UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

FILED
NOV 21 2007

JAMIE LAMBERTZ-BRINKMAN, MARY )

PETERSON, LAURA RIVERA, and Jane )

Does 3 through 10, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly

)

situated.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

TIM REISCH, Secretary of the S.D.

)

Department of Corrections, DUANE

)

RUSSELL, Warden of the S.D. Women's )

Prison, JUDITH STOUT, Head Nurse of )

Health Services Department at the S.D. )

Women's Prison, and John Doe

)

Defendants.

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Jamie Lambertz-Brinkman, Mary Peterson and Laura Rivera bring this class action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated inmates incarcerated at the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre, South Dakota. Plaintiffs on information and belief allege:
INTRODUCTION: 1. This class action for injunctive and declaratory relief is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 to preserve the rights of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 2. The named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are all subject to the actions, omissions and deliberate indifference of the defendants described herein. The named
-1-

plaintiffs and the plaintiff class suffer from serious mental health or medical problems, and the deliberate indifference of the defendants to these problems exposes each of them to conditions that constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and deprivation of liberty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of the defendants' action and omissions, the named plaintiffs and plaintiff class face continued and further degradation of their mental and medical health.
3. The needs of mentally ill and medically ill prisoners at issue in this action includes timely provision of proper treatment and medication by competent staff and protection from the ignorance or indifference to the prisoner's mental or medical health state.
JURISDICTION: 4. This court has jurisdiction over the proceedings in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because this action arises under the Constitution and the laws of the United States and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3) because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Venue is proper here under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because the events and omissions giving rise to plaintiffs' claims occurred in this district and because at least one defendant can be found within this district.
PARTIES: 5. The Plaintiffs are state prison inmates who currently reside at the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre, South Dakota and have serious mental health or medical needs.
-2-

6. The Defendant Tim Reisch is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the State of South Dakota Department of Corrections and Defendant Duane Russell is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre. Each Defendant is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the employees of the South Dakota Women's Prison as well as for the amount and nature of the mental and mediGal health services provided, as well as the policies implemented at the prison.
7. Defendant Judith Stout, is sued in her official capacity as the head of the Health Services Department of the South Dakota Women's Prison. John and Jane Doe defendants who are nursing supervisors or nurses in the Health Services Department of the South Dakota Women's Prison. Each Defendant is responsible for withholding medications and treatment from the Plaintiffs and putative class members.
8. With regard to all actions and omissions alleged herein, the defendants have acted and continue to act under color of state law.
MEMBERS OF THE CLASS: 9. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 23(a) and (b)(2). The class, as proposed by plaintiffs, consists of the following class of persons: All individuals who are now or who will be in the future incarcerated at the South Women's Prison and who are denied or delayed access to medication or medical treatment, that has been prescribed by a treating physician, based on decisions made by persons who are not themselves qualified to prescribe medications or medical treatment. 10. The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) have been met as show in the following paragraphs. 11. The class is so numerous, and the class so fluid, that joinder of all
-3-

members is impracticable. There are approximately 350 inmates housed at the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre. New prisoners and class members enter the Prison, and others are transferred or released, every day. The disposition of their claims in a class action will provide substantial benefit to both the parties and the court.
12. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the class, including the scope and interpretation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment in the prison setting; the lawfulness of the policies, practices and omissions of the defendants in the provision of access to prescription medication; and the effect of the defendants' deliberate indifference.
13. All class members are equally subject to the conditions of confinement and the systemic deficiencies described in this Complaint, including lack of an adequate system for medication.
15. The named plaintiffs have each been affected by these constitutionally deficient conditions of confinement and face a SUbstantial risk of being adversely affected by them in the future.
16. The claims of the class representatives are typical of those of the class and the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
17. The parties opposing the class have acted upon grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
-4-

STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS:
18. The South Dakota Women's Prison ("SDWP") in Pierre, South Dakota houses all females in the State of South Dakota who have been convicted and sentenced to a term in the state penitentiary.
19. SDWP houses approximately 350 female inmates, according to the latest statistics provided by the State of South Dakota.
20. Approximately one-third of the prisoners suffer from mental disorders of one type or another that require psychiatric medications.
21. Many prisoners depend on medications to help them maintain mental stability. When they are deprived of their necessary medications, and faced with the added stresses of incarceration, prisoners are at risk of mental destabilization.
22. Many class members depend on medications to treat and maintain their physical health. When they are deprived of their necessary medications, prisoners are at high risk of increased sickness, physical instability with their health and in some cases a high risk of serious physical injury.
23. Many prisoners are in the need of pain medications to alleviate physical pain as the result of surgery, physical injury and/or physical disease. When they are deprived of this medication, prisoners are at high risk of experiencing high levels of physical pain compounded with conditions of confinement.
24. Sudden or prolonged discontinuation of prescribed medications can have disastrous results.
-5-

25. Some prisoners, upon arrival at SDWP, have medications or prescriptions in their possession prescribed by outside treating physicians to treat medical and/or mental illness.
26.. These medications are often confiscated and discarded by prison employees who are themselves not qualified to prescribe medications.
27.. Sometimes these medications are later reinstated, but only after prolonged periods of time have passed, putting the prisoners at risk of mental destabilization as well as a risk of physical illness, or risk of serious physical injury.
28.. Some prisoners have had prescription medications prescribed by a treating physician during their incarceration.
29.. These medications were either not given or discontinued based on decisions made by prison employees not qualified to prescribe medication.
30.. SDWP maintains an approved list of medications called a formulary. 31.. Much of the criteria for whether a particular medication is provided to prisoners or not is based on the cost of the medication. 32.. At times, a specific medication that a prisoner was being treated with successfully outside of the Prison is not available on the Prison's formulary. In that event, defendants force prisoners to accept alternative medication that may not work for them. 33.. These decisions are routinely made by individuals not qualified or licensed to make competent decisions concerning medications. 34. The Prison's screening system for those in need of medications is inadequate.
-6-

35.. When any change in medication is made, the prison has an inadequate system for monitoring the therapeutic or toxic effects of the change.
36. The Prison's mental health screening in place and mental health services is inadequate and prevents some prisoners access to the Prison's psychiatrist who can then prescribe the appropriate psychotropic medications.
37. Orders for prescription medication by the Prison's own psychiatrist have been ignored by nursing personnel without any appropriate follow-up or input from the prison PS~fchiatrist.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Jamie Lambertz
38. Named Plaintiff Lambertz, is currently incarcerated and began that incarceration at SDWP in December of 2005.
39. Prior to coming to SDWP in 2005, Jamie had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, mood disorder, anti-social disorder and personality disorder.
40. In 2005, Lambertz' physician prescribed Haldol, a prescription medication. 41. Upon arrival at the South Dakota Women's Prison, the nursing staff confiscated and discarded the remaining Haldol medication without any consultation with the prison psychiatrist or any other medical doctor. 42. It took Jamie almost a year to get permission from the Prison's mental health staff to see the prison psychiatrist and obtain medication for her condition.
-7-

Laura Rivera 43. Named Plaintiff Laura Rivera is currently incarcerated and began her incarceration term at SDWP in 2002. 44. Prior to her incarceration in 2002, Rivera was diagnosed with bipolar disorder by Dr. Leslie Fiferman, a psychologist from Rapid City, South Dakota. 45. As a result of that diagnosis from Dr. Fiferman, Dr. Fox, a psychiatrist, prescribed medication to treat Rivera's bipolar disorder. 46. Upon her arrival at SDWP, members of the nursing staff confiscated the medications without any involvement of a medical doctor and told Rivera that she could not have any of her medication until she consulted with the prison psychiatrist, but that did not occur for approximately a month after her medications were taken from her. 47. Additionally, Rivera has been refused her current medications by prison guards.
Mary Peterson 48. Named Plaintiff Mary Peterson is currently incarcerated and began her incarceration at SDWP in 2005. 49. She had been diagnosed with among other things, post-traumatic stress disorder prior to coming to SDWP. 50. Peterson arrived at SDWP in 2005 from the Minnehaha County Jail. 51. Prior to coming to SDWP and while she was at the Minnehaha County Jail Peterson had been prescribed numerous psychotropic medications by Dr. Rajesh Singh.
-8-

52. Dr. Singh is the jail psychiatrist for the Minnehaha County Jail and also the prison psychiatrist for the SDWP.
53. After Mary's arrival at the SDWP, she was taken off all of her medication that had been prescribed by Dr. Singh, without any consultation with Dr. Singh.
54. The changes to Peterson's medications came from prison employees in the Health Services department and from the prison counseling staff.
55. Peterson was informed that some of the medications that had been prescribed by Dr. Singh were not on the Prison formulary and therefore she would not be allowed to take them.
56. It took Peterson a number of months to be allowed to see Dr. Singh again, despite h,sr repeated requests.
57. After Peterson's consultation with Dr. Singh, he placed her back on the same regrimen of psychotropic medication that she had at the Minnehaha County Jail.
Similar Experiences Are Reported Bv Other Putative Class Members Jane Doe #1
58. Jane Doe #1, is an inmate who is diagnosed with HIV, and placed on essential medications.
59. Jane Doe is currently incarcerated and began her incarceration at the SDWP in 2005.
60. She was not allowed to continue her prescription medications that she had been prescribed by a specialist for her HIV.
61. Jane Doe complained to nursing staff that it was dangerous for her not to
-9-

be taking her medication. 62. It took approximately four to five months for Jane Doe to receive the
necessary medications. 63. By the time Jane Doe has received her medications, her viral load was
dangeroLisly deficient. Jane Doe #2
64. Jane Doe #2, arrived at SDWP in 2005 to commence her prison sentence.
65. Jane Doe had recently been on psychotropic medications prescribed by her physician.
66. She requested consult with the prison psychiatrist in order to start back on her psychotropic medications at the time of her arrival.
67. She was told by prison counseling staff that because her length of prison sentence was only 105 days, she would not be allowed to see the psychiatrist within that time, and there was not way for her to continue her medications during her stay at SDWP.
Jane Does #3 - 10 68. Upon information and belief, there are as many similar instances of deliberato indifference to medical needs that have occurred at SDWP, and it is a pattern and practice of systemic behavior to have medications withheld based on the decision making of individuals who are wholly unqualified to prescribe or withhold prescription medications.
-10-

INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 69.. The conditions of confinement set forth in this Complaint result in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, physical and psychological injury and imminent risk of seriously injury or of death that is unrelated to any legitimate penological purpose. Defendants have acquiesced and ratified these conditions, which amount to an official custom or policy of the defendants. 70. An actual and immediate controversy exists between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Plaintiffs contend that the conditions of confinement described herein are unconstitiJtional. Defendants contend that the conditions of confinement described herein am constitutional. Plaintiffs and the class are therefore entitled to a declaration of rights with respect to this controversy. 71. Defendants have acted, and continue to act, under color of state law to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable injury, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, as a result of the conditions described in this Complaint, unless those conditions are enjoined by this Court. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or speedy remedy at law, and are entitled to injunctive relief against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 72. Named Plaintiffs have either exhausted administrative remedies available to them, or their remedies are futile because by the time administrative remedies are exhausted the damage has already occurred from the withholding of treatment and/or medications.
-11-

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments 72.. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference ,-r,-r 1 through 68 as if fully set forth herein. 73. By subjecting the named plaintiffs and the class members in their custody to the conditions set forth herein, with full knowledge of those conditions, defendants have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate indifference to their health, safety and serious mental health needs and have subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 74. Certify this action as a class action; 75. Enter a judgment declaring that defendants' actions described herein are unlawful and violate plaintiffs' and the plaintiffs' class constitutional rights; 76. Permanently enjoin defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them from subjecting plaintiffs and the plaintiff class to the conditions set forth in this Complaint;
n. Grant plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §·11988 and other applicable law; and 78. Grant such other relief as the Court considers just and proper.
-12-

:J../ Dated this

day of November, 2007.

By: ~fo'---Mike Abourezk ABOUREZK LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff PO Box 9460 2020 W. Omaha St. Rapid City, South Dakota 57709 (605) 342-0097

-13-

 
 Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 14 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

CENTRAL DIVISION

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

*

JAMIE LAMBERTZ-BRINKMAN,

*

CIV 07-3040

LAURA RIVERA, and Jane Does

*

4 through 10, on behalf of themselves

*

and all others similarly situated,

*

*

Plruntiffs,

*

*

-vs-

*

OPINION AND ORDER

*

TIM REISCH, Secretary of the S.D.

*

Department of Corrections, DUANE

*

RUSSELL, Warden of the S.D. Women's

*

Prison, JUDITH STOUT, Head Nurse of

*

the S.D. Women's Prison, and John Doe

*

Defendants,

*

*

Defendants.

*

*

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

Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, Doc. 6, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that defendants are and have been deliberately indifferent to the serious mental and

medical health needs of the inmates incarcerated at the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre,

South Dakota. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A), this Court is required to determine, "at

an early practicable time," whether to certify this action as a class action.

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(a) permits class certification where:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions oflaw or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); Alpern v. UtiliCorp United. Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1539 (8th Cir. 1996). The

four prerequisites for class certification can be referred to as (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3)

typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. Paxton v. Union National Bank, 688 F.2d 552,

559 (8th Cir. 1982). In addition to the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), one of the three

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 14 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 56

subsections of Rule 23(b) must be met. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Plaintiffs contend in their

amended class action complaint that this matter is appropriate for class certification pursuant to

Rule 23(b)(2):

the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

The purported class consists of:

all individuals who are now or who will be in the future incarcerated at the South [Dakota] Women's Prison and who are denied or delayed access to medication or medical treatment, that has been prescribed by a treating physician, based on decisions made by persons who are not themselves qualified to prescribe medications or medical treatment.

The record is not sufficiently complete to allow the Court to determine whether class certification

is appropriate.

Now, therefore,

JT IS ORDERED:

]. Plaintiffs shall file a brief addressing the prerequisites for class certification on or

before April 21, 2008. Defendants shall file any responsive brief within 20 days thereafter.

2. Defendants shall provide expedited responses to any discovery requests made by

plaintiffs which are relevant to the issue of class certification or which are reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of information relevant to class certification. The parties shall comply

with the Court's standard operating procedures applicable to any disputes as to the timing or

extent of discovery.

1ti Ic;b Dated this

y of March, 20Of.

Q ArrEST:
::EPH HAAS, CLERK
~~ (SE )

BY THE COURT:
~)~~
CHARLES B. KORNMANN United States District Judge

2

 
 Lambertz-Brinkman v. Reisch, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2008)

2008 WL 4774895 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division.
Jamie LAMBERTZ-BRINKMAN, Laura Rivera, Christa Stork, and Jane Does 4 through 10, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Tim REISCH, Secretary of the S.D. Department of Corrections, Duane Russell, Warden of the S.D. Women’s Prison, Judith Stout, Head Nurse of Health Services Department at the S.D. Women’s Prison, and John Doe Defendants, Defendants.
No. CIV 07-3040. | Oct. 31, 2008.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Michael Charles Abourezk, Abourezk Law Firm, Rapid City, SD, for Plaintiffs.
Michael F. Shaw, Patrick M. Grode, May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson, Pierre, SD, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION
CHARLES B. KORNMANN, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiffs instituted this action contending that defendants are deliberately indifferent to their serious mental and medical health needs. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that defendants’ policies and practices violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Eighth and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs further seek an injunction prohibiting any further violations.
Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). Defendants resist class certification.
[B]efore certifying a class seeking broad injunctive relief against a state agency, a district court must ensure that it has Article III
.

jurisdiction to entertain each claim asserted by the named plaintiffs. See Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 283 F.3d 315, 319 n. 6 (5th Cir.2002); Prado-Steiman, 221 F.3d at 1279-80. And the court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” to ensure that the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. of the S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982).
Elizabeth M.V. Montenez, 458 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir.2006).
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(a) permits class certification where:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a); Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1539 (8th Cir.1996). The four prerequisites for class certification can be referred to as (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. Paxton v. Union National Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 559 (8th Cir.1982). “An action may be maintained as a class action only if all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied and, in addition, one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b) is met.” Pickett v. IBP, 197 F.R.D. 510, 513 (M.D.Al.2000). “The burden is on the party who seeks to certify a class to show that the prerequisites of Rule 23 are established.” Id.
1. Numerosity. Plaintiffs request the certification of a class to consist of:
All individuals who are now or who will be in the future incarcerated at the South Dakota Women’s Prison and who are denied or delayed access to
1

Lambertz-Brinkman v. Reisch, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2008)

medication or medical treatment that has been prescribed by a treating physician, based on decisions made by persons who are not themselves qualified to prescribe medications or medical treatment.
Plaintiffs contend that, of the approximately 350 inmates housed at the South Dakota Women’s Prison, approximately 130 are currently on medication for mental health issues. Absent discovery, it would be impossible to determine how many of those women were on prescription medication when they arrived at the prison. Defendants contend that the class is not so numerous that joinder is impracticable. They point out that three of the inmates have already begun separate actions challenging medical care at the prison. Because the class includes future inmates, I find that joinder of all members would be impracticable.
2. Commonality. *2 Rule 23(a) requires “questions of law or fact common to the class.” It, however, “does not require that every question of law or fact be common to every member of the class.” Paxton, 688 F.2d at 561. Commonality may be satisfied “where the question of law linking the class members is substantially related to the resolution of the litigation even though the individuals are not identically situated.” Paxton, 699 F.2d at 561 (quoting American Finance Sys., Inc. v. Harlow, 65 F.R.D. 94, 107 (D.Md.1974)). Accord, Christina A. ex rel. Jennifer A. v. Bloomberg, 197 F.R.D. 664, 667 (D.S.D.2000).
No party has identified any factual issues unique to each proposed class member which would predominate in this litigation. Plaintiffs do not seek damages. The issue to be proved in this litigation is whether the defendants have a policy or practice of denying to the inmates medication or treatment that has been prescribed by a physician (“M.D.”) and whether such policy or practice, if it exists, violates the law. Plaintiffs contend that medications previously prescribed by a physician are routinely denied based upon the orders of a non-licensed medical provider. More correctly, it would be non-M.D.’s overriding prescriptions issued to a patient by an M.D. Although each individual member of the class may have had different experiences with regard to medical and mental health care at the S.D. Women’s Prison, this does not defeat commonality as the legal question “linking the class members”-whether an illegal policy or practice exists-“is substantially related to the resolution of the litigation.” DeBoer v. Mellon Mortgage Co., 64 F.3d
.

1171, 1174 (8th Cir.1995). All members of the class seek a declaration that an illegal policy and practice exists and an injunction should be issued prohibiting such practice. This is sufficient to establish the requisite commonality. Id.
3. Typicality. The Eighth Circuit holds that the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) “requires a demonstration that there are other members of the class who have the same or similar grievances as the plaintiff.’ “ Tate v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 723 F.2d 958, 608 (8th Cir.1983) (quoting Donaldson v. Pillsbury Co., 554 F.2d 825, 830 (8th Cir.1977)); Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1540 (8th Cir.1996). “The burden of demonstrating typicality is fairly easily met so long as other class members have claims similar to the named plaintiff.” DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d at 1174.
Typicality exists if the proposed class members have the same or similar grievances in that they have been or will be subjected to the same allegedly unlawful treatment as the named plaintiffs. Paxton, 688 F.2d at 562. The named class members claim that they were denied by the defendants medical or mental health treatment which had been prescribed by an M.D. Their claims are the same as the class claims. This prong of the rule is satisfied.
4. Adequacy of Representation. *3 “The adequate representation inquiry involves questions of whether the plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.” Pickett v. IBP, 197 F.R.D. at 514. I have no doubt that plaintiffs’ counsel is a qualified and experienced litigator. Defendants do not claim otherwise.
The matter of adequate representation also involves questions whether the plaintiffs are proper class representatives. This court must “evaluate carefully the legitimacy of [a] named plaintiff’s plea that [s]he is a proper class representative under Rule 23(a).” In re Milk Products Antitrust Litigation, 195 F.3d 430, 436 (8th Cir.1999) (quoting General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982)). The class representatives must have “a sufficient incentive to represent class members” and a desire to “vigorously pursue” the interests of the class. Id. at 437. Each of the named plaintiffs allegedly has been subject to deliberate indifference to their serious mental or medical health needs and two have pending suits in this court wherein they individually assert those claims. The named class
2

Lambertz-Brinkman v. Reisch, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2008)

plaintiffs clearly have a desire to vigorously pursue litigation against the defendants. There is no doubt that they are representative members of the proposed class.
Since this action was filed, two of the named class representatives have been released from prison. This does not preclude class certification, however, because this is the type of case that is “capable of repetition yet evading review.” See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 861, n. 11, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975):
At oral argument counsel informed us that the named respondents have been convicted. Their pretrial detention therefore has ended. This case belongs, however, to that narrow class of cases in which the termination of a class representative’s claim does not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the class. Pretrial detention is by nature temporary, and it is most unlikely that any given individual could have his constitutional claim decided on appeal before he is either released or convicted. The individual could nonetheless suffer repeated deprivations, and it is certain that other persons similarly situated will be detained under the allegedly unconstitutional procedures. The claim, in short, is one that is distinctly ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ At the time the complaint was filed, the named respondents were members of a class of persons detained without a judicial probable cause determination, but the record does not indicate whether any of them were still in custody awaiting trial when the District Court certified the class. Such a showing ordinarily would be required to avoid mootness under Sosna. But this case is a suitable exception to that requirement.
This is just the type of case that could become moot before I could reasonably be expected to rule on the issue of class certification or, indeed, before the matter could be litigated to a conclusion. The plaintiffs allege ongoing policies and practices at the South Dakota Women’s Prison and that there continue to be inmates who have a stake in this controversy. Class certification is not defeated in this case by the release of any of the named plaintiffs. In any event, with the amendment of the complaint, there is at least one named class plaintiff who is still incarcerated and, based upon the allegations in the amended complaint, is a proper class representative.
5. Rule 23(b) prerequisites. *4 Where the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, a Rule 23(b)(2) non-opt-out class may be certified if:

the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
Elizabeth v. Montenez, 458 F.3d at 786. Plaintiffs assert that class certification is appropriate under 23(b)(2). A Rule 23(b) class is proper here where the only relief sought is declaratory and injunctive relief. In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., 425 F.3d 1116, 1121 (8th Cir.2005).
Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The motion for class certification, Doc. 20, is granted. This action shall be maintained as a class action on behalf of the following class of plaintiffs:
All individuals who are now or who will be in the future incarcerated at the South Dakota Women’s Prison and who are denied or delayed access to medication or medical treatment that has been prescribed by a treating medical doctor (M.D.), based on decisions made by persons who are not themselves medical doctors.
2. Class certification is granted for the purpose of litigating the following issue in this case:
a. Whether defendants maintain a policy or practice of deliberate indifference to the serious mental or medical health needs of the inmates of the S.D. Women’s Prison in violation of the United States Constitution;
3. No notice to the class is required at this time.
4. Subject to further order of the Court, Jamie Lambertz-Brinkman, Laura Rivera, and Christa Stork are designated as class representatives. Mike Abourezk and the Abourezk Law Firm are designated as class counsel.

.

3

 
 Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 73 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 802

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

PILED

APR 1 7 2012

JAMIE LAMBERTZ-BRINKMAN, LAURA

)

RIVERA, CHRlSTA STORK, AND JANE

)

DOES 4 THROUGH 10, ON BEHALF OF

)

THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS

)

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

)

vs.

)

)

DENNY KAEMINGK, SECRETARY OF THE )

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF

)

CORRECTIONS, BRENDA HYDE, WARDEN )

OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA WOMEN'S

)

PRlSON, TANYA REISER, CLINICAL

)

SUPERVISOR FOR CORRECTIONAL

)

HEALTH SERVICES AT THE SOUTH

)

DAKOTA WOMEN'S PRISON, AND

)

JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS,

)

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

CIV 07-3040

~~

ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are members of a class of approximately 350 prisoners who are confined at the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre, South Dakota. They filed suit against the Defendants, officials of the South Dakota Department of Corrections and the South Dakota Department of Health, on November 21, 2007, requesting injunctive relief. On October 31, 2008, this Court certified a class defined as: "all individuals who are now or will be in the future incarcerated at the South Dakota Women's Prison and who are denied or delayed access to medication or medical treatment, that has been prescribed by a treating physician, based on decisions made by persons who are not themselves qualified to prescribe medication or medical treatment."

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 73 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 803
In the interests ofjudicial economy and efficient use of the parties' resources, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and submitted that Agreement to the Court for approval. Under the Court's supervision, the parties provided actual notice to the name class representatives and notice to all of the inmates at the South Dakota Women's Prison by posting the notices in a conspicuous location in each of the seven housing units before the fairness hearing, which was held by the Court on April 16, 2012. The Court has considered the comments of one inmate, submitted in writing to the Court, prior to the fairness hearing. No other comments have been received. The Court has also considered the allegations, defenses, and the terms of the proposed stipulation. After due consideration, the Court decrees as follows: 1. The Court accepts and approves the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement signed by the parties, and incorporates that Agreement into this Order. 2. The Defendants have agreed, pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, that the Court shall enter an order to the effect that no prescription medication or dosage will be substituted, changed, increased, reduced or discontinued except under the direction of a qualified physician or other person authorized by law to prescribe medications. 3. The Court reserves jurisdiction over all matters related to the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of this decree, and of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement leading to this decree. 4. The Court finds that the relief agreed to by the parties and set forth herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct alleged violations of federal rights. 5. The duration of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and Order will be in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.c. § 3626(b).

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 73 Filed 04/17/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 804

I

f

6. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorney's fees. However, in any future action

I

to enforce this decree or the tenns of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the Court has

t

£

discretion to award costs and attorney's fees.

l

L7~ay ~ Dated this

of

,2012.

I

ATTEST: 
 JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK 


BY THE COURT

~~~ CHARLES B. KORNMANN

t
I

United States District Judge

t

!

f

!

B~Q~ Deputy 


(SEAL) 


 
 Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 704

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

JAMIE LAMBERTZ-BRINKMAN, LAURA )

RIVERA, CHRISTA STORK, and Jane Does )

4 through 10, on behalf of themselves and all )

others similarly situated.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

DENNY KAEMINGK, Secretary of the S.D. )

Department of Corrections, BRENDA HYDE, )

Warden ofthe S.D. Women's Prison, TANYA )

REISER, Clinical Supervisor at the S.D.

)

Women's Prison, and John Doe Defendants. )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civ. No. 07-3040
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Jamie Lambertz-Brinkman, Laura Rivera, and Christa Stork, bring this class

action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated inmates incarcerated at the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre, South Dakota. Plaintiffs on information and belief allege:

INTRODUCTION: 1. This class action for injunctive and declaratory relief is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 to preserve the rights of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 2. The named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are all subject to the actions,

omissions and deliberate indifference of the defendants described herein. The named plaintiffs

and the plaintiff class suffer from serious mental health or medical problems, and the deliberate

-1-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 705
indifference of the defendants to these problems exposes each of them to conditions that constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation ofthe Eighth Amendment and deprivation of liberty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of the defendants' action and omissions, the named plaintiffs and plaintiff class face continued and further degradation of their mental and medical health.
3. The needs of mentally ill and medically ill prisoners at issue in this action includes timely provision of proper treatment and medication by competent staff and protection from the ignorance or indifference to the prisoner's mental or medical health state.
JURISDICTION: 4. This court has jurisdiction over the proceedings in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because this action arises under the Constitution and the laws of the United States and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3) because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Venue is proper here under 28 U.S.c. §1391 because the events and omissions giving rise to plaintiffs' claims occurred in this district and because at least one defendant can be found within this district.
PARTIES: 5. The Plaintiffs are current or former state prison inmates who currently reside at the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre, South Dakota and have serious mental health or medical needs. 6. A previously named Defendant, Tim Reisch, was sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the State of South Dakota Department of Corrections and previous Defendant Duane Russell was sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the South Dakota Women's
-2-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 706
Prison in Pierre. Each Defendant was ultimately responsible for the conduct of the employees of the South Dakota Women's Prison as well as for the amount and nature of the mental and medical health services provided, as well as the policies implemented at the prison.
7. Previously named Defendant Judith Stout, was sued in her official capacity as the Clinical Supervisor at the South Dakota Women's Prison. John and Jane Doe defendants who are nursing supervisors or nurses in the Health Services Department of the South Dakota Women's Prison. Each Defendant was responsible for withholding medications and treatment from the Plaintiffs and putative class members.
8. Currently named Defendant, Denny Kaemingk, has now assumed the position of Secretary of the S.D. Department of Corrections, replacing Tim Reisch. Currently named Defendant, Brenda Hyde, has now assumed the position of Warden of the S.D. Women's Prison, replacing Duane Russell. Currently named Defendant, Tanya Reiser, has now assumed the position of Clinical Supervisor at the S.D. Women's Prison, replacing Judith Stout.
9. Plaintiffs allege continuation of the conduct by previously-named Defendants to currently-named Defendants that forms the basis of the Complaint.
10. With regard to all actions and omissions alleged herein, the defendants have acted and continue to act under color of state law.
MEMBERS OF THE CLASS: 11. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 23(a) and (b)(2). The class, as proposed by plaintiffs, consists of the following class of persons: All individuals who are now or who will be in the future incarcerated at the South
-3-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 707
Women's Prison and who are denied or delayed access to medication or medical treatment, that has been prescribed by a treating physician, based on decisions made by persons who are not themselves qualified to prescribe medications or medical treatment. 12. The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) have been met as show in the following paragraphs. 13. The class is so numerous, and the class so fluid, that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are approximately 350 inmates housed at the South Dakota Women's Prison in Pierre. New prisoners and class members enter the Prison, and others are transferred or released, every day. The disposition of their claims in a class action will provide substantial benefit to both the parties and the court. 14. There are numerous questions oflaw and fact common to the class, including the scope and interpretation ofthe Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment in the prison setting; the lawfulness of the policies, practices and omissions of the defendants in the provision of access to prescription medication; and the effect of the defendants' deliberate indifference. 15. All class members are equally subject to the conditions of confinement and the systemic deficiencies described in this Complaint, including lack of an adequate system for medication. 16. The named plaintiffs have each been affected by these constitutionally deficient conditions of confinement and face a substantial risk of being adversely affected by them in the future. 17. The claims of the class representatives are typical of those ofthe class and the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 18. The parties opposing the class have acted upon grounds generally applicable to the
-4-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 708
class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS:
19. The South Dakota Women's Prison ("SDWP") in Pierre, South Dakota houses all females in the State of South Dakota who have been convicted and sentenced to a term in the state penitentiary.
20. SDWP houses approximately 350 female inmates, according to the latest statistics provided by the State of South Dakota.
21. Approximately one-third of the prisoners suffer from mental disorders of one type or another that require psychiatric medications.
22. Many prisoners depend on medications to help them maintain mental stability. When they are deprived of their necessary medications, and faced with the added stresses of incarceration, prisoners are at risk of mental destabilization.
23. Many class members depend on medications to treat and maintain their physical health. When they are deprived of their necessary medications, prisoners are at high risk of increased sickness, physical instability with their health and in some cases a high risk of serious physical injury.
24. Many prisoners are in the need of pain medications to alleviate physical pain as the result of surgery, physical injury and/or physical disease. When they are deprived of this medication, prisoners are at high risk of experiencing high levels of physical pain compounded with conditions of confinement.
-5-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 709
25. Sudden or prolonged discontinuation of prescribed medications can have disastrous results.
26. Some prisoners, upon arrival at SDWP, have medications or prescriptions in their possession prescribed by outside treating physicians to treat medical and/or mental illness.
27. These medications are often confiscated and discarded by prison employees who are themselves not qualified to prescribe medications.
28. Sometimes these medications are later reinstated, but only after prolonged periods of time have passed, putting the prisoners at risk of mental destabilization as well as a risk of physical illness, or risk of serious physical injury.
29. Some prisoners have had prescription medications prescribed by a treating physician during their incarceration.
30. These medications were either not given or discontinued based on decisions made by prison employees not qualified to prescribe medication.
31. SDWP maintains an approved list of medications called a formulary. 32. Much of the criteria for whether a particular medication is provided to prisoners or not is based on the cost of the medication. 33. At times, a specific medication that a prisoner was being treated with successfully outside of the Prison is not available on the Prison's formulary. In that event, defendants force prisoners to accept alternative medication that may not work for them. 34. These decisions are routinely made by individuals not qualified or licensed to make competent decisions concerning medications. 35. The Prison's screening system for those in need of medications is inadequate.
-6-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 710
36. When any change in medication is made, the prison has an inadequate system for monitoring the therapeutic or toxic effects of the change.
37. The Prison's mental health screening in place and mental health services is inadequate and prevents some prisoners access to the Prison's psychiatrist who can then prescribe the appropriate psychotropic medications.
38. Orders for prescription medication by the Prison's own psychiatrist have been ignored by nursing personnel without any appropriate follow-up or input from the prison psychiatrist.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Jamie Lambertz-Brinkman 39. Named Plaintiff Lambertz-Brinkman, was incarcerated between December of 2005 and December 2007, and is now not incarcerated. 40. Prior to coming to SDWP in 2005, Lambertz-Brinkman had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, mood disorder, anti-social disorder and personality disorder. 41. In 2005, Lambertz-Brinkman' physician prescribed Haldol, a prescription medication. 42. Upon arrival at the South Dakota Women's Prison, the nursing staff confiscated and discarded the remaining Haldol medication without any consultation with the prison psychiatrist or any other medical doctor. 43. It took Lambertz-Brinkman almost a year to get permission from the Prison's mental health staff to see the prison psychiatrist and obtain medication for her condition.
-7-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 711
Laura Rivera 44. Named Plaintiff Laura Rivera is currently incarcerated and began her incarceration term at SDWP in 2002. 45. Prior to her incarceration in 2002, Rivera was diagnosed with bipolar disorder by Dr. Leslie Fiferrnan, a psychologist from Rapid City, South Dakota. 46. As a result of that diagnosis from Dr. Fiferrnan, Dr. Fox, a psychiatrist, prescribed medication to treat Rivera's bipolar disorder. 47. Upon her arrival at SDWP, members of the nursing staff confiscated the medications without any involvement of a medical doctor and told Rivera that she could not have any of her medication until she consulted with the prison psychiatrist, but that did not occur for approximately a month after her medications were taken from her. 48. Additionally, Rivera has been refused her current medications by prison guards.
Christa Stork 49. Named Plaintiff Christa Stork is currently incarcerated and began her incarceration term as SDWP in 2007. 50. Prior to her incarceration at SDWP, Stork was treated by psychiatrist, John Euerpenback. 51. Dr. Euerpenback had placed Plaintiff Stork on various medications for mental health issues. 52. Upon her arrival at SDWP, members of the nursing staff confiscated the medications without involvement of Dr. Singh, the prison psychiatrist. 53. Plaintiff Stork went approximately two weeks without any medication.
-8-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 712
54. After two weeks, she was allowed to see Dr. Singh who placed her upon Trazodone, a medication different than that she had been taking.
55. The new medication has not been working for Plaintiff Stork. 56. However, Plaintiff Stork has not returned to see Dr. Singh for approximately four months, despite cutting her wrists in November of 2007.
Similar Experiences Are Reported By Other Putative Class Members Jane Doe #1
57. Jane Doe #1 is currently incarcerated and began her incarceration at SDWP in 2005.
58. She had been diagnosed with among other things, post-traumatic stress disorder prior to coming to SDWP.
59. She arrived at SDWP in 2005 from the Minnehaha County Jail. 60. Prior to coming to SDWP and while she was at the Minnehaha County Jail Jane Doe #1 had been prescribed numerous psychotropic medications by Dr. Rajesh Singh. 61. Dr. Singh is the jail psychiatrist for the Minnehaha County Jail and also the prison psychiatrist for the SDWP. 62. After Jane Doe #1 's arrival at the SDWP, she was taken off all of her medication that had been prescribed by Dr. Singh, without any consultation with Dr. Singh. 63. The changes to her medications came from prison employees in the Health Services department and from the prison counseling staff. 64. Jane Doe #1 was informed that some of the medications that had been prescribed by Dr. Singh were not on the Prison formulary and therefore she would not be allowed to take
-9-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 713
them. 65. It took her a number of months to be allowed to see Dr. Singh again, despite her
repeated requests. 66. After her consultation with Dr. Singh, he placed her back on the same regimen of
psychotropic medication that she had at the Minnehaha COlU1ty Jail. Jane Doe #2
67. Jane Doe #2, is an inmate who is diagnosed with HIV, and placed on essential medications.
68. Jane Doe #2 is currently incarcerated and began her incarceration at the SDWP in 2005.
69. She was not allowed to continue her prescription medications that she had been prescribed by a specialist for her HIV.
70. Jane Doe #2 complained to nursing staff that it was dangerous for her not to be taking her medication.
71. It took approximately four to five months for Jane Doe #2 to receive the necessary medications.
72. By the time Jane Doe #2 had received her medications, her viral load was dangerously deficient.
Jane Doe #3 73. Jane Doe #3, arrived at SDWP in 2005 to commence her prison sentence. 74. Jane Doe #3 had recently been on psychotropic medications prescribed by her physician.
-10-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 714
75. She requested consult with the prison psychiatrist in order to start back on her psychotropic medications at the time of her arrival.
76. She was told by prison counseling staff that because her length ofprison sentence was only 105 days, she would not be allowed to see the psychiatrist within that time, and there was not way for her to continue her medications during her stay at SDWP.
Jane Does #4 - 10 77 Upon information and belief, there are as many similar instances of deliberate indifference to medical needs that have occurred at SDWP, and it is a pattern and practice of systemic behavior to have medications withheld based on the decision making of individuals who are wholly unqualified to prescribe or withhold prescription medications. Plaintiffs intend to supplement and amend this Complaint as necessary to add class representatives in the event that Defendants challenge the adequacy of the named representatives herein.
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 78. The conditions of confinement set forth in this Complaint result in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, physical and psychological injury and imminent risk of seriously injury or of death that is unrelated to any legitimate penological purpose. Defendants have acquiesced and ratified these conditions, which amount to an official custom or policy of the defendants. 79. An actual and immediate controversy exists between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Plaintiffs contend that the conditions of confinement described herein are unconstitutional. Defendants contend that the conditions of confinement described herein are constitutional. Plaintiffs and the class are therefore entitled to a declaration of rights with respect
-11-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 715
to this controversy. 80. Defendants have acted, and continue to act, under color of state law to deprive
plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable injury, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, as a result of the conditions described in this Complaint, unless those conditions are enjoined by this Court. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or speedy remedy at law, and are entitled to injunctive relief against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §1983.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 81. Named Plaintiffs have either exhausted administrative remedies available to them, or their remedies are futile because by the time administrative remedies are exhausted the damage has already occurred from the withholding of treatment and/or medications.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments 82. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference ~~ 1 through 79 as if fully set forth herein. 83. By subjecting the named plaintiffs and the class members in their custody to the conditions set forth herein, with full knowledge of those conditions, defendants have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate indifference to their health, safety and serious mental health needs and have subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 84. CertifY this action as a class action;
-12-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 716
85. Enter a judgment declaring that defendants' actions described herein are unlawful and violate plaintiffs' and the plaintiffs' class constitutional rights;
86. Pennanently enjoin defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them from subjecting plaintiffs and the plaintiff class to the conditions set forth in this Complaint;
87. Grant plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §1988 and other applicable law; and
88. Grant such other relief as the Court considers just and proper.
:L- Dated this
~~ By: Mike Abourezk ABOUREZK LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff PO Box 9460 2020 W. Omaha St. Rapid City, South Dakota 57709 (605) 342-0097
-13-

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 717

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT DISTRlCT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

JAMIE LAMBERTZ-BRINKMAN, LAURA RlVERA, CHRlSTA STORK, and Jane Does 4 through 10, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
Plaintiff,
vs.
DENNY KAEMINGK, Secretary of the S.D. Department of Corrections, BRENDA HYDE, Warden of the S.D. Women's Prison, TANYA REISER, Clinical Supervisor at the S.D. Women's Prison, and John Doe Defendants.
Defendants.

)

Civ. No. 07-3040

)

)

)

)

)

)

) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR

)

Third

)

Amended Class Action

)

Complaint

)

)

)

)

)

f6 . , Mike Abourezk, one of the attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certifies that on this:J- day of

Fe b,'ua

cf,{) I;;" . a true and correct copy of the foregoing THIRD

AMENDED LASS ACTION COMPLAINT was served by

•
• upon

UNITED STATES MAIL FACSIMILE E-MAIL
Mike Shaw May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson PO Box 160 Pierre SD 57501
MikeAbOUfeZk
ABOUREZK LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff PO Box 9460 2020 W. Omaha St. Rapid City, South Dakota 57709 (605) 342-0097

-14-

 
 Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 66 Filed 02/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 758

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

JAMIE LAMBERTZ-BRINKMAN, LAURA RIVERA, CHRISTA STORK and Jane Does 4 through 10, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
Plaintiffs,
VS.
DENNY KAEMINGK, SECRETARY OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BRENDA HYDE, WARDEN OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA WOMEN'S PRISON, TANYA REISER, CLINICAL SUPERVISOR FOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES AT THE SOUTH DAKOTA WOMEN'S PRISON, AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS,
Defendants.

)

Civ. No. 07-3040

)

)

)

)

)

)

) JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF

) STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT

)

AGREEMENT

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Class representatives Jamie Larnbertz-Brinkrnan and Christa Stork, and Defendants Denny Kaemingk, Brenda Hyde, and Tanya Reiser, hereby jointly move for approval of a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 23(e).
The grounds for this motion are more fully set forth in Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herewith. Also filed along with this Motion are the following:
Exhibit 1 - Stipulation and Settlement Agreement; Exhibit 2 -Preliminary Order Establishing Date for Fairness Hearing and Ordering Notice
to class members. Exhibit 3- Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing; and

Case 3:07-cv-03040-CBK Document 66 Filed 02/24/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 759
Exhibit 4 - Affidavit of Mike Abourezk in Support of Motion for Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement.
Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order Approving Class Action Settlement and Consent Decree. The parties ask that the Court conduct a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e), and that the Court determine the proposed settlement is fair and equitable to class members. Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to state that Defendants join in this motion. Dated this 241h day ofFebruary, 2012.
By: /s/ Mike Abourezk Mike Abourezk ABOUREZK LAW FIRM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 24th ofFebruary, 2012, he electronically filed and served a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Joint Motion for Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement document to:
Mike Shaw Patrick Grode May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson PO Box 160 Pierre SD 57501
By: /s/ Mike Abourezk Mike Abourezk ABOUREZK LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff PO Box 9460 2020 W. Omaha St. Rapid City, South Dakota 57709 (605) 342-0097
-2-

 
 Case: 3:07-cv-03040-CBK As of: 03/14/2019 09:16 AM CDT 1 of 7
U.S. District Court District of South Dakota (Central Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−03040−CBK

CLOSED

Lambertz−Brinkman et al v. Reisch et al Assigned to: U.S. District Judge Charles B. Kornmann Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act − Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/21/2007 Date Terminated: 04/17/2012 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Michael C. Abourezk Abourezk Law Firm 2020 W. Omaha PO Box 9460 Rapid City, SD 57709 (605) 342−0097 Fax: (605) 342−5170 Email: mike@abourezk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shiloh M. MacNally MacNally Law Office 816 6th Avenue Rapid City, SD 57701 (605) 716−3867 Fax: (605) 519−5152 Email: macnallylaw@outlook.com TERMINATED: 04/07/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mary Peterson on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 12/11/2007

represented by Michael C. Abourezk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Laura Rivera on behlf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Michael C. Abourezk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shiloh M. MacNally (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/07/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jane Does 3 through 10 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 12/11/2007

represented by Michael C. Abourezk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jane Does 4 through 10 on behalf of themselves and all others

represented by Michael C. Abourezk (See above for address)

Case: 3:07-cv-03040-CBK As of: 03/14/2019 09:16 AM CDT 2 of 7

similarly situated

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shiloh M. MacNally (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/07/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Christa Stork on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Michael C. Abourezk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shiloh M. MacNally (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/07/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Denny Kaemingk Secretary of the S.D. Department of Corrections
Defendant Brenda Hyde Warden of the S.D. Women's Prison
Defendant Tanya Reiser Clinical Supervisor at the S.D. Women's Prison

represented by Michael F. Shaw May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson PO Box 160 Pierre, SD 57501 224−8803 Fax: 224−6289 Email: mfs@mayadam.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick M. Grode Pennington County State's Attorney 130 Kansas City Street. Suite 300 Rapid City, SD 57701 (605) 394−2191 Fax: (605) 394−6093 Email: patrickg@co.pennington.sd.us TERMINATED: 02/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael F. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick M. Grode (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael F. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:07-cv-03040-CBK As of: 03/14/2019 09:16 AM CDT 3 of 7

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick M. Grode (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Doe

represented by Patrick M. Grode (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 12/11/2007 12/11/2007
12/11/2007 12/12/2007 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/23/2008 03/18/2008 03/21/2008 04/08/2008
04/08/2008

# Docket Text
1 Class Action COMPLAINT, filed by Jane Does 3 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Mary Peterson, Laura Rivera.(SST) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET. (SST) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
3 RECEIPT for Civil Filing Fee. (See docket entry 5 .) (SST) Modified on 11/26/2007 (Thielen, Sandie). (Entered: 11/21/2007)
4 Summons Issued as to Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (SST) Modified on 11/26/2007 (Thielen, Sandie). (Entered: 11/21/2007)
5 RECEIPT for Civil Filing Fee. Receipt No.: SDX500000989. Receipt Amount: $350. (SST) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
6 AMENDED Class Action COMPLAINT, filed by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera.(SST) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera re 6 AMENDED Class Action COMPLAINT. (SST) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
8 Summons Issued as to Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (SST) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
9 Summons Reissued as to Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (SST) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed upon Defendant Tim Reisch on 1/3/08 (JAB) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
11 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed upon Defendant Judith Stout on 1/3/08 (JAB) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
12 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed upon Defendant Duane Russell on 1/3/08 (JAB) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
13 Defendants ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell.(Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
14 OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on 3/12/08. (SRN) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick M. Grode on behalf of Judith Stout, John Doe, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell (JAB) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Plaintiff's First Request for Production to Defendants by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera (JAB) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera (JAB) (Entered: 04/08/2008)

Case: 3:07-cv-03040-CBK As of: 03/14/2019 09:16 AM CDT 4 of 7

04/21/2008 04/21/2008
04/21/2008 04/21/2008
04/21/2008 04/21/2008 05/09/2008 05/23/2008
07/02/2008 07/22/2008 08/08/2008 08/11/2008 09/08/2008 10/07/2008 10/31/2008 11/04/2008
11/04/2008

18 MOTION to Amend/Correct 6 Amended Complaint by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera. (Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
19 MEMORANDUM in Support re 22 MOTION to Amend/Correct 6 Amended Complaint filed by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Class Action Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Fenske Depo., # 3 Exhibit Dr Singh Depo., # 4 Exhibit Rivera Depo)(Abourezk, Michael) Modified on 4/22/2008 (Clausen, Deneen). (Entered: 04/21/2008)
20 MOTION Class Certification by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera. (Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
21 MEMORANDUM in Support re 20 MOTION Class Certification filed by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fenske Depo, # 2 Exhibit Dr Singh Depo, # 3 Exhibit Rivera Depo, # 4 Exhibit Peterson Depo, # 5 Exhibit Paulson Depo)(Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
NOTICE of Filing Error: Motion to Amend/Correct 18 filed by Plaintiff Jane Does 4 through 10, Plaintiff Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Plaintiff Laura Rivera FILED IN ERROR (Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
22 MOTION to Amend/Correct 6 Amended Complaint by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Second Amended Class Action Complaint)(Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
23 BRIEF by Defendants Judith Stout, John Doe, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
24 REPLY BRIEF in suppport of 21 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Aff of Michael Abourezk, # 2 Exhibit Def. Resp to Pltfs 2nd RFP, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − Pltfs 1st Set RFP, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Grode ltr 4−17−08, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 − MacNally ltr 9−26−07, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 − MacNally Letter 4−17−08)(Abourezk, Michael) Modified by editing docket text on 5/27/2008 (DLC). (Entered: 05/23/2008)
25 MEMORANDUM LETTER re: discovery Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on July 2, 2008. (DLC) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR PLAINTIFFS' SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera (SKK) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
27 CERTIFICATE of Service for Plaintiff's Third Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants by Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman. (MacNally, Shiloh) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
28 CERTIFICATE of Service for Plaintiff's Fourth Requests for Production of Documents by Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman. (MacNally, Shiloh) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
29 CERTIFICATE of Service for Plaintiff's Fifth Request for Production by Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman. (MacNally, Shiloh) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
30 ORDER granting 22 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on 10/6/08. (SKK) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
32 ORDER AND OPINION granting 20 Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on 10/31/08. (SKK) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
34 First MOTION to Compel by Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pltf's 1st RFP to MTC, # 2 Exhibit Pltf's 2nd RFP to MTC, # 3 Exhibit Pltf's 3rd RFP to MTC, # 4 Exhibit Pltf's 4th RFP to MTC, # 5 Exhibit Pltf's 5th RFP to MTC, # 6 Exhibit Pltf's Proposed Order to MTC)(Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
35 AFFIDAVIT of Michael Abourezk re 34 First MOTION to Compel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pltf's 1st RFP to Aff, # 2 Exhibit Pltf's 2nd RFP to Aff, # 3 Exhibit Pltf's 3rd RFP to Aff, # 4 Exhibit Pltf's 4th RFP to Aff, # 5 Exhibit Pltf's 5th RFP to Aff, # 6 Exhibit P−D−01 Bates No.277 to Aff, # 7 Exhibit E−mail 3−20−07 Bates No. 294 to

Case: 3:07-cv-03040-CBK As of: 03/14/2019 09:16 AM CDT 5 of 7

11/21/2008 11/21/2008
12/08/2008 12/08/2008 12/08/2008
12/18/2008 12/22/2008
01/07/2009 01/12/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/30/2009 02/09/2009 03/19/2009 04/07/2009 04/04/2011 04/04/2011

Aff)(Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
36 MOTION for Protective Order by Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (SKK) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
37 BRIEF in Support re 36 MOTION for Protective Order and in Opposition to Motion to Compel by Defendants Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Letter to Judge Kornman by Mike Abourezk, # 2 Exhibit B: Correctional Health Services Policy)(SKK) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
38 USCA Judgment Denying re: Petition for Permission to Appeal by Defendants/Petitioners(SKK) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
39 USCA Mandate − in accordance with the Judgment dated 12/4/08 − formal mandate is issued. (SKK) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
40 MEMORANDUM in Support re 34 First MOTION to Compel and Response To Defendants' Motion for Protective Order filed by Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(MacNally, Shiloh) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
41 MEMORANDUM in Support re 36 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
42 REPLY to 41 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order filed by Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 11−4−08 Letter, # 2 Exhibit Ex 2 10−17−08 Letter, # 3 Exhibit Ex 3 7−9−08 Letter, # 4 Exhibit Ex 4 7−11−08 Letter, # 5 Exhibit Ex 5 7−15−08 Letter, # 6 Exhibit Ex 6 7−25−08 Letter, # 7 Exhibit Ex 7 8−5−08 Letter, # 8 Exhibit Ex 8 8−8−08 Letter, # 9 Exhibit Ex 9 9−5−08 Letter, # 10 Exhibit Ex 10 9−8−08 Letter, # 11 Exhibit Ex 11 7−21−08 Letter, # 12 Exhibit Ex 12 8−13−08 Letter, # 13 Exhibit Ex 13 8−8−08 Letter, # 14 Exhibit Ex 14 8−11−08 Letter, # 15 Exhibit Ex 15 8−18−08 Letter, # 16 Exhibit Ex 16 8−28−08 Letter, # 17 Exhibit Ex 17 9−5−08 Letter, # 18 Exhibit Ex 18 10−23−08 Letter)(MacNally, Shiloh) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
43 RESPONSE to 42 Reply,,, Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Response to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order filed by Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
44 MEMORANDUM LETTER re: submissions by counsel Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on January 9, 2009. (DLC) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
45 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, filed by Christa Stork, Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera.(DLC) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Christa Stork, Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera (DLC) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
47 STATUS REPORT Correspondence to Judge Kornmann by Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
48 DEFENDANTS' ANSWER to 45 Amended Complaint (Second) by Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell.(Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
49 ORDER granting 34 Motion to Compel; denying 36 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on 3/17/09. (SKK) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
50 CERTIFICATE of Service by Judith Stout, Tim Reisch, Duane Russell. (Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
51 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute by All Defendants. (Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
52 MEMORANDUM in Support re 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute filed by Tim Reisch, Duane Russell, Judith Stout. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A letter dated April 6, 2009, # 2 Exhibit B email dated May 1, 2009, # 3 Exhibit C letter dated June 1, 2009, # 4 Exhibit D email dated June 4, 2009, # 5 Exhibit E Affidavit of Brenda Hyde, # 6 Exhibit F letter dated April 28, 2009)(Shaw, Michael) (Entered:

Case: 3:07-cv-03040-CBK As of: 03/14/2019 09:16 AM CDT 6 of 7

04/07/2011 04/25/2011
04/25/2011 05/09/2011 06/03/2011 06/10/2011 10/26/2011 01/27/2012 01/30/2012 02/02/2012 02/09/2012 02/22/2012
02/22/2012 02/24/2012

04/04/2011)
53 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney by All Plaintiffs. Attorney Shiloh M. MacNally terminated. (MacNally, Shiloh) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
54 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 01 Affidavit Mike Abourezk, # 2 Exhibit 02 Def277 Pharmaceutical Operations, # 3 Exhibit 03 Judge Kornmann Memorandum 8−6−06, # 4 Exhibit 04 Def Proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, # 5 Exhibit 05 RED LINED Def Proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, # 6 Exhibit 06 Stout Email String, # 7 Exhibit 07 Pltf 1st Set of Requests for Admissions)(Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
55 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute Affidavit of Mike Abourezk filed by All Plaintiffs. (Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
56 REPLY to 54 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, to Dismiss filed by Tim Reisch, Duane Russell, Judith Stout. (Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
57 First MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pltfs' Supp Response in Opp Def Mot to Dismiss)(Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
58 ORDER denying 51 Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute; denying 57 Motion to file a supplemental response. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on 06/10/2011. (ST) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
59 MEDIATION ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 11/7/2011 at 11:00 AM before U.S.Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno. Signed by U.S.Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno on October 26, 2011. (Attachments: #(1) Letter to counsel, #(2) Mediation−Confidentiality Agreement)(DLC) (Entered: 10/26/2011)
60 MOTION to Substitute Party, MOTION to Amend/Correct by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Third Amended Class Action Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Proposed Order)(Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
61 ORDER granting 60 Motion to Substitute Parties and Amend Complaint to Reflect Substitutions. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on January 30, 2012. (DLC) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
62 AMENDED COMPLAINT Third Amended Class Action Complaint, filed by Laura Rivera, Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Jane Does 3 through 10, Christa Stork. (Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
63 RESPONSE to 62 Amended Complaint (Third Amended Complaint) filed by Tim Reisch, Duane Russell, Judith Stout. (Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
64 FILED IN ERROR − Joint MOTION Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 01− Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 02−Preliminary Order Establishing Date for Fairness Hearing and Ordering Notice to Class Members, # 3 Exhibit 03−Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing, # 4 Exhibit 04−Affidavit of Mike Abourezk in Support of Motion for Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement)(Abourezk, Michael) Modified on 2/27/2012 (SKK). (Entered: 02/22/2012)
65 MEMORANDUM in Support re 64 Joint MOTION Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Points and Authorities Supporting Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed by All Plaintiffs. (Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
NOTICE of Filing Error: Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 64 filed by Plaintiff Jane Does 4 through 10, Plaintiff Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Plaintiff Christa Stork, Plaintiff Jane Does 3 through 10, Plaintiff Laura Rivera, Plaintiff Mary Peterson FILED IN ERROR (Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

Case: 3:07-cv-03040-CBK As of: 03/14/2019 09:16 AM CDT 7 of 7

02/24/2012
03/08/2012 03/08/2012 03/09/2012 04/10/2012 04/11/2012 04/16/2012 04/17/2012 04/17/2012 04/20/2012

66 First MOTION Approval of Settlement Agreement Joint Motion for Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit Preliminary Order Establishing Date for Fairness Hearing and Ordering Notice to Class Members, # 3 Exhibit Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing, # 4 Exhibit Affidavit of Mike Abourezk in Supp Mot Approval Class Settle, # 5 Exhibit Proposed Order Approving Class Action Settlement)(Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
67 PRELIMINARY ORDER ESTABLISHING DATE FOR FAIRNESS HEARING AND ORDERING NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS granting 66 Motion. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on 03/08/2012. (SAT) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Fairness Hearing set for 4/16/2012 at 10:30 AM via video before Charles B. Kornmann. (SAT) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
68 NOTICE by Jane Does 3 through 10, Jane Does 4 through 10, Jamie Lambertz−Brinkman, Laura Rivera Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing (Abourezk, Michael) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
69 Written Comment to Fairness Hearing from Joyce Welch (Attachments: #(1) postmarked envelope (front and back)) (DLC) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
70 AFFIDAVIT of Brenda Hyde on Notice to Class Members. (Shaw, Michael) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
71 Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/16/2012 before Charles B. Kornmann (Court Reporter Cheryl Hook) (KMH) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
72 FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on April 12, 2012. (DLC) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
73 ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on April 17, 2012. (DLC) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
74 JUDGMENT Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on April 20, 2012. (DLC) (Entered: 04/20/2012)