settlement Classes defined below (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Donald Ash, in his official

capacity as Sheriff for Wyandotte County, Kansas (“Defendant Sheriff” and collectively referred

to as the “Parties”), agree to and submit the following Settlement Agreement and Consent

Decree (“Consent Decree”) for adoption and entry by the Court.

I. RECITALS

A. WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed this action on September 30, 2013, seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and seeking to enjoin the

Defendant Sheriff from forbidding inmates housed in the Wyandotte County Adult Detention

Center (“Jail”), and their parents, children, spouses, relatives, friends, and other correspondents,

in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, from sending

letters enclosed in envelopes to and from the Jail, as set forth in the Detainee Mail Policy –

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) F-115 (“Postcard-Only Mail Policy”); and

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 2 of 12
B. WHEREAS the United States District Court for the District of Kansas has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute; see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights); and
C. WHEREAS the Parties, in an effort to avoid the burden, costs, and inherent risks of further litigation, agree that settlement is in their best interests; and
D. WHEREAS the Parties have engaged in discovery in this matter, including exchanging information and documents and preparing and responding to requests for production of documents and interrogatories; and
E. WHEREAS this action has been certified by the Court, pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a class action on behalf of all current and future detainees in the Jail who are subject to or affected by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy, and all current and future outside correspondents who wish to write letters to inmates in the Jail and who are subject to or affected by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy; and
F. WHEREAS by agreeing to this Consent Decree, the Defendant Sheriff does not admit to liability; and
G. WHEREAS the signatories to this Consent Decree represent that they are authorized to enter into this Consent Decree and promise to carry out the various promises and representations made in it; and
H. WHEREAS this Consent Decree includes a general release and, upon execution by the Defendant Sheriff of the promises and representations made and the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree, the Defendant Sheriff will be released from all claims and liability as stated in this Consent Decree; and
Page 2 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 3 of 12
I. WHEREAS the Parties agree that the relief provided in this Consent Decree is narrowly drawn and extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); and
J. WHEREAS the Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree constitute a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution for the Plaintiffs under Rule 23(e)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree, subject to the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree, as follows:
II. DEFINITIONS 1. The following terms as used in this Consent Decree have the meanings set forth below. In construing these definitions, the singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include the singular:
(a) “Envelope Correspondence” means a letter enclosed in an envelope. Envelope correspondence also may include paperwork, newspaper clippings, photographs, drawings, or other items to the extent permitted by Jail policy. Envelope correspondence does not include correspondence between detainees in the Detention Center or with detainees in Juvenile Detention.
(b) “Privileged” describes a piece of correspondence that is sent to or from attorneys, the courts, officials of the confining authority, state or local chief executive officers, administrators of grievance systems, members of the paroling authority, or public officials.
(c) “Non-Privileged” describes all correspondence that is not Privileged.
Page 3 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 4 of 12
(d) “Indigent Inmate” refers to a Jail inmate who has no funds ($0.00) in his or her inmate account that may be used for the purchase of commissary items, at any given time.
(e) “Writing Materials” means a writing instrument (e.g., pen or pencil) approved by the Jail, and, for every piece of Envelope Correspondence, also one (1) No. 10 sized envelope, one (1) piece of paper measuring at least 7.25” wide by at least 10.5” tall, and postage sufficient for mailing a one ounce Envelope Correspondence via First Class U.S. Mail (the Defendant Sheriff will provide prepaid postage to the inmates or affix the postage to the correspondence after receiving it from the inmate for mailing).
(f) “Jail” refers to the Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center. III. SETTLEMENT CLASSES
2. The Settlement Classes are defined as follows: (a) All current and future detainees in the Wyandotte County Adult Detention
Center who are subject to or affected by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy (the “Inmate Correspondent Class”); and
(b) All current and future outside correspondents who wish to write letters to inmates in the Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center and who are subject to or affected by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy (the “Outside Correspondent Class”).
IV. TERMS AND EFFECT OF CONSENT DECREE 3. Full Resolution. This Consent Decree resolves in full all claims against the Defendant Sheriff by all Plaintiffs, including named Plaintiffs Tyrell Jackson, Randall Chapman, and Mabel Estes and all members of the settlement classes.
Page 4 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 5 of 12
4. Release. Upon execution by the Defendant Sheriff of the promises and representations made in this Consent Decree and the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs agree that the Defendant Sheriff is released from all claims asserted in this action and from all other claims (including all claims for violation of federal or state constitutional, statutory, regulatory, or common law), whether known or unknown, that relate to the facts alleged in their Complaint.
5. Merger. This Consent Decree contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties concerning the resolution of this proceeding. No oral agreement entered into at any time, nor any prior written agreement, shall be deemed to bind the Parties or to vary the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree, except as expressly provided in it.
6. Liability. Nothing contained in this Consent Decree or any order entered by the Court adopting this Consent Decree is or shall be construed as an admission by the Defendant Sheriff of the truth of any allegations or the validity of any claim asserted in the Complaint or of the Defendant Sheriff’s liability. Neither this Consent Decree nor any confidential papers related to it and created for settlement purposes only, nor any of the terms of either, shall be offered or received as evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding against the Defendant Sheriff or be construed as an admission or presumption of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendant Sheriff or as an admission by the Defendant Sheriff that the promises made represent the relief that could be recovered at trial. However, nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to preclude its use to effectuate the consummation, enforcement, or modification of its terms.
7. Assignment. This Consent Decree shall apply to all persons who are members of the Settlement Classes. This Consent Decree creates no rights in favor of any other person and
Page 5 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 6 of 12
creates no obligations or duties on the part of the Defendant Sheriff beyond the terms of this Consent Decree. The Defendant Sheriff agrees to use his best efforts to make the requirements of this Consent Decree known to each of his employees, deputies, and agents who are responsible for operation of the Jail. Should the Defendant Sheriff enter into a future contract for the operation of the Jail by another entity, whether public or private, the Defendant Sheriff shall insure that the terms of this Consent Decree are incorporated into such contract, and the Defendant Sheriff shall be required to insure that the entity operating the Jail complies with the terms of this Consent Decree. Nothing set forth in this particular Paragraph shall bar or limit the Court’s power to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree or the right of the Defendant Sheriff or any successor Sheriff or any other person or entity who in the future operates the Jail to petition the Court for modification or termination of this Consent Decree.
8. Enforcement. Except as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, if class counsel believes that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of this Consent Decree, before moving the Court to redress the non-compliance, class counsel must notify the Defendant Sheriff and his counsel in writing of the alleged non-compliance and include in the notice sufficient specificity so that the Defendant Sheriff can identify the nature of the allegation, including describing with particularity the terms of the Consent Decree that are alleged to have been violated, the specific errors or omissions upon which the alleged violations are based, and the corrective actions sought. Upon class counsel’s request, the Defendant Sheriff shall provide additional, relevant information pertinent to the alleged violations. The Parties then have twentyeight (28) days from the date of written notification to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the issues. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute within twenty-eight (28) days, class counsel may file a motion or notice with the Court seeking appropriate relief. Class counsel may
Page 6 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 7 of 12
file such a motion without substituting new named representative plaintiffs, if the named plaintiffs at the time of the entry of this Consent Decree are no longer members of the class at the time of the filing of such a motion.
9. Costs, Expenses, and Attorneys’ Fees. In settlement of all claims for attorneys’ fees, taxable costs, and non-taxable litigation expenses incurred through the date of entry of the proposed Consent Decree, the Defendant Sheriff agrees to tender to Class Counsel the gross sum of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), via check made payable to the Social Justice Law Collective Trust Account (Fed. Tax ID No. 46-0961071) (the “Settlement Amount”), within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s final entry of this Consent Decree. The Parties agree that this Settlement Amount includes the resolution and payment in full of all of Plaintiffs’ claims for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
10. Court Approval. The Parties agree that they will take all necessary and appropriate steps to obtain preliminary approval from the Court of this Consent Decree, final approval and entry by the Court of this Consent Decree, and dismissal of the action with prejudice, subject to the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce this Consent Decree and adjudicate any future dispute over Plaintiffs’ attorney fees, costs, and litigation expenses.
11. Effective Date. This Consent Decree shall be effective immediately upon its entry by the Court.
12. Settlement Contingent on Court Adoption. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree is subject to and conditioned upon the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree. In the event that the Court declines to approve or enter this Consent Decree, the Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall be null and void and without prejudice to the Parties’ rights.
Page 7 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 8 of 12
13. Waiver of Appeal. Upon the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree, the Parties waive their rights to appeal any existing order, decision, or ruling in this action. The Parties further waive their rights to appeal the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree.
14. Default. Subject to the foregoing terms, and following the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree, no default by any person or party to this Consent Decree in the performance of any of the covenants or obligations under this Consent Decree, or any judgment or order entered in conjunction with it, shall affect the dismissal of the Complaint, the preclusion of prosecution of actions, the discharge and release of the Defendant Sheriff, or the judgment entered approving these provisions. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to affect the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce this Consent Decree on a motion for contempt or any other motion seeking appropriate relief.
15. Captions. The captions of this Consent Decree are for convenience of reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of this Consent Decree.
16. Recitals. The parties agree that recitals set forth above are true and that they constitute a part of this settlement.
V. INMATE MAIL PROVISIONS 17. The Defendant Sheriff’s specific obligations regarding Jail policies and practices under this Consent Decree are as follows: (a) Inmates May Send Letters. The Defendant Sheriff will not prohibit or restrict
Jail inmates from mailing Non-Privileged Envelope Correspondence to correspondents outside the Jail, except as set forth in this paragraph.
Page 8 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 9 of 12
(b) Inmates May Receive Letters. The Defendant Sheriff will not prohibit or restrict Jail inmates from receiving Non-Privileged Envelope Correspondence from correspondents outside the Jail, except as set forth in this paragraph.
(c) Provision of Writing Materials to Indigent Inmates. The Defendant Sheriff will provide each Indigent Inmate with sufficient Writing Materials so that the inmate may send at least two (2) pieces of Non-Privileged Envelope Correspondence, per week, at no expense to the inmate.
(d) Provision of Legal Writing Materials to Indigent Inmates. The Defendant Sheriff will provide each Indigent Inmate, upon request, with sufficient Writing Materials so that the Indigent Inmate may send at least two (2) pieces of Privileged Envelope Correspondence, per week, at no expense to the inmate.
(e) No Volume Restrictions on Mail. The Defendant Sheriff will not restrict the number of pieces of Envelope Correspondence or Postcards that a Jail inmate can send or receive unless there is clear evidence that such restriction is necessary for the safety of inmates, staff, or the public or for facility order or security. The Defendant Sheriff may restrict the number of pieces of Envelope Correspondence or Postcards that a Jail inmate may keep in his or her cell.
(f) Letter Length Restrictions. The Defendant Sheriff may limit the length of each piece of Envelope Correspondence, incoming or outgoing, to one (1) piece of paper, front and back, measuring at least 7.25” wide by at least 10.5” tall.
(g) Content regulation not covered. This Consent Decree is not intended to restrict any authority the Defendant Sheriff may have to regulate the content of Envelope Correspondence or Postcards.
Page 9 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 10 of 12
18. Within twenty-one (21) days from the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree, the Defendant Sheriff shall revise all written policies, procedures, orders, regulations, and rules to conform to the above specific injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, the Detainee Mail Policy – Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) F-115, and shall provide copies of all such revised policies, procedures, orders, regulations, and rules to class counsel.
VI. NOTICE 19. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendant Sheriff, within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s preliminary approval of the Notice of Proposed Settlement (hereinafter “Notice”) attached to this Consent Decree as Exhibit A, shall provide the Notice to those members of the Inmate Correspondent Class as presently constituted by posting a copy of the attached Notice in each pod and visitation area. The Notice shall remain posted for sixty (60) days. A copy of the Notice shall be provided individually to any inmate who is not housed in a common dormitory setting. In addition, a copy of the Notice shall be published on the Jail’s public website. Within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s preliminary approval of the Notice, the Defendant Sheriff shall further provide the Notice to those members of the Outside Correspondent Class by publication in the Kansas City Star. The attached Notice shall be posted, provided, and published, in English and Spanish. The cost of providing such notice shall be borne by the Defendant Sheriff in his official capacity. 20. Class members shall have sixty (60) days from the date of the Defendant Sheriff’s posting, providing, and publishing of the attached Notice to file with the Clerk of the Court any written objections to this proposed Consent Decree, with a copy to class counsel. The Defendant Sheriff shall provide free paper, envelopes, and postage to any indigent inmate who wishes to
Page 10 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 11 of 12
file objections to this Consent Decree. Such communications with the Court shall be considered privileged legal mail by the Defendant Sheriff, his agents, and employees.
VII. CONSENT AND EXECUTION BY PARTIES AND COUNSEL WHEREFORE the Parties and their counsel agree to the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree as set forth above.

s/ Tyrell Jackson

.

Tyrell Jackson

Class Representative

Date: 10/28/2014.

s/ Donald Ash

.

Donald Ash

Sheriff of Wyandotte County

Date: 10/28/2014.

s/ Randall Chapman

.

Randall Chapman

Class Representative

Date: 10/28/2014.

s/ Mable Estes

.

Mable Estes

Class Representative

Date: 10/28/2014.

s/ Stephen Douglas Bonney . Stephen Douglas Bonney Kansas Bar No. 12322 ACLU Foundation of Kansas 3601 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Tel. (816) 994-3311 Fax: (816) 756-0136 E-mail: dbonney@aclukswmo.org
Date: 10/28/2014.

s/ Henry E. Couchman, Jr.

.

Henry E. Couchman, Jr.

Kansas Bar No. 12842

Patrick M. Waters

Kansas Bar No. 21709

Ryan Haga

Kansas Bar No. 22705

Unified Government of Wyandotte

County/Kansas City, Kansas

Legal Department

Municipal Office Building 701 North 7th Street, Suite 961

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

Page 11 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-02504-EFM-JPO Document 43-1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 12 of 12

Joshua A. Glickman Kansas Bar No. 25889 Social Justice Law Collective, PL P.O. Box 11563 Overland Park, KS 66207 Tel. (913) 213-3064 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Tel. (913) 573-5060 Fax: (913) 573-5243 Email: hcouchman@wycokck.org
patrickwaters@wycokck.org rhaga@wycokck.org
Date: 10/28/2014.
Counsel for Defendant Sheriff

Page 12 of 12

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-2504 As of: 03/13/2015 05:17 PM CDT 1 of 5
CLOSED,DISC
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−02504−EFM−JPO

Jackson et al v. Ash Assigned to: District Judge Eric F. Melgren Referred to: Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff Tyrell Jackson on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated
Plaintiff Randall Chapman on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated
Plaintiff Mable Estes on behalf of herself and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

Date Filed: 09/30/2013 Date Terminated: 02/23/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Joshua A. Glickman Social Justice Law Collective, PL PO Box 11563 Overland Park, KS 66207 913−213−3064 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen D. Bonney ACLU Foundation of Kansas 3601 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 816−994−3311 Email: dbonney@aclukansas.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joshua A. Glickman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen D. Bonney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joshua A. Glickman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen D. Bonney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Donald Ash in his official capacity as Sheriff for Wyandotte County, Kansas

represented by Henry E. Couchman , Jr. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KS 701 North 7th Street Kansas City, KS 66101−3013 913−573−5060

Case: 2:13-cv-2504 As of: 03/13/2015 05:17 PM CDT 2 of 5
Fax: 913−573−5243 Email: hcouchman@wycokck.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick M. Waters Unified Government of Wyandotte County − Legal Dept. 701 North 7th Street Kansas City, KS 66101 913−573−5079 Fax: 913−573−5243 Email: PatrickWaters@wycokck.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Patrick Haga Unified Government of Wyandotte County − Legal Dept. 701 North 7th Street Kansas City, KS 66101 913−573−5060 Fax: 913−573−5243 Email: rhaga@wycokck.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 10/15/2013
10/15/2013
10/22/2013 10/31/2013 11/01/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (No Summons Issued) with trial location of Kansas City, filed by Tyrell Jackson, Randall Chapman, Mable Estes.(ta) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET re: 1 Complaint by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (ta) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
FILING FEE PAID: in the amount of $400.00, receipt number K4631040535. (ta) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
3 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Bonney, Stephen) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
4 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 3 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Bonney, Stephen) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
5 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Patrick M. Waters on behalf of Donald Ash. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
6 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 3 MOTION to Certify Class by Defendant Donald Ash. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
7 CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 11/4/2013 for Defendant Donald Ash to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 10/14/2013. (mh) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
8 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 3 MOTION to Certify Class. Response deadline 11/4/2013. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 10/15/2013. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
9 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Joshua A. Glickman on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Glickman, Joshua) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
10 Second Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time by Defendant Donald Ash. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
11 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 3 Motion to Certify Class. Response deadline 11/12/2013. Signed by District Judge Eric F.

Case: 2:13-cv-2504 As of: 03/13/2015 05:17 PM CDT 3 of 5

11/04/2013 11/04/2013 11/04/2013 11/12/2013 11/25/2013 11/25/2013
12/03/2013 12/20/2013
01/23/2014 01/24/2014 01/29/2014
01/29/2014
02/12/2014 03/07/2014 03/25/2014 04/03/2014 04/14/2014 04/22/2014 04/22/2014

Melgren on 11/1/2013. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
12 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Donald Ash.(Couchman, Henry) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
13 DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL filed by Defendant Donald Ash − trial to be held in Kansas City. (Couchman, Henry) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
14 First Amended ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Donald Ash.(Couchman, Henry) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
15 RESPONSE by Defendant Donald Ash re: 3 MOTION to Certify Class. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
16 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to 15 Response to Motion for Class Certification by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Glickman, Joshua) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re: 3 MOTION to Certify Class. Reply deadline 12/3/2013. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 11/25/2013. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (alm) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
18 REPLY to Response to Motion by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson re: 3 MOTION to Certify Class. (Glickman, Joshua) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
19 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Scheduling Conference set for 1/29/2014 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 236 before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Report of Parties Planning Meeting deadline 1/24/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 12/20/2013. (kg) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
20 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Donald Ash of Defendant's Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures. (Couchman, Henry) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures by Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Bonney, Stephen) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
22 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery deadline 7/28/2014. Dispositive motion deadline 9/5/2014. SEE ORDER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SCHEDULED DEADLINES AND HEARINGS. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 1/29/2014. (kg) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
23 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 1/29/2014. (Tape FTR/DJW.) (TEXT ENTRY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (kg) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Documents Disclosed in Initial Disclosures by Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Bonney, Stephen) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Initial Discovery Requests by Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Bonney, Stephen) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
26 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 3 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 3/25/2014. (cm) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
27 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Donald Ash of Discovery, First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
28 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Donald Ash of Discovery, Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Limits Set Forth in Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Bonney, Stephen) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
30 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: and ORDER granting 29 joint motion to amend scheduling order. Discovery deadline 10/3/2014. Dispositive motion deadline 11/3/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 4/22/2014. (ah) (Entered:

Case: 2:13-cv-2504 As of: 03/13/2015 05:17 PM CDT 4 of 5

04/24/2014 06/02/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014
06/20/2014 06/20/2014 06/24/2014 06/24/2014 07/03/2014 07/03/2014
07/16/2014 09/02/2014 10/30/2014
11/12/2014
01/07/2015
01/13/2015

04/22/2014)
31 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Donald Ash of Discovery − First Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
32 Joint NOTICE of Mediation Conference by Donald Ash. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
33 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Bonney, Stephen) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
34 ORDER granting 33 unopposed motion for extension of time until July 7, 2014, for plaintiffs to file a motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 6/6/2014. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ah) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
35 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Donald Ash of Rule 26(e) Supplemental Disclosures. (Haga, Ryan) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' Respsonses to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories by Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Bonney, Stephen) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
37 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines For Discovery and Dispositive Motions by Defendant Donald Ash. (Waters, Patrick) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
38 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: and ORDER granting 37 joint motion for extension of deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 6/24/2014. (ah) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
39 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel Discovery with Suggestions in Support by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Glickman, Joshua) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
40 ORDER granting 39 plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time until 7/21/2014, to file a motion to compel with respect to defendant's responses to plaintiffs' first request for production of documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 07/03/2014. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (mb) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
41 ADR REPORT by Donald Ash. ADR session held on: 6/26/14 and 7/10/14 and conducted by Larry Rute. Results of ADR: Case did not settle. Status of litigation at time of ADR: Partial Discovery. (Haga, Ryan) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
42 ADR REPORT by Donald Ash. ADR session held on: 6/26/14 and conducted by Larry rute. Results of ADR: Case settled at ADR. Status of litigation at time of ADR: Partial Discovery. (Haga, Ryan) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
43 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlment and Memorandum of Law in Support by Plaintiffs Randall Chapman, Mable Estes, Tyrell Jackson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit B − Notice of Proposed Settlement)(Glickman, Joshua) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
44 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT, CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND AUTHORIZING NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS granting 43 Motion. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 11/12/2014. (smg) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
45 NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) In Court/Fairness Hearing set for 2/3/2015 at 09:00 AM in KC Courtroom (Unknown)before District Judge Eric F. Melgren. (cm) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
46 LETTER RECEIVED FROM CLASS ACTION PRISONER OBJECTING to 44 Order on Motion Preliminaryily Approving Settlement, Certifying Settlement Class, and Authorizing Notice to the Settlement Class. (smg) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

Case: 2:13-cv-2504 As of: 03/13/2015 05:17 PM CDT 5 of 5

01/27/2015 01/28/2015 02/03/2015 02/23/2015
02/23/2015

47 LETTER RECEIVED FROM CLASS ACTION PRISONER OBJECTING to 44 Order on Motion Preliminaryily Approving Settlement, Certifying Settlement Class, and Authorizing Notice to the Settlement Class. (cm) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
48 NOTICE of ASSIGNED COURTROOM re: 45 Notice of Fairness Hearing. All parties are advised the Fairness Hearing scheduled for 2/3/2015 at 9:00 AM will be held in COURTROOM 440 of the Kansas City, Kansas Federal Courthouse. (cm) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
49 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before District Judge Eric F. Melgren: IN COURT/FAIRNESS HEARING held on 2/3/2015. (Court Reporter Jo Wilkinson.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
50 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree (Doc. 43 −1) is hereby APPROVED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and DIRECTED TO BE ENTERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 2/20/2015. (smg) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
***Civil Case Terminated per 50 Memorandum & Order. (smg) (Entered: 02/23/2015)