Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

BILL SNIDER, on his own behalf, and )

on behalf of a class of those similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY)

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;

)

UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL

)

CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH

)

VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )
)

Defendant.

)

No.
I : l1-cv- 0 731 WIL -MID
COMPLAINT-CLASS ACTION

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Introduction 1. Bill Snider is confined in the Special Confinement Unit (SCU) an Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) facility that is located within the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in Carlisle, Indiana. Prisoners within the SCU are regularly served meals that fail to meet minimum caloric requirements. Prisoners complain of the deficient diet and are told that the matter will be rectified, but the deficiencies continue. The lack of an adequate diet has lead to serious health problems for Bill Snider and the putative class and violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief should issue.

Jurisdiction, venue and cause of action 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1391. 4. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2
5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. Parties 6. Bill Snider is an adult prisoner currently confined to the Seu. 7. The Unit Manager of the SCU is the DOC employee who is in charge of the day-to-day operations of the unit and is sued pursuant to Rule 17(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. The Superintendent of the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility is in charge of the operations of the facility, including the seu and is sued pursuant to Rule 17(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Class action allegations 9. This action is brought by Bill Snider on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. The class is defined as:
All prisoner now, and in the future, confined to the Special Confinement Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility 11. As defined, the class meets all the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically: a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The SCU houses more than 200 prisoners. b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class: whether the persistent serving of food portions significantly less than the prepared diets violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. c. The claims of the representative party are typical of those of the class. d. The representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
2

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3

~~, ..,

12. The further requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met

in this cause in that defendants have, at all times, acted or refused to act in a manner generally

applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with

respect to the class as a whole.

13. Plaintiffs counsel should be appointed to represent the class pursuant to Rule 23(g) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Factual allegations

14. The SCU is a long-term segregation unit where prisoners are confined for long periods of

time either in administrative segregation or disciplinary segregation.

15. The Unit is lead by its Unit Manager who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of

the unit.

16. The head of Wabash Valley Correctional Facility is its Superintendent.

17. Prisoners in the SCU receive meals three times a day in their cells.
,
18. Prisoners are generally confined to their small solitary cells except for an opportunity for

recreation seven days a week for an hour and a brief opportunity for a shower.

19. The recreation takes places in small cages.

20. The rest ofthe time the prisoners are generally confined to their cells.

21. The DOC has contracted its food services responsibility to Aramark Correctional

Services ("Aramark") and, with the assistance of prison employees, and under the ultimate

supervision of DOC employees, Aramark employees prepare meals in the DOC institution,

including the meals for prisoners in the SCU.

22. Pursuant to the contract between the DOC and Aramark, prisoner meals are to be

prepared according to menus that provide the prisoners between 2500 and 2800 calories per day.

3

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
,y
23 . Aramark has constructed published menus, approved by dieticians, which provide this
• <
diet. 24. Despite the menus that are designed to provide the minimum adequate calories and diets
'",',
for the prisoners in the seu, food is frequently missing from Mr. Snider's and other seu's prisoners trays. 25. As a result, Mr. Snider and the prisoners are recelvmg significantly less food, and calories, as is required by the contract between Doe and Aramark and as is required to assure the health and well-being ofthe prisoners. 26. Mr. Snider and many other prisoners have frequently complained about the dietary deficiencies. 27. At times, DOe personnel have acknowledged the deficiencies. For example, in a grievance response entered in October of 2010, a Doe employee noted that "food supply to provide the required meals is not always present in the seu." 28. This echoes an October 2009 finding by the Indiana State Department of Health that verified that proper portions were not being served to prisoners. 29. Both defendant Superintendent and defendant Unit Manager are aware of the problems with seu prisoners not receiving the proper amounts of food. 30. Nevertheless, despite these substantiated complaints and subsequent promises to rectify the matter, food portions continue to be frequently short. 31. This has led to many prisoners losing significant amounts of weight because of caloric and portion deficiencies. 32. Bill Snider had been confined in the seu since March of 2008.
4

j',
Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
33. Upon entering the seu and being served inadequate amounts of food, Mr. Snider lost
weight. 34. However, since May of2008 he has been able to purchase food from commissary. 35. He was forced to purchase food items from commissary to attempt to supplement the lack of healthy calories from the regular diet that was consistently inadequate.. 36. However, the foods on commissary are high in salt, fat, and cholesterol. 37. Because he is locked up in a small cell for almost all of his days, Mr. Snider has limited opportunities for exercise. 38. Because of the inadequacy of the diet being served and his need to supplement it with food from commissary, Mr. Snider has actually gained weight. He has been diagnosed as having benign essential hypertension and has been prescribed lopressor to control his high blood pressure.
39. Many of the other seu prisoners do not have money to buy foods on commissary and, as
a result, are suffering continuing weight loss. 40. Mr. Snider has exhausted all grievances concerning the diet issue. (Attached). 41. Prisoners have frequently complained to the defendants, other than through fonnal grievances, concerning the dietary problems. 42. The defendants are aware of the deficient diets, but have done nothing to remedy the problem. 43. Mr. Snider and the putative class are being caused irreparable hann for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 44. At all times defendants have acted under color of state law.
5

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6

Claim for relief

45. The failure of defendants to supply to Mr. Snider and the putative class with a minimally

adequate diet represents deliberate indifference to the serious risk of physical hann, and the

actual hann, caused to Mr. Snider and the putative class and therefore violates the Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Request for relief

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court:

a. Accept jurisdiction ofthis case and set it for hearing at the earliest opportunity.

b. Certify this case as a class action with the class as defined above.

c. Enter a declaratory injunction that defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment for the reasons noted above.

d. Enter a pennanent injunction enjoining defendants to take all steps to assure that pnsoners in the SCU receive the diets and portions specified in dietician-approved menus.

e. Award plaintiff his costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

f.

Award all other proper relief.

Kenn

alk, Ind. Bar No. 6777-49

Jan P. Mensz (Member, New York Bar and

the Bar of this Court)

ACLU of Indiana

1031 E. Washington St.

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Ph: 317-635-4059

Fax: 317-635-4105

kfalk@aclu-in.org

jmensz@aclu-in.org

6
. I~.

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 101 Filed 11/04/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 272

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

BILL SNIDER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH

)

VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL

ORDER FINDING PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BE FAIR, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE PURSUANT TO RULE 23(e) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

This cause comes before the Court after the filing of the Stipulation of Parties to Enter Into

Private Settlement After Plaintiffs’ Counsel GivesNotice to the Class. On November 4, 2013, this

Court held a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to

determine whether the proposed settlem ent is a fair , reasonable, and adequate resolution of this

matter. The parties appeared by counsel at the hearing.

Having considered the Private Settlem ent Agreement (ECF No. 88), the Report of Class

Counsel Following Notice to the Class (ECF No. 98), the Supplemental Report of Class Counsel

(ECF No. 99), as well as the argum ents of counsel at the fairness hearing, and the record in this

matter,

IT IS HEREBY FOUND that:

1. This action was filed on May 31, 2011 and a lleged that prisoners within the Special

Confinement Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility were not being provided with the

minimally adequate diet required by the Eighth Am endment to the United States

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 101 Filed 11/04/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 273
Constitution. 2. On January 23, 2012, this Court certified this caseas a class action withthe class defined as:
AAll prisoners now, and in the future, confined to the Special Confinement Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.” (ECF No. 34). 3. The Private Settlement Agreement is designed to settle all pending matters in this litigation. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject m atter of this cause and over all the parties, including the members of the certified class. 5. The parties have consented to the referral of this case to Magistrate Judge Dinsmore and this referral has been so ordered. (ECF No. 90). 6. The class has been given proper and adequatenotice of the proposed resolution of this case through the Private Settlem ent Agreem ent. This notice was given as required by the September 9, 2013 Order of the Magistrate Judge in this cause. (ECF No. 94). The notice invited class members to notify class counsel as to any objections to, or comments on, the proposed dism issal. The notice provided valid, due, and sufficient notice of these proceedings and the m atters set forth ther ein and included inform ation regarding the procedures for making any objections to the Private Settlement Agreement. 7. The notice given to the class fully satisfied the requirem ents of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the requirements of due process. 8. The Court has reviewed the comments of the class members as reported by class counsel. 9. Following the standards established by Synfuel Technologies, Inc. v. DHL Express, Inc.,463 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2006), the Court finds that the Private Settlement Agreement and the planned dismissal of this action six months from this date is fair, reasonable, and adequate for the following reasons.
2

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 101 Filed 11/04/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 274
A. The purpose of this litigation was to rem edy the allegedly inadequate food portions in the Special Confinement Unit at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Because of steps that have been introduced subsequent to the litigation being f iled in this case, the problem s that gave rise to this case appear to have been am eliorated to a great extent. The Private Settlem ent Agreement provides for m onitoring m easures by the Departm ent of Correction to continue and also allows for monitoring by class counsel.This should help ensure that there will not be future problems. Given the current status of the case the Court finds that the comparison of the strength of this case with the settlement presented favors dismissal in this case.
B. The complexity, length, and expense ofcontinued litigation weigh in favor of finding the proposed dism issal to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Continued litigation would require a lengthy trial and extensive trial preparation including extensive further discovery. Further delay and costs would not be in the best interests of the parties. Paragraph 17 of the Private Settlement Agreement allows either party to revive this litigation and seek further hearings in this Court. This will allow plaintiffs to seek further and immediate legal redress if the Private Settlem ent Agreement is not, in the class counsel’s estimation, successful in remedying the alleged problems that gave rise to this litigation.
C. As indicated, the Court has reviewed the reports filed by plaintiffs’ counsel concerning comments received by the class. In response to the cnocerns that counsel had expressed defendants’ counsel has stated that steps are in place 3

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 101 Filed 11/04/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 275
to ensure that any problems with foodportions are immediately rectified. The Court has no opinion concerning the factual or legal merit of the comments of the class members or defendants’ response. However, the Court does not find that the level of opposition is suffi cient for the Court to question the Private Settlement Agreement. D. There is no evidence of any collusion between the parties in entering into the Private Settlem ent Agreem ent. The C ourt is satisf ied that the Private Settlement Agreement is the result of an arms-length negotiation. E. Class counsel is experienced in cla ss action litigation generally and class action litigation concerning prisons in particular. F. The stage of the proceedings and am ount of discovery weigh in favor of finding that the Private Settlem ent Ag reement is f air, reasonable, and adequate. Discovery was conducted pr ior to entering into the Private Settlement Agreement. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Private Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to the Private Settlement Agreement, this case is now listed as inactive on this Court’s docket and, asbent an order from this Court or a subsequent written agreement by the parties, this case will bedismissed on May 5, 2014, without further notice. The dismissal will be without prejudice. IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED on this 4th day of November, 2013 .
4 Mark J. Dinsmore United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 101 Filed 11/04/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 276

cc:
Kenneth J. Falk ACLU of Indiana kfalk@aclu-in.org
David A. Arthur Deputy Attorney General David.Arthur@atg.in.gov

_______________________________________________ Magistrate Judge, United States District Court

5

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 88 Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 198

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

BILL SNIDER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH

)

VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 1:11-cv-00731 WTL-MJD

STIPULATION OF PARTIES TO ENTER INTO PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AFTER PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL GIVES NOTICE TO THE CLASS AND AFTER FAIRNESS HEARING / MOTION TO APPROVE FORM AND MANNER
OF NOTICE

The parties, by their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows

I. Introduction

1. This is an action for declaratory and in junctive relief brought by Bill Snider, c laiming

that he and other prisoners conf ined to the Special Confinement Unit (“SCU”) at Wabash Valley

Correctional Facility are receiving an inadequate diet in v iolation of the Eighth Amendment to

the United States Constitution.

2. This action has been certified as a class act ion pursuant to Rule 23( a) and (b)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class is defined as:

All prisoners now, and in the future, conf ined to the Special Confinement Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.

(ECF No. 34).

3. The defendants do not concede the m erits of any of the alleg ations of the plain tiffs’

complaint. However, the parties are des irous of reachin g a settlement of this m atter and

Page | 1

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 88 Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 199
therefore they enter into this S tipulation. Plaintiffs agree that de fendants’ entry into this P rivate Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is not an admission of any kind a nd imposes no liability on the defendants for any violation of law, constitutional or otherwise. 4. Although plaintiffs’ counsel ha s signed this Stipulation, th e parties agree that this Stipulation will no t be deemed to be approv ed by the class until no tice is g iven to the c lass as provided in paragraph 15 and until plaintiffs’ counsel notifies the Court and the parties following the class notice and the Court finds that this Agreement is a fair and just resolution of this matter. For purposes of this Stipulation this latter date will be referred to as “the effective date.” 5. Insofar as the plaintiffs have sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the United States Constitution, this li tigation is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, et seq. This Act imposes certain requirem ents on agreem ents made in litigation such as this, but provides that the parties m ay enter into private agreements which are exem pted from the requirem ents of the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c). However, such agreements are not subject to enforcem ent under federal law other th an reinstatement of the proceedin gs, although they are enforceable under state law regarding breaches of contract. Id. 6. Accordingly, to the extent that the p arties agree to the term s and conditions as set forth below, this is deem ed to be a private settle ment agreement under the Prison Litigation Refor m Act. II. Private Settlement Agreement – Substantive Terms 7. In order to assure that th e food served to prisoners with in the SCU is served in the quantity pro vided on th e daily m enus at e ach meal, the def endants will hav e o ne or m ore correctional officers random ly check a num ber of the food trays before th ey are served to the prisoners. I f any proble ms are note d concerning the quantities all nec essary steps will be taken
Page | 2

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 88 Filed 08/26/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 200
to correct the shortage before the food is served to the prisoners. 8. If any shortages are noted on any of the tray s, the deficien cies will be recorded a nd a permanent written record will be made by the defendants of the deficiencies. 9. Once food is delivered, the prisoners m ust imm ediately inform t he custody staff delivering the meals if they have any issues with the quantities on their trays. 10. In the even t of a complain t by a pris oner, custody staff delivering the m eal will immediately inspect the tray and if there is a co nfirmed shortage of any item (s) as com pared to the m enu or if there is som e other problem w ith the food that renders it inedible, the staff members shall p rovide the item that was om itted or a com plete replacement tray as quickly as possible. A copy of the daily m enu shall be lo cated in each control p od of the SCU for this purpose. 11. If a replacement item or tray is issued, custody staff must document this in writing on the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Special Confinement Unit Meal Flow Sheet. 12. During the pendency of this Agreem ent c ounsel for plaintiffs has the right, with reasonable prior no tice, to inspect the activ ity sheets, logbooks, and perm anent written reco rds mentioned above. III. Costs and attorneys’ fees 13. The parties agrees th at each side sh all be responsible for th eir costs an d attorneys’ fees and plaintiffs waive any and all cl aims to costs and attorneys’ f ees pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1988 or any other statute or rule. IV. Notice to the Class 14. The parties acknowledge that Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rule s of Civil Procedure requires that before a class action can be dismissed or compromised that notice must be given to the class
Page | 3

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 88 Filed 08/26/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 201
members and the Court must determine that this Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. 15. Attached to this Agreement is a proposed notice that plain tiffs’ counsel has prepared for the class. The parties agree th at this notice, if approved by the Court, should be given by delivering the notice to each pris oner in the SC U on a date to be selected by the defendants and by posting the notice in a prominent area within each pod in the SCU for 14 days. 16. No earlier than 30 days following the date th e notice is distributed to the class, counsel for plaintif fs will repor t to the Court and to the def endants as to the comments received f rom class m embers and will m ake further recomm endations as to whether, in counsel’s estim ation, the Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plainti ffs’ counsel believes that this Agreement is a just and equitable resolution of the current contested matters in this cause but wishes to hear from the class before rendering a final opinion. IV. Further proceedings 17. As specified, the parties intend this to be a private settlement agreement resolving all of the contested issues in this cause. After the effective date of this Agreement either party reserves the right to seek a furth er hearing b efore the Co urt if deem ed appropriate. However, absent an emergency, prior to seeking any enforcem ent of this Agreement or prio r to seeking to have this case placed back before the Court, plain tiffs will communicate with th e defendants’ counsel at least 10 days prior to the filing. Likewise, absent an emergency, prior to seeking any changes in this Agreement in Court the defendants will com municate with the plaintiffs’ counsel at leas t 10 days prior to the filing. 18. The parties agree that absent an order from the Court or a subsequent w ritten agreement by the parties, this Agreem ent, if a pproved, should rem ain in effect for six m onths after the
Page | 4

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 88 Filed 08/26/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 202

effective date at which time the case will be automatically dismissed without prejudice.

V. Parties’ Further Requests of the Court
The parties request that this Court:
a. Approve the proposed class notice and orde r that the notice be given to the class as provided in paragraph 15 of this Agreem ent and that plaintiffs’ counsel be required to report back to the Court as provided in paragraph 16 of this Agreement.
b. Find, after the required notice, that this proposed private settlement agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
c.. Award all other proper relief.

For the plaintiffs:
No.
1031 Indianapolis, 317/635-4059 fax: e-m

/s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk
6777-49 ACLU of Indiana
E. Washington St. IN 46202 ext. 229
317/635-4105 ail: kfalk@aclu-in.org
Attorney for Plaintiffs

For the defendants:
David No.

/s/ David A. Arthur (w/permission) A. Arthur
2461-48 Deputy Attorney General
Page | 5

Case 1:11-cv-00731-MJD-WTL Document 88 Filed 08/26/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 203

302 Indianapolis, 317/232-6286 fax: e-m

IGCS-5th Floor W. Washington St. IN 46204
317/232-7979 ail: David.Arthur@atg.in.gov

Page | 6

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 1 of 9
CASREF,CMP,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−00731−MJD−WTL

SNIDER v. SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore Referred to: Judge William T. Lawrence Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/31/2011 Date Terminated: 11/04/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Petitions − Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

BILL SNIDER on his own behalf, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated.

represented by Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202−3952 (317) 635−4059 x104 Fax: (317) 635−4105 Email: kfalk@aclu−in.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Defendant UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

represented by David A. Arthur INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 302 West Washington Street IGCS − 5th Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317)232−6286 Fax: (317) 232−7979 Email: David.Arthur@atg.in.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Arthur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/31/2011
05/31/2011 05/31/2011 05/31/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, filed by BILL SNIDER. (Attachments: # 1 Offender Grievance Case Report)(JKS) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (JKS) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
3 RECEIPT #IP024381 in the amount of $ 350.00 (JKS) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
4 Summons Issued as to SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (JKS) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 2 of 9

05/31/2011 05/31/2011 05/31/2011 06/10/2011 06/10/2011 06/21/2011 06/21/2011 06/23/2011 06/23/2011 06/23/2011 07/21/2011
07/22/2011 08/22/2011 09/12/2011
10/04/2011 10/05/2011

5 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (JKS) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Jan P. Mensz on behalf of Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (JKS) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
7 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (JKS) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
8 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by All Plaintiffs. UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY served on 6/3/2011. (Mensz, Jan) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
9 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by BILL SNIDER. SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY served on 6/2/2011. (Mensz, Jan) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
10 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
11 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 10 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Attachments: # 1 Population Statistical Report)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Clay on behalf of Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Clay, Adam) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by David A. Arthur on behalf of Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
14 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Clay, Adam) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
15 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 08/20/11 to Answer Complaint, filed by Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time)(Clay, Adam) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
16 ORDER granting defts' 15 Motion for Extension of Time to File response to complaint to 8/20/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/22/2011. (SWM) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
17 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, filed by SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.(Clay, Adam) (Entered: 08/22/2011)
18 SCHEDULING ENTRY: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 10/18/2011 03:00 PM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The parties shall file a proposed Case Management Plan ("CMP") no fewer than seven days before the pretrial conference (see Entry for additional information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/12/2011.(SWM) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
19 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Jan Mensz), filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
20 MOTION for Summary Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 3 of 9

10/05/2011 10/06/2011 10/19/2011
10/19/2011 10/26/2011
10/26/2011 10/31/2011 10/31/2011 10/31/2011 10/31/2011 11/02/2011 11/30/2011
01/23/2012

21 ORDER granting 19 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jan P. Mensz withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/5/2011. (SWM) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
22 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 10/18/2011. The Court will approve the Case Management Plan, by separate order, with the changes to which the parties have agreed. Status Conference set for 1/18/2012 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss case status. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the court via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
24 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED AS AMENDED. Dispositive Motions due by 4/30/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/19/2011.(SWM) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
25 SCHEDULING ORDER: Bench Trial set for 11/26/2012 at 9:00 AM in room #202, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge William T. Lawrence. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/25/2012 at 2:00 PM in room #204, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge William T. Lawrence.`(DW) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
26 TRIAL PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES before Judge William T. Lawrence. (DW) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
27 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
28 Witness List −Preliminary−, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER, Exhibit List −Preliminary−, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
29 MOTION for Extension of Time to November 14, 2011 to Make Settlement Demand, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
30 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Clay, Adam) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
31 ORDER granting Pltf's 29 Motion for Extension of Time to make settlement demand to 11/14/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 11/2/2011. (SWM) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
32 Witness List Preliminary, filed by Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Exhibit List Preliminary, filed by Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Clay, Adam) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
34 ORDER: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is certified as a class action as to the claim that the diet within the Special Confinement Unit at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility violates the Eighth Amendment. This class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with Bill Snider as class representative, and is defined as: All prisoners now, and in the future, confined to the Special Confinement Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kenneth J. Falk is appointed class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/23/2012. (DW) (Entered: 01/23/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 4 of 9

01/24/2012
02/29/2012
03/26/2012
04/05/2012 04/11/2012 04/20/2012 04/23/2012 04/25/2012 05/23/2012 06/06/2012 06/18/2012

35 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/18/2012. Status Conference set for 2/27/2012 04:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss the status of discovery. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the court via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/27/2012. The parties discussed the status of discovery. Status Conference set for 3/20/2012 04:40 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss whether additional time is necessary to conduct discovery and to establish a briefing schedule for anticipated cross− motions for summary judgement. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the court via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/20/2012. The parties discussed the status of discovery and case management deadlines. The parties approved CMP [Dkt. 24] is amended as follows: Dispositive motions due by 10/5/2012. All discovery shall be completed by 9/21/2012. The Court further VACATES the Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for 10/25/2012, and the Trial scheduled for 11/26/2012. These dates will be rescheduled by separate order at a later date. Status Conference set for 5/22/2012 03:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss case status. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
40 STIPULATION to Enter Qualified Protective Order Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and State Law, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER, Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
41 MOTION to Intervene PRO SE PLTF−JOHN ERIC THOMAS. (CBU) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
42 Entry Discussing John Eric Thomas' Motion to Intervene: Mr. Thomas has not supplied sufficient information from which an appropriate analysis relating to permissive intervention can be made. His motion for such intervention 41 is therefore denied ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 4/20/2012. Copy sent to John Eric Thomas via US Mail. (DW) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
43 Qualified Protective Order Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Indiana Statutes (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 4/23/2012.(SWM) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
44 Letter from John Eric Thomas to Kenneth J. Falk. (DW) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
46 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/22/2012. Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/14/2012 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (TMA) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
48 MOTION for copy of complaint filed by Non−Party John Eric Thomas.. (DW) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
49 Joint MOTION to Modify Case Management Deadlines, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER, Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 5 of 9

06/20/2012
06/21/2012 06/21/2012 07/25/2012 07/26/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 08/03/2012 08/06/2012 08/10/2012 08/22/2012
09/14/2012

50 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 6/14/2012. Plaintiff reports they have completed analysis of the medical records and have engaged a dietician to go to the facility to review a sampling of food trays. The parties further discussed case management deadlines and were advised to file a motion to amend. Status Conference set for 8/17/2012 03:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss case status. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
51 MARGINAL ENTRY granting Non−Party Eric Thomas' 48 Motion for copy of complaint (see Marginal Entry bottom of Pg. 1) c/m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/21/2012. (SWM) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
52 ORDER granting Parties' 49 Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Deadlines. Discovery due by 12/21/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 1/11/2013 (see Order for other established deadlines). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/21/2012.(SWM) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
54 MOTION for Pretrial Conference, filed by John Eric Thomas.. (WJC) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
53 ENTRY RESETTING CONFERENCE (TIME ONLY): This matter is currently set for a telephonic Status Conference on Friday, August 17, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. The court now changes the time to 4:20 p.m. All other requirements of the Court's Order dated 6/20/2012 (Dkt. 50) are still in order and effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/26/2012.(SWM) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
55 ENTRY: A pretrial conference is scheduled for August 17, 2012. Mr. Thomas' motion for pretrial conference has been considered. That motion 54 is denied because there is nothing in such motion warranting any adjustment in the conference already scheduled. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/31/2012. Copy sent to John E. Thomas via US Mail. (DW) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
56 STATEMENT of John Eric Thomas. (DW) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
57 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of August 17, 2012, Status Conference, filed by Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Continue Status Conference)(Clay, Adam) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
58 ORDER granting Defts' 57 Motion for Continuance of Telephonic Status Conference. Status Conference RESET for 8/20/2012 02:10 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. All other requirements of the Court's Order dated 6/20/12 [Dkt. 50] remain in full force and effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/6/2012.(SWM) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
59 Letter from Non Party Aaron Isby−Israel to Judge re: Food Problems/Kenneth Falk. (DW) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
61 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/20/2012. Plaintiffs' Counsel reported on the dietician's examination of the food trays and proposed that the parties enter into an agreement whereby the Defendant would monitor the portions of food for a period of time to be determined. Status Conference set for 9/13/2012 02:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to determine if the parties were able to enter into an agreement regarding the monitoring of the portions of food. The parties should also be prepared to discuss adjustments to the case management deadlines. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (SWM) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
63 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/13/2012. The parties report that

Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 6 of 9

12/17/2012 01/14/2013 01/18/2013 01/22/2013 02/06/2013
03/07/2013
04/16/2013 04/18/2013 04/25/2013

the Department of Correction will implement a monitoring program to ensure that meal portions are correct. Accordingly, this matter is stayed until further order of the Court. Status Conference set for 12/17/2012 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss case status. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the court via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
65 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/17/2012. Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/4/2013 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (TMA) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
66 MOTION Demanding investigation filed by NON−PARTY John Eric Thomas.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(DW) Modified on 1/18/2013 (DW). (Entered: 01/16/2013)
67 ENTRY: A copy of the motion filed by Mr. Thomas on January 15, 2013, shall be included with the distribution of this Entry. The motion demanding federal rights investigation 66 is denied because the court does not conduct or compel investigations on behalf of litigants. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/18/2013. Copy of Entry and Motion sent to John Thomas via US Mail. (DW) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
68 AMENDED ENTRY: A copy of the motion filed by Mr. Thomas on January 14, 2013, shall be included with the distribution of this Entry. The motion demanding federal rights investigation 66 is denied because the court does not conduct or compel investigations on behalf of litigants. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/22/2013. Copy sent to John Thomas via US Mail.(DW) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
70 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/4/2013. Plaintiffs have made a settlement proposal to Defendants. The parties are anticipating approval of the settlement within the next few weeks. Status Conference set for 3/6/2013 03:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss status of the settlement proposal. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the court via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
72 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/6/2013. Plaintiffs have proposed a draft settlement agreement to Defendants which is in the final stages of approval by the State. Once the settlement is approved, Plaintiffs will move to schedule a fairness hearing for approval of the Class Action settlement. Stauts Conference set for 4/18/2013 04:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss status of the settlement. If the matter is settled prior to the call, Counsel was advised to call chambers and the telephonic status conference will be vacated. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the court via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
74 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Adam Clay, filed by Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance of Adam Clay)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
75 ORDER granting 74 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Adam Clay withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 4/18/2013. (SWM) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
76 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/18/2013. The parties are still awaiting approval of the settlement agreement by the State. Once the settlement is

Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 7 of 9

05/02/2013 05/04/2013 05/06/2013 05/09/2013 05/22/2013 05/30/2013
06/19/2013
06/24/2013

approved, Plaintiffs will move to schedule a fairness hearing for approval of the Class Action settlement. Status Conference set for 5/22/2013 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss status of the settlement. If the matter is settled prior to the call, Counsel was advised to call chambers and the telephonic status conference will be vacated. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the court via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
79 MOTION (Letter) for court's assistance no c/s filed by Aaron Isby.. (DW) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
77 MOTION for Continuance of Telephonic Status Conference, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/04/2013)
78 ORDER granting Pltf's 77 Motion for Continuance of Telephonic Status Conference. Status Conference RESET for 5/24/2013 01:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. All other requirements of the Court's order dated 4/25/2013 [Dkt. 76] remain in full force and effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 5/6/2013.(SWM) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
80 MOTION for Injunctive Relief c/s filed by non−party John Eric Thomas, Pro Se.. (DW) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
82 ENTRY: The motion seeking injunctive relief [Dkt 80] is denied because Mr. Thomas refers therein to other litigation, pending in No. 1:08−cv−1317−TWP−MJD, and does not seek relief associated with the claims in this case. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/22/2013. Copy sent to John Thomas via US Mail. (DW) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
83 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/24/2013. The parties report they are still awaiting approval of the settlement agreement by the State. Settlement Conference set for 7/15/2013 09:00 AM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. If the parties advise the Court in advance of the settlement conference that an agreed resolution of this matter has been reached, then the settlement conference will be vacated (see Entry for additional information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
84 CONSENT to Prisoner E−Service by BILL SNIDER. Pursuant to General Order 2013−1, documents submitted by BILL SNIDER to the court for filing will generate a Notice of Electronic Filing that will constitute official service upon registered users of CM/ECF. If any parties to the case are not registered CM/ECF users, the Clerk of the Court will mail the document via U.S. Postal Service on behalf of the inmate. NOTE: The E−Filing Program does not affect the obligation of other parties to serve copies of documents in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (DW) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
85 ORDER REGARDING E−FILING PROGRAM: It has come to the Court's attention that Plaintiff Bill Snider has filed a consent form in this action expressing his desire to participate in the Prisoner Electronic Filing Program ("E−Filing"). Inasmuch as Mr. Snider is represented by counsel, he generally is not entitled under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to receive service of the court's orders directly from the court; rather, those orders are served on Mr. Snider's attorney. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) directs the clerk to serve notice of the court's orders entries on parties as provided in Rule 5(b); Rule 5(b)(1), in turn, provides that "[i]f a party is represented by attorney, service under this rule must be made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party." The Court sees no reason to deviate from the general rule in this case, and therefore declines to order that Mr. Snider be served directly, with the exception of this Order. After this Order is served, the consent form filed by Mr. Snider shall have no effect in this case as long as Mr. Snider is represented by counsel. The Clerk is directed to take whatever action necessary on the CM/ECF system to effectuate this Order. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/24/2013.(DW) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 8 of 9

07/12/2013 07/12/2013 08/26/2013 08/27/2013 08/27/2013
08/27/2013 08/30/2013 09/06/2013
09/09/2013 09/13/2013

86 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of settlement conference, filed by Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
87 ORDER granting Defts' 86 Motion for Continuance of Settlement Conference. Settlement Conference RESET for 8/28/2013 11:30 AM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. In all other respects, the entry at docket no. 83 remains in effect. The Court does not anticipate any further continuances of this settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/12/2013.(SWM) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
88 STIPULATION of Parties to Enter into Private Settlement Agreement After Plaintiffs' Counsel Gives Notice to the Class and After Fairness Hearing / Motion to Approve Form and Manner of Notice, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER, Defendants SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, UNIT MANAGER, SPECIAL CONFINEMENT UNIT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Class Notice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
89 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by All Parties. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
90 REFERENCE ORDER: IT IS ORDERED: This case is referred to the currently assigned United States magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fe d. R. Civ. P. 73. Should this case be reassigned to a magistrate judge other than the magistrate judge assigned the date of this order, any attorney or party of record may object within 30 days of such reassignment. If no objection is filed, the consent will remain in effect. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/27/2013.(DW) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
91 SCHEDULING ENTRY: In light of the parties Stipulation to Enter into Private Settlement Agreement [Dkt. 88], the Court sua sponte VACATES Settlement Conference scheduled for August 28, 2013 [dkt. 87]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/27/2013.(SWM) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
92 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 9/6/2013 03:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of the conference is to discuss the parties Stipulation to Enter Into Private Settlement Agreement [Dkt. 88]. Counsel shall attend the conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/30/2013.(SWM) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
94 ORDER: The parties, having filed their Stipulation to Enter into Private Settlement Agreement after Plaintiffs' Counsel Gives Notice to the Class and After Fairness Hearing/Motion to Approve Form and Manner of Notice, and the Court having read the filing and being duly advised enters the following orders. IT IS ORDERED that notice to the class of the proposed private settlement agreement shall be given as specified in Section I V of the agreement and class counsel shall make his report within the time, and in the manner, specified in Section IV of the proposed agreement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is set for a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 4, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 243, United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/6/2013.(SWM) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
95 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 9/6/2013. The parties discussed issues relating to the fairness hearing, which the Court will schedule by separate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
96 MARGINAL ENTRY denying Aaron Isby's 79 Motion (letter) for Court's assistance c/m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/13/2013.

Case: 1:11-cv-731 As of: 10/05/2014 11:02 AM EDT 9 of 9

10/07/2013 10/21/2013 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/04/2013
11/04/2013

(SWM) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
97 AFFIDAVIT of Timothy Greenlee (Non−Party) no c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibitis, # 2 Envelope)(DW) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
98 REPORT of Class Counsel Following Notice to the Class by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Comments Class Member Douglas, # 2 Comments Class Member Howard, # 3 Comments Class Member Rodgers)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
99 REPORT (SUPPLEMENTAL) of Class Counsel Following Notice to the Class by BILL SNIDER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
100 Submission of Proposed Final Order, filed by Plaintiff BILL SNIDER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
101 ORDER re 100 Submission of Proposed Final Order − The Court finds that the Private Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter. Pursuant to the Private Settlement Agreement, this case is now listed as inactive on this Court's docket and, absent an order from this Court or a subsequent written agreement by the parties, this case will be dismissed on May 5, 2014, without further notice. The dismissal will be without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 11/4/2013.(JD) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
102 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: The Court conducted a fairness hearing on 11/4/2013 on Plaintiff's Stipulation to Enter into Private Settlement. The Court reviewed the affidavits and other submissions of the parties and heard argument in support of the Stipulation. The Court further found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate and was not the product of collusion among the parties. The Court will enter the final order by separate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

Case #: 1:11−cv−00731−MJD−WTL