[ ... LED 1

... &

JUH 12 •

~ r- CLERK

, . ,frj,,JUtUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U. S. DISTRICT COURT

F :~:, t. ,;. , .~ t: FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

l MIDDLE DlST. OF ALA. I

10m Jm! \ 2 A H: 25
------------------------

FILED

No. 00-13699-BB

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH cmcmT

JUNE 112001

RICKY KNIGHT, et aI.,

THOMAS K.KAHN CLERK

P1aintiffs-Appellants,

versus

LESLIE THOMPSON, in his individual capacity, et aI.,

Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabatm

Before CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and PROPST*, District Judge. ORDER:
Since the district court issued its judgment in this case, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and InstitutionalizedPersons Act of2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case for further considerationin
*Honorable Robert B. Propst, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
d35

· '
light ofthat new statute, and a motions panel ordered that motion carried with the case for decision by this panel.
Without implying any view on any issues relating to that statute's applicationto this case, or on any other issues in the case, we have decided that the most efficient and prudent course is to permit the districtcourt to determine in the first instance and in this same proceedingwhetherthe new federal statute entitlesplaintiffstothereliefthatthey seek. To the extent that such consideration requires an amendment to the complaint, one should be allowed.
This is not a limited remand, and we do not mean to restrict the district court's scope of authority to consider or reconsider anyissues it deem; appropriate.
ATrue Copy - Attested: Clerk U.S. Court of Appe3ls,
I e ' cuit
B·
2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

F I LED
·. .·112001

JAMES MORNING RAVEN LIMBAUGH; et aI.,
Plaintiffs, v. LESLIE THOMPSON, et aI.,
Defendants.
NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND CLAN, et aI.,
Plaintiffs, v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et aI.,
Defendants.

§

U. S. DICSLTERRIKCT

§

KIDDLE DIST

§

JlONTGO

§

§

§ CV No. 93-D-1404-N

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ CV No. 95-D-554-N

§

§

§

§

§

PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, ASSERTING CLAIMS PURSUANT TO THE RLUIPA
Plaintiffs, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 15(a), amend their Complaints as follows:

1. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and adopt the entirety of all of the prior Complaints as amended, as if fully set forth herein.
2. All of the Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, including Douglas (Dark Horns) Bailey (AIS # 122609), Franklin (Running Bear) Irvin (AIS# 141535), James F.

(Morning Raven) Limbaugh, Jr. (AIS # 148178), Autry (Little Rabbit) Daughtry (AIS # 124015), Jimmy L.(Silver Fox) Bowen (AIS # 141620), Timothy G. (Gray Wolt) Smith (AIS # 178396), Billy (Two Feathers) Jones (AIS # 131471), Michael David Clem (AIS # 130522), Ricky (Little Wolt) Knight (AIS # 171382), and NAPOA, assert causes of action under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [hereinafter the "RLUIPA" or the "Act"] as follows:
FIRST ADDITIONAL CAUSE OF ACTION RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000
3. Plaintiffs reallege and adopt all of the above paragraphs of the Fourth Amended Complaint as if set out in full.
4. Upon information and belief, the provisions of the RLUIPA apply to Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants.
5. Defendants' complete ban on the use of the sacred sweat lodge ceremony unlawfully and substantially burdens Plaintiffs' sincere and central religious beliefs in violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the RLUIPA.
6. Defendants' hair length restrictions unlawfully and substantially burden Plaintiffs' sincere and central religious beliefs in violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the RLUIPA.
7. Should the Defendants fail or refuse to adhere to any aspect of the Joint StipUlation submitted to the Court on March 5, 1998, and adopted by the
2

Court's "Order and Judgment" of June 12,2000, such failure or refusal shall constitute a violation of the RLUIPA. 8. The practices outlined above and herein unlawfully and substantially burden Plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of their central and sincerely held religious beliefs and practices, and are justified by no compelling, legitimate, or rational governmental interest. 9. Defendants' policies and customs are not the least restrictive means - being neither narrowly tailored nor vaguely related - to the furtherance of any governmental interest. Defendants' policies and practices unlawfully and substantially burden rights outside of their purported ambit. 10. The policies, practices, and customs of Defendants are both overinclusive and underinclusive. Defendants' alleged objectives are not pursued with respect to analogous non-religious conduct or the conduct of other religions. 11. The Plaintiffs use each of the religious objects noted herein and engage in the above noted practices as part of their sincerely held religious beliefs. 12. Plaintiffs have been prohibited from practicing their religion. 13. Prison security does not require the Defendants to prohibit Plaintiffs' religious ceremonies or to deny Plaintiffs' their right to practice their central and sincerely held beliefs in accordance with the tenets of the Native American religion. 14. Defendants have exhibited reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' rights, and
3

have intentionally and with deliberate and conscious indifference violated Plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of their religion and RLUIPA rights. 15. The above mentioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive and justify the award of punitive damages, and all other damages outlined herein. 16. As a result of the said acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have been injured and damaged as follows: They have been retaliated against and discriminated against on the basis of race and religion; they have been harassed and humiliated; they have been deprived of their ability to practice their religion; they have been subjected to attempts of religious conversion; they have suffered emotional trauma, mental pain, and anguish; they have incurred expenses in an attempt to enforce their legal rights; they have been offended by Defendants' discriminatory policies; they have had their sacred items seized, and they have been otherwise injured and damaged, all in violation of their state and federally protected rights. 17. Plaintiffs are entitled to all appropriate relief under the RLUIPA as listed in the prior Complaints, as amended, including compensatory and punitive damages; attorneys' fees, expert fees, expenses, and costs; full equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; and such other and further appropriate relief as the Court may order.
4

Respectfully submitted this the ---",-1..:...1t_h_ _ day of October, 2001.

OF COUNSEL:
SABEL & SABEL 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-5 Montgomery, AL 36106 (334) 271-2770 (334) 277-2882 (fax)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL: Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 201 Monroe St., Suite 1940 Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 262-2001

PETER FRUIN Attorney for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above has been served upon the following listed persons by placing a copy of the same in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid and properly addressed, this the 11th day of October, 2001:
Charles A. Graddick, Esq. Sims, Graddick, Dodson, P.C. Fort Conde Village 205 St. Emanuel Street Mobile, AL 36602

OF COUNSEL 5

 
 FILED

O· IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF AI~.;ABAM,*AR 14 2(03

NORTHERN DIVISION

~_

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

CLERK

)

U. S. DISTRICT COURT

)

MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA.

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-A-1404-N

)

)

)

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS

)

OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND

)

CLAN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 96-A-554-N

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs in this case I are Native American inmates challenging Alabama Department

of Corrections CADOC") policies restricting inmate hair length and prohibiting Native

IThe court consolidated this case with one initially filed in the Northern District ofAlabama entitled,
Native American Prisoners 0/Alabama v. Alabama Department o/Corrections, 94-U-186-NE. See Docs.
# 92 & 135. The inmate organization which filed this lawsuit objected to the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC's") refusal to provide them with a ceremonial ground, a sweat lodge, sacred plants, and other objects necessary to the practice of their Native American spirituality.
1

American inmates from participating in sweat lodge ceremonies.2 The protracted course of
this lawsuit, which approaches its tenth anniversary in this court, is paradigmatic of the
difficulties faced by the judiciary and the legislature in defining the appropriate standard of
review for First Amendment free exercise of religion claims filed by prisoners.3 When the
activities which ultimately resulted in the filing of this lawsuit occurred, the rational-basis
test outlined in 0 'Lone v. Estate a/Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987), was the indisputable
standard for evaluating prison regulations which affected a prisoner's ability to freely
practice his or her religion. The 0 'Lone standard permits the promulgation of policies
restricting a prisoner's free exercise of religion if the regulation is "reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests." 482 U.S. at 349.
Shortly before this lawsuit was filed, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000bb, et. seq. Congress' stated purpose in
enacting this legislation was to create a more favorable standard of review for plaintiffs challenging policies burdening the free exercise ofreligion.4 Under the standard outlined in
2See Infra, p. 21 for a detailed description of the sweat lodge ceremony. 3The Free Exercise Clause "withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority." Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Ed. ofEqualization of Cal., 493 U.S. 378, 384 (1990) (citing Sch. Dist. ofAbington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222-223 (1963)). 4Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") in response to the Supreme Court's holding in Employment Div., Dep 't ofHuman Res. ofOregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 866 n. 3 (1990), which held, in pertinent part, that "generally applicable, religion-neutral laws which have the effect of burdening a particular religious practice need not be justified by a compelling government interest." In so holding, the Supreme Court rejected the applicability of the tests developed in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1975). In 42 U.S.c. § 2000bb(b)(1), Congress indicates
2

RFRA, prison officials can promulgate policies which substantially burden the free exercise of religion only if the regulation is "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." 42 U.S.c. § 2000bb-1. While the parties in this case were engaged in settlement negotiations, the Supreme Court, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), declared RFRA unconstitutional and resurrected the rational basis test articulated in 0 'Lone. 5 Guided by the standard outlined in 0 'Lone and the evidence presented during three days of evidentiary hearings, the court concluded that the ADOC's policies restricting inmate hair length and prohibiting sweat lodge ceremonies, issues which the parties were unable to settle extrajudicially,6 did not impinge on the plaintiffs' constitutional right to the free exercise of their Native American spirituality.7 The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 8
While the plaintiffs' appeal was pending, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000cc, et. seq., which
that its purpose in enacting RFRA was "to restore the compelling interest test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened."
5The Supreme Court concluded that RFRA was a violation of Congress' powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See City a/Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
6See Doc. # 177 fully outlining the issues which the parties settled extrajudicially. 7See the September 10, 1999 Recommendation ofthe Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 192) and the district court's June 12,2000 order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. # 214). 8See Doc. # 218.
3

protects pnsoners from government-sponsored infringement on religious practices by resurrecting RFRA's substantial burden and strict scrutiny standards. The Act attempts to avoid RFRA's constitutional infirmities by premising Congressional authority for its enactment on both the Spending and Commerce Clauses. See 42 U.S.c. § 2000cc-l (b)( 1)(2). Based on the potential applicability ofRLUIPA to this case, the Eleventh Circuit granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand "to permit the district court to determine ... whether the new federal statute entitles plaintiffs to the relief that they seek." Shortly after the remand of this case, the United States intervened pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 2403(a) to defend the Act's constitutionality. 9
At issue in this most recent chapter of this litigation is RLUIPA's applicability and constitutionality, matters of first impression in this circuit. After a brief period of discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting brief (Docs. # 281 & 282), arguing that (1) RLUIPA's jurisdictional requirements are not triggered by the plaintiffs' allegations; (2) RLUIPA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power; and (3) even assuming RLUIPA's constitutionality, the ADOC's policies restricting inmate hair length and prohibiting Native American inmates from participating in sweat lodge ceremonies are in furtherance of compelling governmental interests and the least restrictive means offurthering its compelling governmental interests. After the case was remanded, the
9See Doc. # 258. 4

parties stipulated that additional evidentiary hearings were unnecessary. \0 In defending RLUIPA's constitutionality, the United States argues that the Act is a
constitutional exercise ofCongress' powers to unambiguously and non-coercively condition the receipt of federal funds pursuant to its spending power. Alternatively, the government argues that the so-called "jurisdictional hook"ll contained in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(b)(2) prevents RLUIPA from exceeding the scope of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. In defending RLUIPA's applicability to the regulations at issue in this case, the plaintiffs argue that restrictions on hair length and participation in sweat lodge ceremonies are substantial burdens on the exercise of their Native American spirituality. Lastly, the inmates argue that the record clearly supports the conclusion that the ADOC's policies are not the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling governmental interests in security and safety.
The court first addresses RLUIPA's applicability because established jurisprudential principles dictate that a case should not be decided on constitutional grounds when it can be resolved on a statutory one. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 692 (1979).12 Setting aside the issue of the Act's constitutionality, the court concludes that the plaintiffs' claims
IOSee Doc. # 281, p. 2 and Doc. # 282, p. 1. liThe Act's legislative history contains the followingjurisdictional hook: 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l (b)(2) requires that the substantial burden "affect ... commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, or with Indian tribes." 12See also, United States v. Cong. ofIndus. Org., 335 U.S. 106, 125 (1948); Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936); White v. State ofAla., 74 F.3d 1058, 1061 n. 5 (1Ith Cir. 1996); United States v. Bearden, 659 F.2d 590 (5th Cir. 1981).
5

in this case are governed by RLUIPA because the record clearly establishes that the ADOC receives federal financial assistance. Next, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that they are sincere adherents of Native American spirituality whose religious exercise has been substantially burdened by the ADOC's policies restricting inmate hair length and prohibiting inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies. Furthermore, after a careful review of the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the court affirms its initial conclusion that the ADOC's restriction on inmate hair length is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling governmental interests in prison safety and security. Accordingly, the court concludes that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is due to be granted on this issue.
The viability of the ADOC's absolute ban on inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies is a more difficult issue. Despite the parties' stipulation that additional evidentiary hearings were unnecessary,13 the evidentiary record does not permit the court to evaluate the efficacy of any less restrictive alternatives to the traditional sweat lodge ceremony. Thus, the court is unable to perform the analytical balancing test which RLUIPA requires. Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is due to be denied on the issue ofwhether the ADOC's absolute prohibition on sweat lodge ceremonies is the least restrictive means offurthering the ADOC' s compelling governmental interests. See N.L.R.B. v. Smith Indus., Inc., 403 F.2d 889,893 (5th Cir. 1968) (holding that court should deny ruling
13See Doc. # 281, p.2 and Doc. # 292, p. 1. 6

on motion for summary judgment until facts have been sufficiently developed to enable it to be reasonably certain that it is making a correct determination oflaw).14 This conclusion also necessitates that the court reserve ruling on constitutional issues until it determines RLUIPA's applicability to the ADOC's prohibition on sweat lodge ceremonies. See Boss Capital, Inc. v. City ofCasselberry, 187 F.3d 1251, 1254 (lIth Cir. 1999) (explaining that courts should defer ruling on constitutional questions ifthere are other grounds upon which the case may be decided).
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed.R.Civ. P. 56 (c). The party seeking summary judgment must first inform the court of the basis for the motion, identify pertinent portions of the record, and demonstrate an absence ofevidence in support ofthe non-moving party's claims or defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323-24 (1986). If the movant satisfies these prerequisites, then the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists for resolution by the factfinder. Id. Furthermore, "[A]n adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but
14See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (lIth Cir. 1981, en bane), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
7

· .. must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (e). See also. Hammer v. Slater, 20 F.3d 1137, 1141 (1Ith Cir. 1994)(explaining that for issues on which the nonmoving party will bear burden of proof at trial, the nonmoving party must either point to evidence in record or present additional evidence "sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based on the alleged evidentiary deficiency.").
The court's role is not to weigh evidence or determine facts; instead, it is "the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial - whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). In doing so, the court must acceptthe evidence ofthe non-moving party as true, resolve all doubts against the moving party, construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 550-55 (1999); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992); Anderson. 477 U.S. at 255. If more than one reasonable inference can be drawn and that inference creates a genuine issue of material fact, then the motion for summary judgment is due to be denied. See Hunt, 526 U.S. at 552; Patterson & Wilder Const. Co., Inc. v United States, 226 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11 th Cir. 2000). Affirming that it is substantive law which defines materiality, the Supreme Court declared in Anderson that: "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." 477 U.S. at 258.
8

III. APPLICABILITY OF THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT
The Act's legislative history demonstrates congressional concern about
institutionalized persons' ability to freely practice their religion. Remarks made on July 27,
2000 in the Senate poignantly underscore the basis of this concern: Far more than any other Americans, persons residing in institutions are subject to the authority of one or a few local officials. Institutional residents' right to practice their faith is at the mercy of those running the institution, and their experience is very mixed. It is well known that prisoners often file frivolous claims; it is less well known that prison officials sometimes impose frivolous or arbitrary rules. Whether from indifference, ignorance, bigotry, or lack of resources, some institutions restrict religious liberty in egregious and unnecessary ways.
S. REp. No. S7775 (July 27,2000). In attempting to statutorily ensure a level of protection
for free exercise claims filed by prisoners which avoids RFRA's constitutional infirmities,
Congress limited RLUIPA's application to "a program or activity that receives Federal
financial assistance" or to circumstances when a substantial burden on free exercise affects
"commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, or with Indian tribes." See 42
u.S.C. § 2000cc-l(b)(1)(2).
The substantive portions of the Act provide that "[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise" of prisoners unless the government can
demonstrate that the burden both serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of advancing that interest. 42 U.S.c. § 2000cc-1 (a). Although narrower in scope than RFRA, RLVIPA essentially adopts RFRA' s requirement that prisoners make
9

a prima facie showing that a sincerely held religious practice has been substantially burdened and that courts reviewing substantially burdensome prison regulations utilize a strict scrutiny standard. See Madison v. Riter, Civ. No. 7:01CV00596, 2003 WL 179990, at *3 (W.D. Va. Jan. 23,2003) (explaining that in adopting RLUIPA, Congress made no changes to RFRA's strict scrutiny test); H.R. Doc. No. E1563 (Sept. 22, 2000) (Remarks of Hon. Charles T. Canady).
If the court determines that the challenged prison regulations substantially burden an inmate's religious expression, then the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that the regulations further a compelling governmental interest. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a)(1). Assuming the existence of a compelling governmental interest, the court then evaluates whether a defendant's policies satisfy RLUIPA's requirement that they be the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. See 42 U. S.C. § 2000cc-1 (a)(2).
Although the defendants bear the burden of proof on the compelling interest/least restrictive means prong ofthe Act, RLUIPA's legislative history clearly indicates that prison officials are entitled to due deference on issues relating to "good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources." S. REp. No. S7775 (July 27,2000). However, t~is deference is not absolute and "inadequately formulated prison regulations and policies grounded on mere speculation, exaggerated fears, or post-hoc rationalizations will not suffice to meet the act's requirements." Id., (citing Senate Report 103-111 at 10 (1993)).
10

A. Jurisdictional Requirements One method of satisfying RLUIPA's jurisdictional requirement involves a determination of whether the allegedly substantially burdensome prison regulations are imposed in a "program or activity" which receives federal financial assistance. 15 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(b)(1). The Act explains that "the term 'program or activity' means all of the operations of any entity as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2000d-4a of this title." 42 U.S.c. § 2000cc-5(6) (emphasis added). Section 2000d-4a(I)(A) provides that the term "program or activity" refers to "all of the operations of a department ... of [a] State or of local government." See 42 U.S.c. § 2000d-4a(1)(A). Based on this broad definition of program or activity, the court rejects the defendant's argument that RLUIPA's jurisdictional prerequisites are not satisfied because the ADOC does not receive any federal financial assistance for inmate religious programs. The undisputed facts clearly demonstrate that the ADOC receives approximately one percent (1 %) of its funding from the federal government for various substance abuse treatment programs and prison construction projects. 16 Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims fall within RLUIPA's jurisdictional ambit. B. The Prima Facie Case The next step in accessing RLUIPA's applicability requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that their preference for unshorn hair and desire to participate in sweat lodge ceremonies are
15Because jurisdiction is established under 42 U.S.c. § 2000cc-l (b)(1), the court does not address the alternate method of establishing jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l (b)(2).
16AfJ., Rachel Lee, App. Vol. III, Tab. 43; AfJ., John Jacobs, App. Vol. III, Tab 44. 11

religious exercises of Native American spirituality which are substantially burdened by the ADOC's policies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b).17
(1) Sincere Religious Exercises RLUIPA defines the term "religious exercise" as including "any exercise ofreligion, whether ornot compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.c. § 2000cc5(7)(A) (emphasis added). In this case, the unrebutted testimony indicates that participation in sweat lodge ceremonies and a preference for unshorn hair are central tenets of Native American spirituality and thus, satisfy the Act's broad definition of a religious exercise. Deward Walker ("Walker"), plaintiffs' proffered expert on Native American religious practices, explained the important healing and rehabilitative aspects of the sweat lodge ceremony; described it as one of the most important and frequent expressions of Native American spirituality; and equated the sweat lodge ceremony with a sacrament in the Catholic Church. 18 Although indicating that not all Native Americans wear their hair long, Walker emphasized the importance ofunshorn hair to those adhering to a traditional Native American lifestyle. 19 Plaintiffs testifying at the February 1998 evidentiary hearing substantiated Walker's assessments ofthe centrality ofthe sweat lodge ceremony, explaining that it was an important physical and mental purification ritual used by Native Americans as
17This threshold requirement is a legal question which is subject to de novo review. See In Re Young, 82 F.3d 1407, 1418 (8th Cir. 1996).
18See Evid. Hrg. Test., Deward Walker, Feb. 10, 1998, R. 97-98; 128-129; 262-263. 19Id., Feb. 9, 1998, R.163, 166-167; Feb. 10, 1998, R. 2l.
12

a prerequisite for participation in other important religious ceremonies.20 Similarly, several plaintiffs testified that prison regulations requiring short hair diminish their ability to approach the Creator with honor. 21
The defendants do not challenge the centrality of these religious beliefs but rather question the plaintiffs' sincerity. Although not an express statutory requirement, RLUIPA's legislative history clearly indicates Congress' intent to incorporate RFRA's sincerity requirement into the definition of religious exercise. In clarifying the term "religious exercise," Congress indicated that the new definition
does not change the rule that insincere religious claims are not religious exercise at all, and thus are not protected. Nor does it change the rule that an individual's religious belief or practice need not be shared by other adherents of a larger faith to which the claimant also adherers. (emphasis added). H.R. Doc. No. E1564 (Sept. 22, 2000) (Remarks of Hon. Charles T. Canady). See also, Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 235 F. Supp.2d 1186, 1194 (D. Wyo. 2002) (holding that RLUIPA incorporates RFRA's sincerity requirement). As an example of what it characterizes as a feigned interest in Native American spirituality, the ADOC argues that the plaintiffs only became religious after their incarceration and had either never attended a sweat lodge ceremony or had limited familiarity
20See Evid. Hrg. Test., Billy Ray Jones, Feb. 9, 1998, R. 220-222; Evid. Hrg. Test., Billy Ray Jones, Feb. 10, 1998, R. 22; Evid. Hrg. Test., Douglas Wayne Bailey, Feb. 13, 1998, R. 27.
21See Evid. Hrg. Test., Billy Ray Jones, Feb. 9, 1998, R. 229-230; Evid. Hrg. Test., Billy Ray Jones, Feb. 10, 1998, R. 32; Evid. Hrg. Test., Douglas Wayne Bailey, Feb. 13, 1998, R. 11; Evid. Hrg. Test., James Limbaugh, Feb. 13, 1998, R. 85.
13

with them.22 The court rejects this argument because it erroneously assumes that frequent participation in religious ceremonies is the only indicator of sincerity. Although frequency of participation is a factor which might merit consideration in evaluating the sincerity of a religious belief, it is erroneous to conclude that the plaintiffs' failure to participate in sweat lodge ceremonies prior to their incarceration is definitive evidence of insincerity. Cf, Maguire v. Wilkinson, 405 F. Supp. 637, 640 (D. Conn. 1975) (explaining that the timing of an inmate's acquisition of a religious belief or preference is not the exclusive indicator of sincerity). Explaining the renewal of his interest in Native American spirituality, Plaintiff Billy Ray Jones ("Jones") indicated that, after his incarceration, he began to yearn for a connection with the Creator.23 George E. Sullivan ("Sullivan"), a former prison warden who offered expert testimony on the accommodation of Native American religious practices in prison settings, indicated that very few persons entering prison have attended Native American religious ceremonies prior to their incarceration and typically, view prison as an opportunity to develop their spirituality.24 Based on this testimony, the court concludes that the record sufficiently explains the plaintiffs' renewal of their Native American spirituality. See Thomas v. Review Bd. ofInd. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981) (warning courts to be cautious in distinguishing between fictitious and sincerely held religious beliefs).
22See Evid. Hrg. Test., Billy Ray Jones, Feb. 9, 1998, R. 152, 154; Evid. Hrg. Test., Feb. 10, 1998, R. 8. See Evid. Hrg. Test., Douglas Wayne Bailey, Feb. 9,1998, R. 186; Evid. Hrg. Test., James Limbaugh, Feb. 13, 1998, R. 86; Evid. Hrg. Test., Timothy Smith, Feb. 13, 1998, R. 101.
23Evid. Hrg. Test., Billy Ray Jones, Feb. 10, 1998, R. 11-12. 24Evid. Hrg. Test., George E. Sullivan, Feb. 12, 1998, R. 19-20.
14

Lastly, the court's comprehensive assessment of the plaintiffs' demeanor and their testimony, which evidences a working knowledge and familiarity with the religious practices at issue in this case, sufficiently establishes their sincerity. In short, the record clearly supports the conclusion that unshorn hair and participation in sweat lodge ceremonies cannot reasonably be interpreted as preferences which the plaintiffs have conveniently labeled as religious for purposes of this litigation. Furthermore, based on RLUIPA's expansive definition of religious exercise and the testimony in this case which establishes that the plaintiffs sincerely believe that unshorn hair and participation in sweat lodge ceremonies are integral to the practice of their religion, the court concludes that the ADOC regulations at issue in this case affect the plaintiffs' religious exercise.
(2) Substantially Burdensome Standard A more challenging question which the statute does not address is the criteria for determining when prison regulations "substantially burden" an inmate's religious exercise. In their motion for summary judgment and in response to court's questions about this issue, defendants argue that regulations restricting inmate hair length and participation in sweat lodge ceremonies are not substantially burdensome because the ADOC permits Native American inmates to participate in a panoply of other religious practices. In short, the ADOC argues that the substantial burden inquiry does not focus on a specific or isolated religious practice, like hair length or participation in sweat lodge ceremonies, but on whether the plaintiffs' ability to comprehensively practice their Native American spirituality is substantially burdened. Plaintiffs object to this characterization, arguing that prison
15

regulations which require them to cut their hair and which impose an absolute ban on
participation in sweat lodge ceremonies are, by definition, a substantial burden on religious
practice. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants' interpretation ofthe substantial burden
requirement is inconsistent "with the clear statutory command that RLUIPA 'be construed
in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the
terms of this chapter and the Constitution. ",
For guidance in applying the substantial burden standard, the court relies on the Act's
legislative history, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and case law applying RLUIPA and
RFRA's substantial burden requirement. See Pharm. Research & Mfrs. ofAm. v. Meadows,
304 F.3d 1197, 1210 (11 th Cir. 2002) (observing that statutory language must be ambiguous
before courts may examine extrinsic materials, including legislative history, to determine
Congressional intent) (internal quotations and citations omitted). RLUIPA's legislative
history specifically addresses the Act's failure to define substantial burden, explaining that
it is not the intent of this Act to create a new standard for the definition of "substantial burden" on religious exercise. Instead, that term ... should be interpreted by reference to Supreme Court jurisprudence. Nothing in this Act, including the requirement in [42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g)] that its terms be broadly construed, is intended to change that principle. The term "substantial burden" as used in this Act is not intended to be given any broader interpretation than the Supreme Court's articulation of the concept of substantial burden or religious exercise.
S. REp. No. S7776 (July 27,2000).25 The Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence
25Although the heading under this portion ofthe legislative history is entitled "Additional Discussion on the Intended Scope On Land Use Provision," the court concludes that, given the similarity between the levels of protection afforded to institutionalized persons, this legislative guidance is equally applicable in this case.
16

clearly indicates that the Constitution does not forbid all regulations burdening religion. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993); Hernandez v. Comm 'r ofInternaI Rev., 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989). Instead, the free exercise clause is only implicated when a regulation imposes a substantial, as opposed to an inconsequential, burden on the litigant's religious practice. Id. In detennining whether litigants have satisfied this burden, courts are instructed to consider factors like (1) the sincerity of the religious belief, see Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. ofEqualization, 493 U.S. 378,384-385 (1990); (2) whether the prison regulation impacts a central religious tenet, see Id.; (3) whether the religious practice at issue is based on a honest religious conviction, see Thomas, 450 U.S. at 714; and (4) whether the applicable prison regulation has a tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Prot. Ass 'n, 485 U.S. 439, 450-451 (1988); Cruz v. Beta, 405 U.S. 319, 322, n. 2 (1972). Courts applying RLUIPA and RFRA' s substantial burden standard require that the prohibited religious practice interfere with a tenet or central belief of the inmate's religious practice, curtail the inmate's ability to express adherence to their faith, or deny the inmate a reasonable opportunity to engage in fundamental religious activities.26 See e.g., Marria v. Broaddus, 200 F. Supp. 2d 280,298 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (analyzing substantial burden under
26The Eleventh Circuit cases addressing RFRA have not analyzed the substantial burden requirement, opting instead to concentrate their discussion on the application of the compelling interest/least restrictive means prong of the statute. See Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502 (11 th Cir. 1996) (applying RFRA to prison officials' refusal to permit adherents ofHebrew Israelite faith, which espoused racial hatred, to receive prison literature); Fawaad v. Jones, 81 F.3d 1084 (1Ith Cir. 1996) (applying RFRA to prison officials' requirement that plaintiff use his chosen religious name and name under which he was convicted on all incoming and outgoing mail).
17

RLUIPA); Mack v. O'Leary, 80 F.3d 1175,1179 (7th Cir. 1996) (analyzing substantial burden standard under RFRA).
Within the framework ofthese authorities, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have satisfied their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the ADOC's regulations restricting hair length and banning inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies substantially burdens the practice of their Native American spirituality. As evidenced by the discussion in the first section of this opinion and in the September 10, 1999 Recommendation, long hair and participation in sweat lodge ceremonies are central tenets of Native American spirituality of which the plaintiffs are sincere adherents. Additionally, the ADOC's restrictive policies prevent the plaintiffs' from exercising fundamental religious beliefs. Accordingly, the court concludes that the ADOC's curtailment of these religious practices substantially burden the plaintiffs' Native American spirituality.
In reaching this conclusion, the court rejects the ADOC's position that the plaintiffs are not substantially burdened because prison officials allow them to exercise their Native American spirituality through "regular access to ceremonial grounds, individual and group prayer pipes [pipe ceremonies], medicine bags, and special celebrations on Native American sacred days.'>27 First, this argument is based on an assumption that all aspects of Native American spirituality are interchangeable and of equal importance. This assumption is clearly unsupported by the record. Walker indicated that sweat lodge and pipe ceremonies
27Defs Reply Br., (Doc. # 304), p. 9.
18

are both fundamental aspects of Native American religion which enable adherents to seek spiritual guidance in dealing with personal problems.28 However, in answering questions about the interchangeability of the two ceremonies, he testified that "I wouldn't say they're the same ceremonies by any means. But they certainly can serve many of the same purposes .... [0] ne does not, however, substitutefor the other in my experience. ,,29 (emphasis added). According to Walker, the sweat lodge ceremony is essential to the practice of Native American spirituality because of its importance as a purification ritual where adherents seek spiritual rebirth through a collective, communal experience.3o Second, the ADOC's interpretation ofthe "substantial burden standard," which would permit prison officials with limited knowledge and familiarity with Native American spiritualitl1 to unilaterally determine the interchangeability ofvarious religious practices despite expert testimony to the contrary, is inconsistent with RLU1PA's purpose of prohibiting frivolous or arbitrary rules restricting inmate religious practices. See S. REp. No. S7775 (July 27, 2000). Lastly, the existence of alternate expressions of Native American spirituality does not obviate the centrality ofthe religious practices at issue in this case. CI, Blanken v. Ohio Dep 't ofRehab. & Carr., 944 F. Supp. 1359, 1365-1366 (S.D. Ohio 1996) (rejecting defendant's claim that
28Evid. Hrg. Test., Deward Walker, Feb. 10, 1998, R. 99-100, 122-123. 29Id., at 99-100. 30Id., at 97, 204-205. 31See Evid. Hrg. Test., John Shaver, Feb. 9,1998, R. 5-6, 8,49; Evid. Hrg. Test., Charles Sutton, Feb. 13, 1998, R. 180, 198-199.
19

plaintiffwas not substantiallyburdened based on the availability ofother religious practices). B. Application of the Compelling Interest/Least Restrictive Means Standard Having determined that the ADOC's policies substantially burden the plaintiffs'
religious expression, the burden now shifts to the defendants, who must prove that the regulations further a compelling governmental interest and that its absolute prohibition on sweat lodge ceremonies and restrictions on inmate hair length are the least restrictive means of furthering these interests. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a)(1)(2).
1. Hair Length Restrictions The ADOC' s regulations restricting inmate hair length are based on what it characterizes as its compelling interest in prison safety and security. John Shaver ("Shaver") testified that the restriction is primarily based on the increased likelihood that inmates with long hair could easily conceal weapons or other types of contraband.32 As a preliminary matter, the court observes that states have a compelling interest in security and order in their correctional facilities. See Harris v. Forsyth, 735 F.2d 1235 (11 th Cir. 1984). Although plaintiffs argue that Sullivan's testimony establishes the speculative nature of Shaver's concerns about safety and security, both RLUIPA and RFRA require that the court defer to the ADOC's judgment that its hair length policy is rooted in its interests in good order, security, and discipline. See S. REp. No. S7775 (July 27,2000).
32Evid. Hrg. Test., John Shaver, Feb. 9, 1998, R. 94. Shaver also identified uniformity, discipline, and concerns about post-escape identification as additional reasons for refusing to honor the plaintiffs' request that they be allowed to wear their hair long.
20

The issue of whether RLUIPA invalidates prison regulations restricting inmate hair length is a matter of first impression in this circuit. However, because RLUIPA essentially adopts RFRA's compelling interest/least restrictive means standard and because the plaintiffs' have not otherwise distinguished the facts of this case, the court is bound by the Eleventh Circuit's holding in Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 504 (11th Cir. 1996). In Chapman, the court upheld the Florida Department of Corrections policy which mandated that all inmates have their hair cut short to medium length. Id. In explaining its reasoning, the court indicated "we are unable to suggest any lessor means than a hair length rule for satisfying these interests .... we thus join these courts in finding that a reasonable hair length regulation satisfies the least restrictive means test." Chapman, 97 F.3d at 504. Chapman's holding is consistent with that of other courts which hold that prison grooming regulations restricting inmate hair length are the least restrictive means of advancing the substantial governmental interest in maintaining prison security. See e.g., Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1555, n. 12 (8th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the ADOC's regulations restricting inmate hair length do not violate RLUIPA. 33
2. Sweat Lodge Ceremonies The sweat lodge ceremony occurs in a small dome-like structure, approximately four
33The court affirms, without discussion, its decision that the ADOC's differential application of hair length policies is constitutionally permissible. See Sept. 10, 1999 Recommendation ofthe Magistrate Judge, p. 4, n. 3.
21

feet in height.34 The lodge is constructed from willow branches or similar materials which can retain heat and exclude light.35 The frame is either covered with a tarpaulin or an animal hide and is often a temporary structure.36 Participants enter the sweat lodge through a flap cut from the front of the protective covering.37 In its previous recommendation, the court
briefly outlined the nature of the ceremony:
Rocks heated in a separate fire are placed in the center of the lodge. During the ceremony, several tools are used including an axe (to split the firewood), a shovel (to transfer the hot rocks from the fire to the sweat lodge) and deer antlers. Participants, who are nude, pour water on the hot rocks to create steam, which causes them to sweat. Throughout the ceremony, the lodge remains covered to retain the steam and to keep out the light. The ceremony lasts between one and three hours. Sept. 10, 1999 Recommendation, p. 6.
Eighty-eight prisons and approximately seventeen state-run facilities permit periodic inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies.38 However, the ADOC's policy absolutely
prohibits inmate participation in these ceremonies. The ADOC argues that this absolute
prohibition is justified by its compelling governmental interests in security and by financial constraints which would make accommodating the plaintiffs' request virtually impossible.39
34Evid. Hrg. Test., Douglas Wayne Bailey, Feb. 9, 1998, R. 229-221. 35Id. 36Id., R. 228. See a/so, Evid. Hrg. Test., Deward Walker, Feb. 10, 1998, R. 114-116. 37See a/so, Evid. Hrg. Test., Deward Walker, Feb. 10, 1998, R. 118-119. 38See Sept. 10, 1999 Recommendation, p. 8, n. 7. 39Defs Br. Mot. Sum. J., p. 21-25.
22

Shaver, the person who drafted the ADOC's regulations govermng inmate religious practices, testified that the secluded nature of the sweat lodge would make visibility extremely difficult and thus, provide inmates with the opportunity to physically assault one another and engage in homosexual activity.40 According to Shaver, even if the chronically understaffed ADOC were able to adequately supervise the ceremony, the steam and extreme temperatures in the sweat lodge would nevertheless prohibit correctional officers from visually monitoring inmates.41 These problems would also be exacerbated by the requirement that the sweat lodge be built outdoors, thus, increasing the difficulty of adequate supervision.42
Charles Sutton ("Sutton"), the deputy commissioner responsible for security, echoes Shaver's concerns, explaining that the sauna-like conditions in the sweat lodge would make brief visual scans virtually impossible and predicted that wardens would have to reassign officers from other areas to monitor sweat lodge ceremonies.43 Shaver and Sutton are both concerned that the materials typically used in sweat lodge ceremonies, like shovels, axes, hot stones, and pitchforks, could be used as weapons.44 Security expert Lansome Newsome ("Newsome") endorsed Shaver and Sutton's concerns about the possibilitythat inmates could
4°Evid. Hrg. Test., John Shaver, Feb. 9, 1998, R. 54, 56, 121, 123. 41Id., R. 181-182. 42Id., 50, 53. 43Evid. Hrg. Test., Charles Sutton, Feb. l3, 1998, R. 181. 44Evid. Hrg. Test., John Sutton, Feb. l3, 1998, R. 51, 56; Evid. Hrg. Test., Charles Sutton, Feb. 13, 1998, R. 181-182.
23

engage in illicit drug use and homosexual activity during sweat lodge ceremonies.45 Based on this testimony, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' proposed alterations
to the traditional sweat lodge ceremony, which include prohibiting nudity and permitting correctional officers to monitor the ceremony by periodically raising the entrance flap, fail to assuage their safety concerns. According to the ADOC, a variety of factors like: (l) the visibility problems caused by the intense steam and heat inside the sweat lodge; (2) the inmates insistence that the ceremony be performed with an opaque covering; (3) the easy accessibility to hot rocks, shovels, and other ceremonial objects which could be used as weapons; and (4) the financial hardship which would be undoubtedly caused by the need for additional monitoring of sweat lodge ceremonies make any proposed alterations to the traditional sweat lodge ceremony untenable.46
It is well-established in this circuit that states have a compelling interest in security. See Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502,512 (lIth Cir. 1996); Forsyth, 735 F.2d at 1235. Although the evidentiary record permits the court to conclude that the ADOC has compelling governmental interests in prison safety and security and that its ability to protect these interests requires some form of visual monitoring of sweat lodge ceremonies, neither the evidence presented at the 1998 evidentiary hearing nor the various arguments made by counsel at the August 27, 2002 oral argument on the motion for summary judgment, provide
45Lansome Newsome Dep. Test., R. 13-15. 46See Doc. # 244, p. 5-6.
24

the court with sufficient information to determine if the ADOC's absolute prohibition on
sweat lodge ceremonies is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling
governmental interests.
The Eighth Circuit's holding in Hamilton, applying the least restrictive means
standard to a prison regulation prohibiting sweat lodge ceremonies under RFRA, highlights
the deficiencies in the current evidentiary record. In explaining its decision to uphold prison
regulations prohibiting Native American inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies, the
Eighth Circuit indicated that:
[a]lthough RFRA places the burden ofproduction and persuasion on the prison
officials ... the prisoner must demonstrate what, ifany, less restrictive means
remain unexplored. It would be a herculean burden to require prison administrators to refute every conceivable option in order to satisfY the least restrictive means prong of RFRA. Moreover, such an onerous requirement would be irreconcilable with the well-established principle, recognized by the Supreme Court and RFRA' s legislative history, that prison administrators must be accorded due deference in creating regulations and policies directed at the maintenance of prison safety and security.
74 F.3d at 1556 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the court observed in dicta that:
There may very well be less restrictive means ofachieving prison safety and security than completely prohibiting sweat lodge ceremonies. Justice Blackmun recognized the dilemma implicit in a least restrictive means analysis: "ajudge would be unimaginative indeed ifhe could not come up with something a little less 'drastic' or a little less 'restrictive' in almost any situation ...."
Id. (emphasis added and internal citations omitted).47 The plaintiff in Hamilton elected to
47See also, Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476, 1480-1481 (lOth Cir. 1995) (remanding case to the district court for further development of the record and reconsideration under the least restrictive means standard).
25

take what the court described as an "all-or-nothing" position and rejected the possibility of alterations to the traditional sweat lodge ceremony. See 74 F.3d at 1556. Although both parties allude to the existence of proposed alterations to the traditional sweat lodge ceremony, the record does not clearly delineate the nature of these proposed alterations or provide the court with any evidentiary basis for determining if any proposed less restrictive means of accommodating the inmates' request would obviate the ADOC's concerns about security. Consequently, the court cannot conclude, as a matter oflaw, that an absolute ban on sweat lodge ceremonies is the least restrictive means of safeguarding the ADOC's compelling governmental interests. Additionally, because the parties in this case were operating under a legal standard which did not require an inquiry into the availability ofless restrictive alternatives, the court concludes that it would be inappropriate to grant the motion for summary judgment based on the current evidentiary record.
Although the evidence in this case suggests several potential alterations to the traditional sweat lodge ceremony which theoretically might enable the plaintiffs to participate in sweat lodge ceremonies at de minimis expense to the ADOC's valid penological interests in safety and security,48 the current evidentiary record does not permit the court to evaluate the efficacy of any less restrictive alternatives and thus, prevents it from performing the
48Specifically, prison officials could potentially reduce the risk of physical and sexual assaults by (1) limiting participation in sweat lodge ceremonies to inmates who are not documented security risks; (2) searching inmates prior to and after sweat lodge ceremonies; (3) requiring that inmates remain fully clothed during the ceremony; and (4) limiting the types of ceremonial items which inmates can use during the ceremony. The court notes that the above-referenced hypotheticals are merely illustrative and not meant to be an indicator of its eventual resolution of this issue.
26

analytical balancing test which RLUIPA reqUires. The court recogmzes that accommodations which might be theoretically viable could undermine the religious significance of the sweat lodge ceremony. For example, the court could determine that the ADOC could accommodate the plaintiffs without sacrificing the ability to visually monitor participants by requiring that the tarp covering the sweat lodge be made of a transparent material or by requiring the inmates to totally remove the tarp. However, without any evidence about (1) the plaintiffs' ability or willingness to conduct the sweat lodge with these or other less restrictive modifications or (2) the defendants' ability or willingness to accommodate any requested modifications, the court cannot conclude, as a matter oflaw, that an absolute ban of these ceremonies is the least restrictive means of furthering the ADOC's compelling governmental interests.49
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, the RECOMMENDATION ofthe Magistrate Judge is as follows: (1) That the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted on the plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy restricting inmate hair length violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. (2) That the defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied on the plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy prohibiting inmate participation
49The court notes that the above example is merely illustrative and not meant to be an indicator of its eventual resolution of this issue.
27

in sweat lodge ceremonies violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000.
(3) That the court reserve ruling on the constitutionality ofthe Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 until after a determination ofRLUIPA's applicability.
Done this the / Y ~day of M
28

CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-A-1404-N

ORDER

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge and to serve by mail a copy thereof on the parties to this action. The parties are

DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation within a period of 13 days

from the date of mailing to them. Any objections filed must specifically identify the fmdings

in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general

objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this

Recommendation is not a fmal order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed fmdings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

fmdings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v.

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (lIth Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30,

1981.

/1 < Done this

day of March, 20

~--------.---

. COODY D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 
 FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAM~EP 2 a

NORTHERN DIVISION

..J

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et aI., Plaintiffs,
vs. LESLIE THOMPSON, et at,
Defendants.

CLERK

)

U. S. DISTRICT COURT

)

MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA.

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-A-1404-N

)

)

)

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND CLAN, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et aI.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 96-A-554-N ) ) ) ) )

ORDER This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered on March 14,2003, and objections filed by both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on March 27, 2003. Upon an independent evaluation and de novo review of this matter, the court finds the objections to be without merit, and they are hereby overruled. The Plaintiffs object to that portion of the Recommendation regarding restricting inmate hair length as applied to Native American inmates, contending that the Defendants failed to meet their burden to articulate legitimate reasons why male but not female inmates are required to

JI1

have short hair. This issue was addressed in an earlier recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered on September 10, 1999, in the context of finding that the differential application of hair length policies is constitutionally permissible, as noted on page 21, fn. 33, of the current Recommendation. The court continues to agree with that finding, and further agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the ADOC's regulations restricting inmate hair length do not violate RLUIPA. The court further notes that the Plaintiffs' argument that all female inmates are allowed to wear long hair "but a handful of Native American inmates are denied the same accommodation for an unstated reason," misstates the issue before the court. The hair length policy at issue is neutral, and applies to all male inmates. It is that policy for which the Defendants must articulate legitimate reasons based on compelling interest in prison safety and security, and they have done so.
The Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that their Motion for Summary Judgment on the sweat lodge issue be denied. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Defendants failed to demonstrate that the absolute ban on the sweat lodge ceremony was the least restrictive means of achieving the Alabama Department of Corrections' compelling interest in security. The Defendants argued in essence that they could ban the sweat lodge ceremony because it is a purification right, and inmates have available to them other means ofpurification. In other words, the Defendants argue that the proper question is whether the ban on the sweat lodge substantially burdens the Plaintiffs' ability to comprehensively practice their religion. This argument was rejected by the Magistrate Judge for the reasons expressed at pages 18-19 of the Recommendation. The Defendants' argument is incompatible with Justice Jackson's words describing what is often characterized as one of our society's defining constitutional principles:
2

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia State Bd. ofEduc. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). The essence of the ADOC's argument is that prison officials have the right to determine which among several religious practices are permissible so long as the practices they allow "serve the same purpose" as a prohibited practice. See Defendant's Objections at 6. Adoption of this argument would permit prison officials to determine what is orthodox without the requisite demonstration that a ban on a religious practice is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest. The court rejects this argument.
The court adopts the Recommendation ofthe Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on the Plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy restricting inmate hair length violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
2. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED on the Plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy prohibiting inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
3. The court reserves ruling on the constitutionality ofthe Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 until after a determination of the RLDIPA's applicability.
4. This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
3

Jqt L DONE this

day of September, 2003.

}~~ ~ OLD ALB TTON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants. _______________________________

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:93cv1404-WHA ) ) ) )

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF

)

ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND CLAN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:96cv554-WHA

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT

)

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

This case is now before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.

#395), Plaintiffs’ Objection (Doc. #397), and Defendants’ Response (Doc. #401). In his

Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge dealt with the one remaining claim in this case,

Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Alabama Department of Corrections’ (ADOC) policy prohibiting

Native American inmates from participating in sweat lodge ceremonies, and recommended that

all aspects of the claim be dismissed.

The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing on December 9 - 10, 2004, ordered

subsequent submissions and briefs, and held status conferences on February 10, 2005, an May 9,

2005, all before entry of his Recommendation. In accordance with the law of this Circuit, this

court has conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, including a

review of all documents, briefs, and transcripts of the evidentiary hearing and status

conferences.1

A district court judge has broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify a

magistrate judge's proposed findings. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 680 (1980). It has

been noted that "[I]mplicit in Raddatz is a recognition that the credibility findings of a

magistrate, who personally observed and listened to the testimony of live witnesses, may be

accepted unless the district judge, in his de novo review, finds reason to question the magistrate's

assessment of the evidence." Blizzard v. Quillen, 579 F. Supp. 1446, 1449 (D. Del. 1984); see

also Buckley v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 762 F. Supp. 430, 435 (D.N.H. 1991).

After reviewing the record and reading the transcripts of the evidentiary hearing and the

status conferences, the court makes an independent factual determination and agrees with the

Magistrate Judge’s credibility assessments. The court finds no reason to question the findings of

the Magistrate Judge or to order a new evidentiary hearing to take additional evidence. See

United States v. Veteto, 701 F.2d 136, 140 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, Wescott v. U.S., 463

U.S. 1212 (1983) 2; United States v. Cofield, 272 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2001).3

1See Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Georgia, 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990) ("Thus, although de novo review does not require a new hearing of witness testimony, it does require independent consideration of factual issues based on the record. If the magistrate makes findings based on the testimony of witnesses, the district court is obliged to review the transcript or listen to a tape-recording of the proceedings.")
2 "If the district court concurs with the magistrate's recommendation, it need not hold another evidentiary hearing, even where the credibility of certain witnesses might be an important factor in making the determination." Id.
3 “In United States v. Raddatz (citation omitted), the Supreme Court held that a district court is not required to rehear witness testimony when accepting a magistrate judge’s credibility
2

The Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive and declaratory relief be dismissed as moot in view of the ADOC’s adoption of a new regulation allowing sweat lodge ceremonies, contending that the Defendants did not carry their burden of proving the absence of a likelihood that the illegality will recur. As the Recommendation points out, however, when the defendant is not a private citizen but a government actor, as is the case here, there is a rebuttable presumption that the objectionable behavior will not recur. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ evidence did not rebut this presumption and, therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief is not appropriate.
As to the Plaintiffs’ claims for damages, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion from the evidence in the case that these claims are barred by qualified immunity and sovereign immunity.
The court finds the Plaintiffs’ objection to be without merit, and it is hereby overruled. The court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. To the extent that the Plaintiffs request injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections’ absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies is a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., is DISMISSED as moot.
findings.” 3

2. To the extent that the Plaintiffs request damages, the Plaintiffs’ claims that the ADOC’s absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies was a violation of RLUIPA is DISMISSED on the basis of qualified immunity and sovereign immunity.
3. Final Judgment will be entered accordingly. DONE this 14th day of September, 2006.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 1 of 24

E.FMlED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

__ Sr.?,

j

0 I g99 ;~ }

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et aI., Plaintiffs,
v. LESLIE THOMPSON, et aI.,
Defendants.

CLERK

.

) )

Ur:."",r-S".,."-,',D,-:i,:-S: T01R"\.I:ICT.TOCFOAULRA.T

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-D-1404-N

)

)

)

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS

)

OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND

)

CLAN, et aI.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTIONS, et aI.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-D-554-N

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presently before the court is the Stipulation filed by the parties on March 5, 1998

and plaintiffs' "Motion for Order"filed on April 27, 1998, construed as a motion for a

Rule 54(a) judgment. The court finds that it is appropriate to grant a final judgment as to

all of the issues encompassed by the March 5 Stipulation. The issues relating to the

wearing of long hair and the use of a sweat lodge are the subject of a separate

recommendation. Based on the stipulation which embodies the agreement of the parties

on all issues except the sweat lodge and hair length issues, the evidence heard by the

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 2 of 24
court and the record as a whole, the court makes the following findings and conclusion. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds, based on paragraph 1 of the March 5 Stipulation, the testimony in the consolidated cases, and the entire record, that the Native American inmates who are parties to this suit are sincere believers in Native American spirituality and are sincere practitioners of Native American Religion.
By stipulation, the plaintiffs are not awarded monetary damages, except that plaintiffs preserve their damage claims as to the sweat lodge and hair length requirements issues. See Stipulation at ~ 26 (March 5, 1998)
The court independently finds that the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, (PLRA), 18 U.S.c. § 3626(a)(1) et seq., have been met. See also Stipulation at ~ 27 (March 5, 1998) (stipulating that the requirements of the PLRA have been met). Accordingly, the court finds, based on the entire record before the court in the consolidated cases and the additional evidence that the parties anticipated submitting, see Stipulation at ~ 29, that the relief agreed upon by the parties and granted by the court is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct violations of the Federal rights of the plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of Federal rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) et seq. The reliefwill not have any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. Id.
The court also finds, as set out in paragraph 27 of the jointly submitted StipUlation, that the defendants waive the right to challenge any order or the enforcement of any order
2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 3 of 24
entered by the court on the ground that the order fails to comply with the terms of the PLRA. The court also finds, as set out in paragraph 27 of the jointly submitted Stipulation, that defendants have waived a challenge to any award of attorneys' fees on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the entitlement to such an award under the PLRA. Defendants have, however, reserved the right to argue that the number of hours expended were excessive and/or the expenses were excessive and/or that the hourly rate set forth in the PLRA applies to this case. Stipulation at 9, ~ 27.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The court concludes, therefore, that the defendants should be enjoined to comply with the following stipulated injunctive relief. 1. MEDICINE BAG: The term "medicine bag" shall include any object attached to the bag and the string to which it is attached. Native American inmates shall be allowed to have a personal medicine bag to be kept on their person or in their personal property box and when worn outside the ceremonial grounds will be maintainedunderneath their prison clothing. The DOC shall permit the outside of the medicine bag to be adorned with colored beads as well as beads which are white or black. The DOC shall not permit beads greater in size than approximately eight (8) millimeters in diameter (the size of a "pony" bead). Inmates shall be allowed to affix items such as claws, beads, stag buttons and pieces of antlers to their medicine bags with the following restrictions: stag buttons shall be no larger than one and one half inch in diameter; claws shall be no longer than one and

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 4 of 24
one half inch in length from tip to tip; Doug Bailey shall be allowed to retain the claws currently affixed to his medicine bag provided that the claws are wrapped or covered by leather; arrowheads shall be no larger than one and one half inches in length; antler pieces shall be no longer than one and one half inch long and may not be sharp at the tip. Antlers, claws, and arrowheads must be permanently affixed to the Native American inmate's medicine bag or contained within the medicine bag itself.
The DOC shall not prohibit medicine bags that do not exceed 4" x 4"in size. If the medicine bag is strung from the inmate's neck, it is to be attached with a natural or neutral color leather string or shoelace which could be easily broken ifjerked or snatched from the inmate's neck so as not to choke or cause injury to the inmate.
All medicine bags shall be inspected in a proper manner by correctional officers should they decide to do so when the inmate is either entering or exiting a correctional facility and at any time a correctional officer has reasonable cause to believe contraband and/or items which could be used as a weapon are concealed in a medicine bag (see below regarding training of Corrections personnel).
In the event that a dispute arises as to the return of a specific medicine bag, plaintiffs shall have the right to petition the court for its return.
2. CONTENTS OF MEDICINE BAG: Native American inmates shall be allowed to maintain inside their medicine bag
all objects which have a religious significance to the wearer, including, but not limited to, small stones, sand or dirt, feathers, beads, except to the extent that such items are
4

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 5 of 24
otherwise prohibited herein (i.e. claws, arrowheads or antlers that exceed the size restrictions set forth herein). Upon reasonable cause and when requested by a correctional officer, a Native American inmate will display all objects in his medicine bag and allow a visual inspection of the inside of the medicine bag as set forth in paragraph 19.
3. VEGETATION: DOC officials shall permit vegetation similar to that currently allowed on the
ceremonial grounds located at Staton Correctional Facility to be grown on the Native American ceremonial grounds. In particular, the inmates shall be allowed to plant and maintain a tree oflife (preferably cedar). Additionally, Native American inmates shall be allowed to grow and maintain on the ceremonial grounds one (1) variety of com and up to eight (8) stalks planted at least one (1) foot apart, one (1) variety of bean and up to eight (8) plants planted at least one (1) foot apart and one (1) variety of squash and up to eight (8) plants planted at least three (3) feet apart on the designated ceremonial grounds. Flowers and gourds shall also be allowed to be grown by the Native American inmates on the ceremonial grounds for ceremonial purposes.
No vegetation other than one tree ofEfe or any presently existing trees oflife shall be allowed to grow to a height greater than four and one half feet, and no vegetation shall be planted in such a manner as to obstruct the view of correctional officers or within ten (10) feet of arty perimeter fence of the correctional facility or cause any type of fire hazard to any prison building or yard.
5

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 6 of 24
4. ACCESS AND TIME ALLOWED ON CEREMONIAL GROUNDS: Native American inmates shall be allowed access to the ceremonial grounds at all times the prison yard is open to inmates. Additionally, when the prison yard is not open, Native Americans shall have access to the ceremonial grounds at times that the chapel is open or of "chapel call," but not after sunset. Factors that may be considered regarding additional access to the ceremonial grounds are the level of security of the facility, the number of Native American inmates which will use the ceremonial grounds, and the structure of the facility. 5. SIZE OF CEREMONIAL GROUNDS:
Native American inmates shall be allowed to have and maintain a ceremonial ground on each facility in which Native American inmates are incarcerated therein. The size and location of the ceremonial grounds is to be determined by factors such as the specific facility, the availability of space, the level of security of the facility and the number of Native American inmates wanting to use said ceremonial grounds. However, all ceremonial grounds shaIrbe a minimum of20' x 20'.
Further, the court and parties may re-examine the issue of whether the size of the ceremonial grounds needs to be expanded following the court's ruling on sweat lodges.
6. LOCATION OF CEREMONIAL GROUNDS: Any correctional facility which has Native American inmates shall have an
area designated for use by such Native American inmates as ceremonial grounds. Factors for determining the exact location of the grounds are as follows: judgment of Department
6

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 7 of 24
of Correction officials of the most appropriate place for the ceremonial grounds, the security level of the facility, the normal operation of the facility and flow of inmate traffic at the facility.
The Department of Corrections shall make a good faith effort to find an alternative location for the ceremonial grounds at Kilby Correctional Facility and DOC officials shall make a good faith effort to find a location for grounds at other DOC facilities currently without grounds so long as there are individuals at the other facilities who wish to practice Native American Spirituality.
7. MEDICINE WHEEL: Native American inmates shall be allowed to maintain a medicine wheel, comprised of stones, upon the ceremonial grounds. The size of such medicine wheel will be dictated by the amount of space available for the ceremonial grounds on each facility and the number of Native American inmates which will use it. 8. PROVISION OF STORAGE SPACE:
The Department of Corrections shall permit the Native American groups at each facility to place a box on or adjacent to the ceremonial grounds in which to keep the religious items. The box, similar to that which currently exists on the ceremonial grounds at Staton Correctional Facility, shall be locked by combination lock. Native American inmates and the appropriate DOC officials shall be provided with the combination to such lock.
9. FEATHERS:
7

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 8 of 24
The defendants shall not prohibit Native American inmates from possessing feathers for religious and ceremonial use. Feathers must be kept in the personal property box in their cell or dormitory, and the DOC shall not prohibit the use of feathers on the ceremonial grounds or in the areas used for Native American activities at each facility. Inmates shall be allowed to keep and maintain with their personal possessions personal prayer fans for use on the ceremonial grounds.
10. MOCCASINS: The DOC shall not prohibit Native American inmates from wearing moccasins while on the ceremonial grounds. The DOC may require that the moccasins be kept with the inmate's personal possessions, on the ceremonial grounds, or with the chaplain. 11. PRAYER PIPES: Native American inmates shall be allowed to keep and maintain a personal prayer pipe in addition to a prayer pipe for use by the group to be kept by the pipe keeper. The personal prayer pipes are to be used only while on the ceremonial grounds. The DOC shall permit inmates, according to each inmate's personal preference, to keep the pipes with the personal possessions of the inmate, at the ceremonial grounds, in the area specifically provided for Native American activities, or with the chaplain. Nothing herein prohibits a cOlTectional officer or DOC official from visually inspecting a prayer pipe when there is reasonable cause to inspect the pipe in the manner set forth in paragraph 19 for the inspection of medicine bags and prayer pipes. 12. HERBS:
8

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 9 of 24
The DOC shall permit Native American inmates to purchase the following herbs: Sage, Sweetgrass, Cedar, Kinnickinnick and Tobacco. All herbs, except tobacco, are to be maintained and kept by the chaplain or in the Shift Commander's office.
13. DRUMS AND RATTLES: The DOC shall permit Native American inmates to have drums and rattles to be used during ceremonies held on the ceremonial grounds. These items are to be maintained and kept either on the ceremonial grounds or with the Chaplain. At no time will these items be used in a manner which disrupts the normal operation of the correctional facility. 14. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: The DOC shall permit inmates to possess colored ceremonial items, such as arm bands, chokers, and headbands for use in religious practice. The DOC shall require that such items may not be worn, shown or displayed anywhere other than the ceremonial grounds or in the area specifically provided for Native American activities, and then only for the purposes of practicing Native American spirituality. The DOC shall require such items to be kept on the ceremonial grounds. 15. CEREMONIAL DAYS: The DOC shall permit inmates to celebrate the following sacred days: the Green Corn Ceremony; the Harvest Moon Ceremony; the winter and summer solstices, and the spring and fall equinoxes. The DOC shall require Native American inmates to notify the chaplain or warden or the warden's designee twenty days prior to the observance of
9

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 10 of 24
sacred days. The DOC may impose the same work proscriptions on Native American sacred days as work proscriptions observed by the Department for the recognized sacred days of other religions.
16. PUBLICATIONS/LITERATURE: The DOC shall impose no proscriptions on the cultural and spiritual literature allowed to the Native American inmates and shall not require inmates to purchase literature in a particular month of the year. Cultural and spiritual literature shall be evaluated by the DOC on a case-by-case basis to determine if it poses a legitimate threat to the security of the prison. Such literature shall be obtained through the channels and procedures set forth in the applicable regulations compatible with this provision. Nothing herein obligates the DOC to grant rights to Native Americans that inmates who adhere to other recognized religions will not be granted. 17. PURCHASE OF ITEMS: The DOC shall impose no proscriptions on ordering religious items by the Native American inmates; provided such items do not constitute a legitimate threat to security. Such items shall be obtained through the channels and procedures set forth in the applicable regulations compatible with this provision. 18. TRAINING OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ON INSPECTIONS
PROCEDURES: Department of Corrections officials shall be taught the proper procedures for inspecting and viewing all Native American items. Specifically, the Department of
10

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 11 of 24
Corrections shall train its personnel not to touch the medicine bags or sacred pipes of the Native American inmates. Should an officer believe that it is necessary to inspect the contents of a Native American's medicine bag or sacred pipe, the officer shall bring the inmate to the chaplain's office where the contents of the bag or the pipe can be visually inspected. In the event that the chaplain is not present, the inspection may be performed in the presence of the shift commander.
19. RETENTION OF RELIGIOUS ITEMS ON TRANSFER: The DOC shall permit inmates to keep and retain their religious items in the event they are transferred from one facility to another. In the event an inmate is transferred he shall be given access to the ceremonial grounds to retrieve his religious items. 20. The DOC shall expunge Doug Bailey's prison record of the disciplinary he received at Kilby Correctional Facility on or about February 5, 1998, for possession of contraband based on the bear claws attached to his medicine bag. 21. The DOC shall not prohibit Native American inmates from maintaining a sacred items box in their personal possession so long as the size of such box allows it to be kept within the inmate's locker box or personal possessions. 22. The religious and ceremonial items which were previously possessed by plaintiffs and do not violate the provisions set forth herein or DOC policy shall be returned. In the event that a dispute arises as to the return of specific items of plaintiffs, plaintiffs shall have the right to petition the court for their return. 23. The DOC shall permit Native Americans to possess personal prayer books and
11

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 12 of 24
shall permit Native Americans to keep such books covered with a natural material such as leather or fur so long as the covers slip off easily for review and inspection by correctional personnel.
24. The DOC shall permit plaintiffs to maintain and store a talking stick no larger than two feet long and one inch in diameter on the ceremonial grounds of each prison.
CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge as follows: 1. That final judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs in accordance with the findings and conclusions contained in this recommendation; 2. That based on the Stipulation, the testimony in the consolidated cases, and the entire record, the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order, be enjoined to comply with the injunctive relief set forth in this recommendation; 3. That nothing herein shall be construed to limit the rights that the defendants may accord to Native Americans, as the defendants are free to exceed the constitutional requirements set out herein; 4. That the court retain jurisdiction of this matter for a period of one year to allow the defendants to modify their policies and practices in accordance with the court's injunction and to demonstrate their compliance with federal law and the orders, decrees, and injunction of this court;
12

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 13 of 24

5. That the costs of this proceeding be taxed against the defendants

6. That if the plaintiffs seek to recover fees, costs, and expenses, they be

DIRECTED to file a petition within 30 days of the date of a final order adopting this

recommendation.

Il"'!ay Done this

of September, 1999.

13

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 14 of 24

CIVIL ACTION NOS. 93-D-1404-N and 95-D-554-N

ORDER

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge and to serve by mail a copy thereof on the parties to this action. The parties are

DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation within a period of 13 days

from the date of mailing to them. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings

in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general

objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v.

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

661 F.2d' 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of

the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

$I -

/1 Done this

day of September,

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 15 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISir§I~ QE ~~
NORTHERN l>lVl~IOtq'
JAMES MORNING RAYEN LIMBAUGH; et ai,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LESLIE THOMPSON, et aI.,
Defendants.

FILED
MAR 5 1991\8, . til )
CLERK~
U, S, DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA.

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF ALABAMA ~ TURTLE WIND CLAN, et at ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et ai,
Defendants.
STTPTII .AITON
1. SINCERITY: The Native American inmates who are parties to this suit are sincere believers in Native American spirituality and are sincere practitioners of the Native American faith, 2. MEDICINE BAG: The tenn "medicine bag" shall include any obj ect attached to the bag and the string to which it is attached. Native American inmates shall be allowed to have a personal medicine bag to be kepi on their person or in their personal property box and when worn outside the

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 16 of 24
ceremonial grounds will be maintained underneath their prison clothing. The DOC shall pennit the outside of the medicine bag to be adorned with colored beads
as well as beads which are white or black. The DOC shall not pennit~beads greater in size than approximately eight (8) millimeters in diameter (the size of a ''pony'' bead).
Inmates shall be allowed to affix items such as claws, beads, stag buttons and pieces of antlers to their medicine bags with the following restrictions: stag buttons shall be no larger than one and one half inch in diameter, claws shall be no longer than one and one half inch in length from tip to tip; Doug Bailey shall be allowed to retain the claws currently affixed to his medicine bag provided that the claws are wrapped or covered by leather~ arrowheads shall be no larger than one and one half inches in length; antler pieces shall be no longer than one and one half inch long and may not be sharp at the tip. Antlers, claws, and arrowheads must be permanently affixed to the Native American inmate's medicine bag or contained within the medicine bag itself.
The DOC shall not prohibit medicine bags that do not exceed 4" x 4"in size.:;:;Ifthe medicine bag is strung from the inmate's neck, it is to be attached with a natural or neutral color leather string or shoelace which could be easily broken ifjerked or snatched from the inmate's neck so as not to choke or cause injury to the inmate.
All medicine bags shallkibe inspected in a proper manner by correctional officers should
they decide to do so when the inmate is either entering or exiting a correctional facility and at any time a correctional officer has reasonable cause to believe contraband andlor items which could be used as a weapon are concealed in a medicine bag (see below regarding training of Corrections personnel).
In the event that a dispute arises as to the return of a specific medicine bag, Plaintiffs
2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 17 of 24
retain the right to petition the Court for its return. 3. CONTENTS OF MEDICINE BAG: Native American inmates shall be allowed to maintain inside their medicine bag all
objects which ~ve a religious significance to the wearer, including, but not limited to, small stones, sand or dirt, feathers, beads, except to the extent that such items are otherwise prohibited herein (i.e.. claws, arrowheads or antlers that exceed the size restrictions set forth herein). Upon reasonable cause and when requested by a correctional officer, a Native American inmate will display all objects in his medicine bag and allow a visual inspection of the inside of the medicine bag as set forth in paragraph 19.
4. VEGETATION: DOC officials shall permit vegetation similar to that currently allowed on the
ceremonial grounds located at Staton Correctional Facility to be grown on the Native American ceremonial grounds. In particular, the inmates shall be allowed to plant and maintain a tree of life (preferably cedar). Additionally, Native American inmates shall be allowed to grow and maintain on the ceremonial grounds one (1) variety of com and up to eight (8) stalks planted at 'least one (1) foot apart, one (1) variety of bean and up to eight (8) plants planted at least one (1) foot apart and one (1) variety of squash and up to eight (8) plants planted at least three (3) feet apart on the designated ceremonial grounds. Flowers and gourds shall also be allowed to be grown by the Native American inmates on the ceremonial grounds for ceremonial purposes.
No vegetation other than one tree of life or any presently existing trees of life shall be allowed to grow to a height greater than four and one half feet, and no vegetation shall be planted in such a manner as to obstruct the view of correctional officers or within ten (10) feet of any perimeter fence of the correctional facility or cause any type of fire hazard to any prison building
3

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 18 of 24
or yard. 5. ACCESS AND TIME ALLOWED ON CEREMONIAL GROUNDS: Native American imnates shall be allowed access to the ceremonial groWlds at all times
the prison yard ~s open to inmates. Additionally, when the prison yard is not open, Native Americans shall have access to 'the ceremonial groWlds at times that the chapel is open or of "chapel call," but not after sunset. Factors that may be considered regarding additional access to the ceremonial grounds are the level of security of the facility, the number of Native American inmates which will use the ceremonial grounds, and the structure of the facility.
6. SIZE OF CEREMONIAL GROUNDS: Native American inmates shall be allowed to have and maintain a ceremonial ground
on each facility in which Native American irunates incarcerated therein. The size and location of the ceremonial grounds is to be determined by factors such as the specific facility, the availability of space, the level of security of the facility and the number of Native American inmates wanting . to use said ceremonial grounds. However, all ceremonial groWlds shall be a minimum of 20' x 20'.
Further, the parties shall re-examine the issue of whether the size of the ceremonial grounds needs to be expanded following the Court's ruling oDitsweat lodges.
7. LOCATION OF CEREMONIAL GROUNDS: Any correctional facility which has Native American irunates shall have an area
designated for use by such Native American inmates as ceremonial grounds. Factors for determining the exact location of the grounds are as follows: judgment of Department of Correction officials of the most appropriate place for the ceremonial grounds, the security level of the facility) the nonnal operation of the facility and flow of inmate traffic at the facility.
4

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 19 of 24
The Department of Corrections shall make a good faith effort to find an alternative location for the ceremonial grounds at Kilby Correctional Facility and DOC officials shall make a good faith effort to find a location for grounds at other DOC facilities currently without grounds so long as there are individuals at the other facilities who wish to practice Native American Spirituality.
8. MEDICINE WHEEL: Native American inmates shall be allowed to maintain a medicine wheel, comprised of stones, upon the ceremonial grounds. The size ofsuch medicine wheel will be dictated by the amount of space available for the ceremonial grounds on each facility and the number ofNative American inmates which will use it. 9. PROVISION OF STORAGE SPACE:
The Department of Corrections shall pennit the Native American groups at each facility to place a box on or adjacent to the ceremonial grounds in which to keep the religious items. The box, similar to that which currently exists on the ceremonial grounds at Staton Correctional Facility, shall be locked by combination Jock. Native American inmates and the appropriate DOC officials shall be provided with the combination to such lock.
10. FEATHERS: The Defendants shall not prohibit Native American inmates from possessing feathers for religious and ceremonial use. Feathers must be kept in the personal property box in their cell or donnitory, and the DOC shall not prohibit the use of feathers on the ceremonial grounds or in the areas used for Native American activities at each facility. Inmates shall be allowed to keep and
maintain With their personal possessions personal prayer fans for use on the ceremonial grounds.
11. MOCCASINS: 5

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 20 of 24
The DOC shall not prohibit Native American inmates from wearing moccasins while on the ceremonial gI'OWlds. The DOC may require that the moccasins be kept with the inmate's personal possessions. on the ceremonial grounds, or with the chaplain.
12. PRAYER PIPES:
Native American inmates shall be allowed to keep and maintain a personal prayer pipe in addition to a prayer pipe for use by the group to be kept by the pipe keeper. The personal prayer pipes are to be used only while on the ceremonial grounds. The DOC shall pennit inmates, according to each inmate's personal preference, to keep the pipes with the personal possessions of the imnate, at the ceremonial grounds, in the area specifically provided for Native American activities, or with the chaplain. Nothing herein prohibits a correctional officer or DOC official from visually inspecting a prayer pipe when there is reasonable cause to inspect the pipe in the manner set forth in paragraph 19 for the inspection of medicine bags and prayer pipes.
13. HERBS: The DOC shan permit Native American inmates to purchase the following herbs: Sage, Sweetgrass, Cedar, IGnnickinnick and Tobacco. All herbs, except tobacco, are to be maintained and kept by the chaplain or in the Shift Commander's office. 14. DRUMS AND RATTLES: The DOC shall pennit Native American inmates to have drums and rattles to be used during ceremonies held on the ceremonial grounds. These items are to be maintained and kept either on the ceremonial grounds or with the Chaplain. At no time will these items be used in a manner which disrupts the normal operation of the correctional facility. 15. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: The DOC shall pennit inmates to possess colored ceremonial items, such as arm bands,
6

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 21 of 24
chokers, and headbands for use in religious practice. The DOC shall require that such items may not be worn, shown or displayed anywhere other than the ceremonial groWlds or in the area specifically provided for Native American activities, and then only for the purposes of practicing Native American spirituality. The DOC shall require such items to be kept on the ceremonial grounds.
16. CEREMONIAL DAYS; The DOC shall pennit irunates to celebrate the following sacred days: the Green Corn Ceremony; the Harvest Moon Ceremony; the winter and summer solstices, and the spring and fall equinoxes. The DOC shall require Native American inmates to notify the chaplain or warden
or the warden's designee twenty days prior to the observance of sacred days. The DOC may
impose the same work proscriptions on Native American sacred days as work proscriptions observed by the Department for the recognized sacred days of other religions.
17. PUBLICATIONSJUTERATURE: The DOC shall impose;no proscriptions on the cultural and spiritual literature allowed to the Native American inmates and shall not require inmates to purchase literature in a particular month of the year. Cultural and spiritual literature shall be evaluated by the DOC on a case-bycase basis to determine if it poses a legitimate threat to the security of the prison. Such literature shall be obtained through the channels and procedures set forth in the applicable regulations compatible with this provision. Nothing herein obligates the DOC to grant rights to Native Americans that inmates who adhere to other recognized religions will not be granted. 18. PURCHASE OF ITEMS: TheDOC shall impose no proscriptions on ordering religious items by the Native American inmates, provided such items do not constitute a legitimate threat to security. Such
7

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 22 of 24
items shall be obtained through the channels and procedures set forth in the applicable regulations compatible with this provision.
19. TRAINING OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ON INSPECTIONS PROCEDURES:
Department of Corrections officials shall be taught the proper procedures for inspecting and viewing all Native American items. Specifically. the Department of Corrections shall train its persoTlllel not to touch the medicine bags or sacred pipes ofthe Native American irunates. Should an officer believe that it is necessary to inspect the contents of a Native American's medicine bag or sacred pipe, the officer shall bring the inmate to the chaplajn's office where the contents of the bag or the pipe can be visually inspected. In the event that the chaplain is not present, the inspection may be perfonned in the presence of the shift commander.
20. RETENTION OF RELIGIOUS ITEMS ON TRANSFER: The DOC shall pennit inmates to keep and retain their religious items in the event they are transferred from one facility to another. In the event an irunate is transferred he shall be given access to the ceremonial grounds to retrieve his religious items. 21. The DOC shall expWlge Doug Bailey's prison record of the disciplinary
he received at Kilby Correctional Facility on or about February 5, 1998, for possession of contraband based on the bear claws attached to his mecticine bag.
22. The DOC shall not prohibit Native American irunates from maintaining a sacred items box in their personal possession so long as the size of such box allows it to be kept within the inmate's locker box or personal possessions.
23. The religious and ceremonial items which were previously possessed by Plaintiffs and do not violate the provisions set forth herein or DOC policy shall be returned. In the event
8

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 23 of 24

that a dispute arises as to the return of specific items of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs retain the right to

petition the Court for their return.

24. The DOC shall pennit Native Americans to possess personal prayer books and

shall pennit Native Americans to keep such books covered with a natural material such as leather or fur so long as the covers slip off easily for review and inspection by correctional personnel.

25. The DOC shall penni! Plaintiffs to maintain and store a talking stick no larger than two feet long and one inch in diameter on the ceremonial grounds of each prison.

26. The Plaintiffs agree not to pursue damage claims for the matters referred to

herein, except that Plaintiffs preserve their damage claims as to the sweat lodge and hair length

requirements issues.

27. The parties stipulate that the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

(PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) eLs.eq..., have been met. The Defendants waive the right to

challenge any order or the enforcement of any order entered by the Court on the ground that the

order fails to comply with the terms of the PLRA. Defendants further agree to waive a challenge

to any award of attorneys' fees on the ground that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the

entitlement to such an award under the PLRA. Defendants reserve the right to argue that the

number ofhours expended were excessive andlor the expenses were excessive and/or that the

hourly rate set forth in the PLRA applies to this case.

28.

The parties hereto were unable to enter stipulations resolving the following

issues:

A. Sweatlodge and its usage and maintenance.

B. Hair length ofNative American inmates. 29. This Stipulation is based on the entire record before the Court in the consolidated
9

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 193 Filed 09/10/99 Page 24 of 24

cases and the additional evidence that the parties anticipated submitting.

/~ ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTlES HERETO on this the ._~_ day of March, 1998.

OF COUNSEL: Sabel & Sabel, P.C. 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-5 Montgomery, AL 36106 (334) 271-2770

¢~~~~tJ~
Mark Sabel (SAB004) Attorney for the Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL: Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P. C. 1901 6rh Ave. North, Suite 2400
Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 254-1074
OF COUNSEL: Graddick & Belser, P.C. P.O. Box 4009 Montgomery, AL 36103-4009 (334) 262-2000

Edward A. Hosp (HOS003) . Attorney for the Plaintiffs
~~Q,~~ Charles A. Graddick (GRA023)
Attorney for Defendants

10

 
 [FILED] Aw I Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 214 Filed 06/12/00 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAHA
NORTHERN DIVISION
JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al.,

JUN 12 2Oo1,,I
CLERK U. S. DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA.

Plaintiffs,

) Civil Action No. 93-D-1404-N V.

LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS, OF ALABAHA - TURTLE WIND CLAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, V.

) Civil Action No. 96-D-554-N

STATE OF ALABAHA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

This cause is now presented to the court on two separate

Recommendations Of The Magistrate Judge, both filed September 10,

1999. The first Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge

("Recommendation One," docket number 192-1) addresses the

following two issues on which the Parties could not reach a

settlement: (1) the Department of Corrections' ("DOC") ban on

the use of a sweat lodge; and (2) the DOC's requirement regarding

hair length. On January 31, 2000, Plaintiffs filed an Objection

to Recommendation One, titled "Objection To The Recommendation Of

E 0 ID ja

-

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 214 Filed 06/12/00 Page 2 of 4 ri
The Magistrate Judge That Is Addressed To The Sweat Lodge And Hair Length Issues" ("P1. 's Objection") .' The second Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge ("Recommendation Two," docket number 193-1) addresses the issues agreed upon by the Parties in their Stipulation filed on March 5, 1998. Neither Party filed an objection to Recommendation Two.
After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Objection to Recommendation One be and the same is hereby OVERRULED and that the Recommendation One be and the same is hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED. Accordingly, it is further CONSIDERED, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Judgment be and the same is hereby ENTERED in favor of Defendants on the sweat lodge and hair length issues.
It is further CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Recommendation Two be and the same is hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED. Accordingly, it is further CONSIDERED, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Judgment be and the same is hereby ENTERED in favor of Plaintiffs in accordance with the findings and conclusions contained in the Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge concerning the issues agreed upon by the Parties in a Stipulation filed on March 5,
'Defendants filed a Brief In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Objections on March 17, 2000. On April 3, 2000, Plaintiffs filed a Reply To Defendants' Brief In Opposition.
2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 214 Filed 06/12/00 Page 3 of 4
1998. Lastly, the court notes that Plaintiffs correctly point out
in their Objection that the Magistrate Judge did not address Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint Without Reproducing The Entire Pleading (Docket Number 188-1) or Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend Complaint To Add A Claim Based On The Newly Enacted Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment (Docket Number 189-1) (collectively, "Motions To Amend")
Under 28 U.S. C. § 1367(c) (1), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the claim "raises a novel or complex issue of State law." The Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment was ratified on January 6, 1999. That amendment prohibits state government from burdening a person's freedom of religion unless the government demonstrates the existence of a compelling governmental interest, and the action taken is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest. The court notes that there is no reported Alabama decision construing this amendment to the Alabama Constitution. After careful consideration, the court declines to delve into how and under what circumstances the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment would constrain, if at all, the responsibilities of the correctional officials under the circumstances of this case. Further, this issue presents a complex question of state constitutional law which no Alabama
3

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 214 Filed 06/12/00 Page 4 of 4

appellate court has addressed, and this court, in the interest of

comity, should not address it in the first instance, see

Chandler v. Miller, 73 F.3d 1543, 1546 n.3 (11th Cir. 1996),

overruled on other grounds, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) . Accordingly, it

is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motions To Amend be

and the same are hereby DENIED.

Done this the

day of June, 2000.

^f LQ&/'*U4t6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 1 of 5

ST1TI IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE ukITED

I LED.

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

I\~ NORTHERN DIVISION

r.' OCl 1 2101.

~f/ JAMES LIMBAUGH, et ai.,

)

CLERK

U S. DIST~ICT COURT

)

MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA.

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-D-1404-N

)

LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS

)

OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND

)

CLAN, et aI.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTIONS, et aI.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-D-554-N

ORDER

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add

claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 (RLUIPA),

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., and claims under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment

to the Alabama Constitution. The RLUIPA amendment is proper by virtue ofthe remand to

this court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit which directed this

court "to determine whether ... [RLUIPA] entitles plaintiffs to the relief they seek ... "

Thus, the court will allow that amendment.

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 2 of 5
However, the amendment to the complaint additionally seeks to add a direct claim
under Amendment No. 622 to the Alabama Constitution, the Alabama Religious Freedom
Amendment,l a claim which has never been considered by any Alabama appellate court.
1Amendment No. 622 provides as follows:
SECTION I. The amendment shall be known as and may be cited as the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment. SECTION II. The Legislature makes the following findings concerning religious freedom: (1) The framers of the United States Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the framers of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, also recognizing this right, secured the protection of religious freedom in Article I, Section 3. (2) Federal and state laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise. (3) Governments should not burden religious exercise without compelling justification. (4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion. (5) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests in areas ranging from public education (pedagogical interests and religious rights, including recognizing regulations necessary to alleviate interference with the educational process versus rights of religious freedom) to national defense (conscription and conscientious objection, including the need to raise an army versus rights to object to individual participation), and other areas of important mutual concern. (6) Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, to establish the compelling interest test set forth in prior federal court rulings, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997),the United States Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional stating that the right to regulate was retained by the states. SECTION III. The purpose of the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is to guarantee that the freedom of religion is not burdened by state and local law; and to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious freedom is burdened by government. SECTION IV. As used in this amendment, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) DEMONSTRATES. Meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion. (2) FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The free exercise of religion under Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. (3) GOVERNMENT. Any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under the color oflaw) of the State of Alabama, any political subdivision of a state, municipality, or other local government. (4) RULE. Any government statute, regulation, ordinance, administrative provision, ruling guideline, requirement, or any statement oflaw whatever. SECTION V. (a) Government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) Government may burden a person's freedom of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) Is in furtherance ofa compelling governmental interest; and (2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 3 of 5
Furthermore, the amendment is one which this court previously has denied because of the
novel issue of state law presented by it. The plaintiffs argue that because the Eleventh
Circuit specifically stated that it did not intend to restrict this court's consideration of any
issues it deems appropriate, this court should allow the amendment. The plaintiffs'
argument, of course, begs the question of whether it is appropriate for the court to consider
the Alabama constitutional question.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), this court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over claims raising "a novel or complex issue of State law." The plaintiffs
request this court to enforce against state officials a recent amendment to the Alabama
Constitution to which no state court has spoken. Aside from the complexity of the issue
presented, forging ahead would place this court in the position of instructing state officials
on the meaning, extent and limitations ofa state constitutional amendment which can be read
to place constraints on official action which far exceed the constraints of federal
constitutional law. Consideration of federalism and comity demand that this court decline
governmental interest. (c) A person whose religious freedom has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. SECTION VI. (a) This amendment applies to all government rules and implementations thereof, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the effective date of this amendment. (b) Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. (c) Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address those portions of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution permitting the free exercise of religion or prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion, or those provisions of Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, regarding the establishment of religion. SECTION VII. (a) This amendment shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial and deterrent purposes. (b) If any provision of this amendment or its application to any particular person or circumstance is held invalid, that provision or its application is severable and does not affect the validity of other provisions or applications of this amendment.

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 4 of 5
to consider the state constitutional law question. This court should not be the first court addressing the difficult question ofthe nature ofthe constraints which the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment places on state prison officials who are charged with the extraordinarily difficult duty of protecting the public through their management of prisons and prison inmates. See e.g. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983) (Prison officials granted wide range of discretion in management ofprisons because of difficulty).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The motion to amend to add claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., is GRANTED, and the plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint consistent with this order on or before October 10,2001. 2. The motion to amend to add claims under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is DENIED. It is further ORDERED as follows: 1. The defendants shall file an answer to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) claims on or before October 30, 2001. 2. On or before November 16, 2001, the parties shall file with the court a joint notification about whether any discovery is necessary on issues raised in the amendment to the complaint. 3. Unless discovery is allowed based on the parties' joint notification, dispositive motions and any supporting evidentiary materials shall be filed on or before December 3,

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 5 of 5
200 1. The movant shall file a brief in support of the motion. This brief may incorporate briefs previously filed. Responsive briefs and any opposing evidentiary materials shall be filed on or before December 17, 200 1, at which time the court will take the motions under advisement without ~or~a:l~a~rg:u:m::en~t~.--::::::;::",....-e!~'=::-'--......
Done this --L!.. day of Oc

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 396 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:93cv1404-A

)

(WO)

)

)

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS

)

OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND

)

CLAN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:96cv554-A (WO)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 21, 2005, plaintiff Irvin, a member of the plaintiff class, filed a motion for

further relief (doc. # 388) in which he request the court to expunge two disciplinaries which

he alleges were placed in his file for retaliatory and discriminatory reasons. He also seeks

damages. For the reasons which follow, the motion for further relief should be denied.

The two disciplinaries Irvin complains about were lodged against him in 2002. Irvin

did not challenge these disciplinary actions until he filed the instant motion for further

relief. Thus, his claim for further relief is due to be denied because it was filed more than

1

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 396 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 3
two years after the accrual of his disciplinary action claims. See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2003).
Irvin suggests that he preserved his claims because they were presented in a pleading filed on August 16, 2002 and because he requested the opportunity to present evidence about retaliation at the December 2004 evidentiary hearing. The August 16, 2002 pleading was a response to an order of the court which had denied a motion for subpoenas and which directed that plaintiffs’ counsel confer with Irvin and report to the court about counsel’s position regarding Irvin’s “motion to withdraw plaintiffs (sic) attorney.” (doc. # 285). The August 16, 2002 pleading was plainly labeled a response to that order.
Irvin never filed on his behalf a motion to amend the complaint to assert his individual disciplinary and retaliation claims. The applicable rule, FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a) requires that
[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, . . . contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. A request to present evidence about perceived wrongs is not consistent with Rule 8's requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim. The pleading does not contain a demand for relief. In short, Irvin could have but did not present a claim for relief about the disciplinary actions until March 2005. That is outside the statute of limitations period. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Irvin’s motion
2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 396 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 3
for further relief be denied. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said
Recommendation on or before September 19, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Done this 6th day of September, 2005.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 400 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:93cv1404-A ) ) ) )

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF

)

ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND CLAN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:96cv554-A

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER No objection having been filed to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #396), filed on September 6, 2005, in which the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion for Further Relief (Doc. #388), filed by the Plaintiff Franklin Irvin, a member of the Plaintiff class, be denied1, the court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Irvin’s Motion for Further Relief is DENIED.

1 In footnote 1 to Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on the Sweat Lodge Issue (Doc. #397), counsel for Plaintiff Irvin advises the court that Plaintiff Irvin has decided not to object to the Recommendation here under consideration.

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 400 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2
DONE this 21st day of September, 2005.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 427 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 4

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:93cv1404-D

)

)

)

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS

)

OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND

)

CLAN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:96cv554-D

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On June 12, 2000, the court entered a comprehensive order and judgment in this

case adopting findings and conclusions set forth in a recommendation of this Magistrate

Judge which incorporated the parties’ stipulation filed March 5, 1998. That stipulation

resolved all issues in the case except claims about the use of a sweat lodge and

restrictions on hair length. As to the two latter issues, the court found for the defendants,

adopting another recommendation of this Magistrate Judge.

On January 9, 2007, five persons who are in custody of the State of Alabama and

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 427 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 4
who allege that they are members of the class of Native American prisoners in this case filed a motion (doc. # 422) for injunctive relief and for contempt. They allege that in March 2006 they were transferred from prisons in Alabama to a private prison facility in Louisiana “under the control of South Louisiana Corrections Services Inc.” The movants allege that the parties they name in the motion are depriving them of rights secured by the Constitution, federal law as well as violating the prior orders of this court securing to them certain rights to practice their Native American religion.
All of the alleged persons who have violated the rights of the plaintiffs as well as the prison facility in which the plaintiffs are now incarcerated are located in the State of Louisiana. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” In deciding whether transfer is appropriate, the court should consider relevant factors which include (1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances. See Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2005).
Except for factors number 7 and 8, all of the factors militate in favor of transfer of 2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 427 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 4
this action to the United States District Court where the plaintiffs are presently incarcerated. Even though this is an action for contempt, there is no reason to believe that the court in Louisiana cannot properly consider the plaintiffs’ claims. Indeed, much of what the plaintiffs complain about relates to prison administrative actions which in the context of the specific situation in Louisiana may justify some restrictions there that would not be applicable elsewhere. In short, the court is Louisiana with its greater familiarity of the area and its people is best situated to make those decisions which involve people, place and documents located there.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 the motion be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. It is further
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before April 2, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon
3

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 427 Filed 03/19/07 Page 4 of 4 grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Done this 19th day of March, 2007. /s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 428 Filed 04/06/07 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:93cv1404-WHA ) ) ) )

ORDER No objection having been filed to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #427), entered on March 19, 2007, the Recommendation is adopted, and it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Contempt Order and Injunction (Doc. #422), filed on January 9, 2007, is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The clerk is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the transfer. DONE this 6th day of April, 2007.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 428-1 Filed 04/06/07 Page 1 of 2
A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on April 9, 2006, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $255.00 to $455.00.
CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST
1. Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:
(a) Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28 U.S.C.§ 158, generally are appealable. A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1 365, 1 368 ( 11th Ci r. 1 983). A magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(b) In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885, 885- 86 (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys’ fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S.196, 201, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 1721-22, 100 L .Ed.2d 178 (1988); LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 1998).
(c) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals are permitted from orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . .” and from “[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.” Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted.
(d) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court’s denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable.
(e) Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F.2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157, 85 S.Ct. 308, 312, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964). Rev.: 4/04

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 428-1 Filed 04/06/07 Page 2 of 2
2. Time for Filing: The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) and (c) set the following time limits:
(a) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 3 must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD – no additional days are provided for mailing. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below.
(b) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): “If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later.”
(c) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion.
(d) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension.
(e) Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.
3. Format of the notice of appeal: Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. See also Fed.R.App.P. 3(c). A pro se notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant.
4. Effect of a notice of appeal: A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

RICKY KNIGHT, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_______________________________________

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:93cv1404-WHA (WO)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND CLAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:96cv554-WHA ) ) ) ) )

ORDER This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #530), entered on July 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs' Objection thereto (Doc. #539), and the Defendants' Response (Doc. #546). The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case and, having done so, concludes that the objections are not well-taken and are due to be overruled.

The Plaintiffs complain that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly deferred to prison officials in a manner inconsistent with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), in concluding that the Defendants carried their burden to demonstrate the existence of a compelling interest in requiring that inmates’ hair be cut short. “The compelling interest standard-under both RLUIPA and the Constitution–is not one of deference but one of proof.” (Pl. Objections at 4-5) Of course, the Defendants have a burden of proof on the compelling interest requirement, and the Recommendation fully discussed that. The Plaintiffs' reliance on Gonzales is misplaced. The question in that case was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibited the government from applying the Controlled Substances Act to ban a religious sect's use of hoasca, a tea containing a hallucinogen, in religious ceremonies. The Court found, as did the courts below, that the government failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate a compelling interest. But Gonzales did not involve prisons, and the Plaintiffs ignore the fact that both RFRA and RLUIPA specifically require a court to defer to prison administrators in considering claims of prisoners.
Much of the Plaintiffs’ objections are devoted to a discussion of least restrictive alternatives and the fact that other prisons permit long hair. But, as noted in the Recommendation, context matters and what happens in other prison systems is beside the point. What the Plaintiffs want is that the court decouple deference from least restrictive alternative so that these are considered in isolation. That is inconsistent with RLUIPA.
2

Much of the Plaintiffs’ objections are devoted to a demonstration that other prisons have different regulations and that none of the Alabama Department of Corrections’s officials’ concerns are valid. For the reasons stated in the Recommendation, the fact that other prison officials handle these questions differently is not determinative.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Alabama Department of Corrections’ argument premised on lack of staff is “chutzpah.” ((Pl. Objections at 49) Put another way, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ lack of ability and money is no reason to violate their rights under RLUIPA. Of course, lack of funding is not an excuse for a denial of rights, but here that is not the question. Rather, the question is whether the Defendants’ hair regulations survive scrutiny under the RLUIPA tests. In applying those tests, the court must do so in a manner which takes into account the reality of Alabama prisons which are facts, not excuses. Those facts inform the answer to whether the regulation meets the compelling interest and least restrictive means requirements. The court agrees with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge, based on the facts, that the Alabama Department of Corrections' regulations restricting inmate hair length do not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' Objections are OVERRULED. 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 3. Final Judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendants and this case DISMISSED with prejudice.
3

DONE this 8th day of March, 2012. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 27

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:93cv1404-WHA

)

(WO)

)

)

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS

)

OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND

)

CLAN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:96cv554-WHA

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The plaintiffs in this case1 are prisoners incarcerated in the Alabama Department of

1 The court consolidated this case with one initially filed in the Northern District of Alabama entitled, Native American Prisoners of Alabama v. Alabama Department of Corrections, 94-U-186-NE. See Docs. # 92 & 135. The inmate organization which filed this lawsuit objected to the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC’s”) refusal to provide them with a ceremonial ground, a sweat lodge, sacred plants, and other objects necessary to the practice of their Native American spirituality.
1

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 27
Corrections (“ADOC”) who are adherents of Native American religion and are challenging, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADOC’s policies restricting inmate hair length.
This is not the first time these plaintiffs have been before this court. The plaintiffs initially filed suit on November 24, 1993. An evidentiary hearing was held on February 9, 1998, and concluded on February 13, 1998. After the 1998 hearing, the parties announced to the court that they had settled all issues except for the ban on sweat lodges and the ADOC’s hair length regulations. See Doc. # 193. On June 12, 2000, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and entered judgment in favor of the defendants on the sweat lodge and hair length issues. See Doc. # 214. The plaintiffs appealed this decision2 to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See Doc. # 218.
During the pendency of the appeal, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. Based on the potential applicability of RLUIPA to this case, the Eleventh Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand “to permit the district court to determine . . . whether the new federal statute entitles plaintiffs to the relief that they seek.” See Doc. 235.
The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add claims under RLUIPA. See Doc. # 255. After a brief period of discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting brief. See Docs. # 281 & 282. The parties also stipulated that additional evidentiary hearings were not necessary. Id. The court then
2 See the September 10, 1999 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 192) and the district court’s June 12, 2000 order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. # 214).
2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 3 of 27
affirmed its conclusion that the ADOC’s restriction on inmate hair length was the least
restrictive means of furthering its compelling governmental interests in prison safety and
security, and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this issue. See Docs.
# 309 and 317.
The plaintiffs again appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
See Doc. # 408. The Eleventh Circuit subsequently remanded this case for further
development of the record.
With regard to plaintiffs’ hair-length-restriction claims, we conclude that on the present record factual issues exist as to whether, inter alia, the defendants’ total ban on the wearing of long hair and denial of an exemption to the plaintiffs based on their Native American religion is “the least restrictive means of furthering [the defendants’] compelling governmental interest[s]” in security, discipline, hygiene and safety within the prisons and the public’s safety in the event of escapes and alteration of appearances. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(2). In addition, we note that the evidentiary record relating to the hair-length claims is over ten years old and that, in the intervening time, prison staffing and administration, prison safety and security, and the prison population in Alabama have changed. We, thus, vacate and remand to the district court for a full evidentiary hearing and bench trial, following which the district court shall make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Lathan v. Thompson, 251 Fed. Appx. 665, 666 (11th Cir. 2007).3
3 On April 21, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Sossamon v. Texas ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1651 (2011). On April 22, 2011, the court directed the parties to brief the effect, if any, Sossamon, supra has on the issues pending before the court. After careful review and consideration, the court concludes that Sossamon, supra, has no impact on the issues before the court. Sossamon concluded that States that accept federal funds do not waive their sovereign immunity for the purpose of monetary damages claims under RLUIPA, 565 U.S. at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 1655. Consequently, the defendants are immune from monetary damages in their official capacities.
More importantly, however, all of the plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages have previously been dismissed.
As to plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because RLUIPA was not enacted until long after this lawsuit
3

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 4 of 27
The sole remaining issue before the court in this most recent chapter of this litigation is whether the ADOC’s policies restricting inmate hair length pass muster under RLUIPA.4
The defendants argue that the policies restricting hair length are in furtherance of and are the
least restrictive means of furthering their compelling governmental interests in security,
order, safety, and health. The inmates argue that the record clearly supports the conclusion
that the ADOC’s policies are not the least restrictive means of furthering those compelling
governmental interests.
After a lengthy evidentiary hearing and careful review of the briefs and evidence filed
in support of and in opposition, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have made a prima
facie showing that they are sincere adherents of Native American spirituality whose religious
exercise has been substantially burdened by the ADOC’s policies restricting inmate hair
length. The court further finds that the ADOC’s restriction on inmate hair length is the least
restrictive means of furthering its compelling governmental interests in prison safety and
security.
began and the law with regard to Native American inmates’ rights to hold sweat lodge ceremonies under RLUIPA or the Constitution was not clearly established at the time the sweat-lodge ban was implemented. Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity with regard to plaintiffs’ official capacity claims. Lathan, 251 Fed. Appx. at 666. For the same reasons, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the plaintiffs’ hair length claim. 4 None of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims remain before the court. Even if the constitutional claims remained, the plaintiffs would be entitled to no relief. Because the regulations survive RLUIPA, they also survive a constitutional challenge. “If a prison regulation passes muster under RLUIPA, however, it will perforce satisfy the requirements of the First Amendment, since RLUIPA offers greater protection to religious exercise than the First Amendment offers.” Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1264 fn 5 (11th Cir. 2007).
4

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 5 of 27
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
The substantive portions of RLUIPA provide that “[n]o government shall impose a
substantial burden on the religious exercise” of prisoners unless the government can
demonstrate that the burden both serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least
restrictive means of advancing that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). See also Cutter v.
Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 712 (2005).
To establish a prima facie case under Section 3, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he engaged in a religious exercise, and (2) that the religious exercise was substantially burdened by a government practice. See [Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255], 1276 [(11th Cir. 2007)]. “The plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion on whether the government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the exercise of religion.” See id. (quotation marks, alteration, and ellipsis omitted). If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the government must show that the challenged government practice is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-1(a), 2000cc-2(b)). Context matters in the application of the compelling governmental interest standard. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 2123, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005). The standard is applied with “due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.” Id.
Muhammad v. Sapp, 388 Fed. Appx. 892, 895 (11th Cir. 2010).
The plaintiffs bear the initial burden of demonstrating that by maintaining and wearing
their hair long, they are engaged in a religious exercise, and that the defendants’ grooming
policies substantially burden that exercise. If the court determines that the challenged prison
regulations substantially burden an inmate’s religious expression, the burden then shifts to
5

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 6 of 27
the defendants to prove that the regulations further a compelling governmental interest. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1). The defendants must first establish the existence of a
compelling governmental interest. The court then evaluates whether a defendant’s policies
satisfy RLUIPA’s requirement that they be the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(2).
Although the defendants bear the burden of proof on the compelling interests and the
least restrictive means prongs of the Act, the law is well established that prison officials are
entitled to deference on issues relating to good order, security and discipline.5
We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety. Our decisions indicate that an accommodation must be measured so that it does not override significant interests. . . . While the Act adopts a “compelling governmental interest” standard, see supra, at 2118, “[c]ontext matters” in the application of that standards. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 327, 123 S.Ct. 2325,
5 The standard of review of the defendants’ regulations has evolved since the inception of this lawsuit. When the activities which ultimately resulted in the filing of this lawsuit occurred, the rational-basis test outlined in O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987), was the indisputable standard for evaluating prison regulations which affected a prisoner’s ability to freely practice his or her religion. The O’Lone standard permits the promulgation of policies restricting a prisoner’s free exercise of religion if the regulation is “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” 482 U.S. at 349.
Shortly before this lawsuit was filed, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et. seq. Congress’ stated purpose in enacting this legislation was to create a more favorable standard of review for plaintiffs challenging policies burdening the free exercise of religion. Under the standard outlined in RFRA, prison officials could promulgate policies which substantially burden the free exercise of religion only if the regulation was “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), declared RFRA unconstitutional and resurrected the rational basis test articulated in O’Lone.
Congress, in response, enacted RLUIPA and adopted the “compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means” standard emphasizing the need to “apply the Act’s standard with “due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures, to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.” Cutter, 544 U.S. at 723.
6

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 7 of 27
156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003). Lawmakers supporting RLUIPA were mindful of the urgency of discipline, order, safety, and security in penal institutions. See, e.g., 139 CONG. REC. 26190 (1993) (remarks of Sen. Hatch). They anticipated that courts would apply the Act’s standard with “due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures, to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.” JOINT STATEMENT 16699 (quoting S. REP. NO. 103-111, at 10, U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN. NEWS 1993, pp 1892, 1899, 1900).
Cutter, 544 U.S. at 722-23 (footnotes omitted) (alterations in original).
The court is mindful of its responsibility to avoid substituting its own judgment for
that of prison administrators. It is not the court’s duty to select on its own the least restrictive
alternative but rather to defer, within reason, to the judgment of prison administrators. DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145 (5th Cir. 2011). See also Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528
(2006) (“As Overton [v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003)], . . . pointed out, courts owe
“substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators.”)
IV. DISCUSSION (1) Jurisdictional Requirement One method of satisfying RLUIPA’s jurisdictional requirement involves a
determination of whether the allegedly substantially burdensome prison regulations are imposed in a “program or activity” which receives federal financial assistance.6 See 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(b)(1). The parties do not dispute that the ADOC receives a percentage
of funding from the federal government for various programs and projects implemented in
6 Because jurisdiction is established under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(b)(1), the court does not address the alternate method of establishing jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(b)(2).
7

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 8 of 27
the prison system. Consequently, the court finds that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within RLUIPA’s jurisdictional ambit.
(2) The Prima Facie Case (a) Religious exercise. The plaintiffs resist cutting their hair on religious grounds. Consequently, the plaintiffs are required to demonstrate that their preference for unshorn hair is a religious exercise of Native American spirituality which is substantially burdened by the ADOC’s policies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b). RLUIPA defines the term “religious exercise” as including “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A) (emphasis added). See also Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2007) (“religious exercise” broadly defined). In this case, the unrebutted testimony demonstrates, and the court finds, that a preference for unshorn hair is a central tenet of Native American spirituality and thus, satisfies the Act’s broad definition of a religious exercise. Relying on Deward Walker (“Walker”), the plaintiffs’ proffered expert on Native American religious practices, the court finds that unshorn hair is of utmost importance to those adhering to a traditional Native American lifestyle.7 Plaintiffs Douglas Darkhorns Bailey and Michael Clem testified at the 2009 evidentiary hearing. After careful consideration of their testimony, the court makes the
7 Although Walker indicated that not all Native Americans wear their hair long, he also testified that “forcible cutting of a contemporary American Indian’s hear would be about as severe a threat to the person as you can possibly imagine.” (Evid. Hrg. Tr., Jan. 21, 2009, R. 91). The court finds that long hair has religious significance to American Indians and cutting that hair, as Walker testified, is “an assault on their sacredness.” (Id. at 92, 100).
8

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 9 of 27
following findings of fact. Cutting of Native Americans’ hair has spiritual and religious significance. Prison regulations requiring short hair diminish the ability of the plaintiffs to approach their Creator with honor.8 Cutting their hair detracts from their abilities to practice their religion, because when their hair has been cut, they feel separated and disconnected spiritually during their religious ceremonies. (Evid. Hr’g. Tr. at 9-11, 28). For example, one plaintiff cut his hair very short as a sign of mourning when his mother died. (Id. at 27).
The defendants do not challenge the centrality of these religious beliefs nor do they question the plaintiffs’ sincerity. Moreover, the record clearly supports, and the court finds, that unshorn hair cannot reasonably be interpreted as merely a preference which the plaintiffs have conveniently labeled as religious for purposes of this litigation. Based on RLUIPA’s expansive definition of religious exercise and the testimony in this case which establishes that the plaintiffs sincerely believe that unshorn hair is integral to the practice of their religion, the court concludes that the ADOC regulations at issue in this case affect the plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.
(b) Substantial burden. The next question for the court is whether the prison regulations “substantially burden” the inmates’ religious exercise. In Midrash Sephardi, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit explained that
“substantial burden” requires something more than an incidental effect on religious exercise. . . . [A] “substantial burden” must place more than an inconvenience on religious exercise; a “substantial burden” is akin to
8 See Evid. Hrg. Tr., Douglas Darkhorns Bailey, Jan. 21, 2009, R. 9-13; Evid. Hrg. Tr., Thomas Adams, Jan. 21, 2009, R. 45-47; Evid. Hrg. Tr., Franklin Running Bear Irvin, Jan. 21, 2009, R. 52-54.
9

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 10 of 27
significant pressure which directly coerces the religious adherent to conform his or her behavior accordingly. Thus, a substantial burden can result from pressure that tends to force adherents to forego religious precepts or from pressure that mandates religious conduct. Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004). Stated
another way, “the governmental action must significantly hamper one’s religious practice.”
Smith, 502 F.3d at 1277.
The court finds that the involuntary cutting of the plaintiffs’ hair substantially burdens
the practice of their religious exercise. (Evid. Hr’g Tr., Thomas Otter Adams, R. 46).
Plaintiff Adams described the cutting of his hair as “severely” impacting his ability to
practice his religion. (Id. at 47).
...[W]hen we set there in ceremony and our effort is to get a prayer through with a prayer pipe, all of our ceremonies are connected. All way of living, our religion, beliefs that it’s the circle. If there is part of that missing, when we meet the Creator then we stand before Him with shame on our face. I don’t want to meet my Creator with that shame on my face.
It’s that way in the prisons. I don’t want to meet my Creator with that shame on my face. That I haven’t lived the truth. That I haven’t lived the traditional way of life. I may never get out of prison again. This is my only chance. . . . There are great consequences, eternal consequences, Eternal consequences for not doing that.
(Id.)
Plaintiff Michael Clem testified that cutting his hair was a substantial burden on the
practice of his religious exercise.
Q: And how serious a burden is it for you and your religious practices to have to cut your hair?
A: Well, I’m cutting off a part of myself. I mean, the Creator, GOD, give
10

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 11 of 27
me the hair for me, to help in my spirituality. It’s part of my condition, not just with God, but with everything, all creation. If I start cutting my hands off, my toes, my feet, the same with my hair. Q: But does your hair have – that has an additional significance, an additional spiritual religious significance to you, is that correct? A: Well, its hard to explain, actually, the symbolics of it, because like I said, it’s like my energy source. It’s how I connect with everything. It’s like if somebody asks me to do a sweat, I tell them I am not capable of doing it. I mean, instead of doing a two hour ceremony I may do it fifteen minutes because I have so much negative, I have so much animosity. (Id. at 29). Plaintiff Franklin Running Bear Irvin testified that “the growing of our hair in the spiritual sense is a connection between us and Our Creator and the spirit world. To sever that connection would hinder and burden because it would sever that spiritual connection, just like the cutting of Mother Earth’s hair.” (Id. at 53). Thus, the court finds that cutting the hair of adherents of Native American religion substantially burdens the practice of their religious exercise. The defendants argue that prison regulations restricting inmate hair length are not substantially burdensome because the ADOC permits Native American inmates to participate in a panoply of other religious practices. In short, the ADOC argues that the substantial burden inquiry does not focus on a specific or isolated religious practice, like hair length, but on whether the plaintiffs’ ability to comprehensively practice their Native American spirituality is substantially burdened.
11

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 12 of 27
As already noted, the court finds that long hair is a central tenet of Native American spirituality of which the plaintiffs are sincere adherents. Additionally, the court finds that the ADOC’s restrictive policies prevent the plaintiffs from exercising fundamental religious beliefs. Accordingly, the court concludes that, as a matter of law, the ADOC’s curtailment of these religious practices substantially burden the plaintiffs’ Native American spirituality.
In reaching this conclusion, the court rejects the ADOC’s position that the plaintiffs are not substantially burdened because prison officials allow them to exercise their Native American spirituality through other means. This argument is based on an assumption that all aspects of Native American spirituality are interchangeable and of equal importance. This assumption is clearly unsupported by the record, and contrary to the court’s findings of fact. The ADOC’s interpretation of the “substantial burden standard,” which would permit prison officials with limited knowledge and familiarity with Native American spirituality to unilaterally determine the interchangeability of various religious practices despite expert testimony to the contrary, is inconsistent with RLUIPA’s purpose of prohibiting frivolous or arbitrary rules restricting inmate religious practices. See S. REP. NO. S7775 (July 27, 2000). The existence of alternate expressions of Native American spirituality does not obviate the centrality of the religious practices at issue in this case. Cf., Blanken v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 944 F. Supp. 1359, 1365-1366 (S.D. Ohio 1996) (rejecting defendant’s claim that plaintiff was not substantially burdened based on the availability of other religious practices).
Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have satisfied their prima facie
12

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 13 of 27
burden of demonstrating that the ADOC’s regulations restricting hair length substantially burdens the practice of their Native American spirituality.
3. Application of the Compelling Interests and Least Restrictive Means Prongs With the plaintiffs having established that the ADOC’s policies substantially burden the plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion, the burden now shifts to the defendants. They must prove that the grooming restrictions further a compelling governmental interest and that those restrictions are the least restrictive means of furthering those compelling interests. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)(2). a. Compelling Interests. The ADOC identified several compelling interests that are furthered by enforcing hair length restrictions including security and order, discipline, safety, health, hygiene and sanitation, and prevention of the introduction of contraband. In accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s remand, the court held an evidentiary hearing on January 21, 22 and 23, 2009.9 Based on the testimony at the hearing and the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings of fact which establish the context for applying the laws. In September 2008, the jurisdiction population10 of the ADOC
9 At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties requested additional time to file post-hearing briefs. Thereafter, Thunderhorse v. Pierce, 364 Fed. Appx. 141 (5th Cir. 2010), a RLUIPA case involving forced hair cuts, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The case was held over and the Solicitor General’s opinion was sought before certiorari was denied. ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 896 (Jan. 10, 2011).
Also pending before the United States Supreme Court was Sossamon v. Texas, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3319 (May 24, 2010). On April 21, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Sossamon v. Texas, concluding that States that accept federal funds do not waive their sovereign immunity for the purpose of monetary damages claims under RLUIPA, 565 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 1655 (2011).
10 Jurisdictional population is defined as “all inmates serving time within ADOC facilities/programs, as well as in the custody of other correctional authorities, such as county jails, other State DOCs, Community
13

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 14 of 27
was 29,959 inmates.11 See Defs’ Ex. 8.12 The ADOC houses 25,303 inmates.13 Id. ADOC
facilities are designed to hold 13,403 inmates. (Id.). Consequently, the number of inmates
being housed by the ADOC exceeds the statewide design capacity by 188.8%. At the end
of 2007, “all correctional institutions housed nearly double the number of inmates that the
facilities were designed to hold.” (Defs’ Ex. 9 at 19, Evid. Hr’g.). The statewide
overcrowding index was at 196.5%. (Id.) In addition, disciplinary actions increased by 62%
in 2007; there were 18,226 disciplinaries issued that year. (Id. at 20).
While the prisons remained overcrowded, the ADOC was also understaffed.
Although the ADOC added 440 correctional personnel during 2007, it also lost 332 officers.
(Id. at 33). In 2007, the ADOC was authorized 3672 correctional officers but could only fill
2675 positions. Consequently, the ADOC was operating at a shortfall of 997 correctional
personnel which equates to a vacancy in one of every four positions. (Id. at 34).
Correction Programs, Federal Prisons, and Privately Leased Facilities.” See Page 1, Alabama Department of Corrections, Monthly Report, Legend.
11 According to their website, the inmate population of the ADOC on June 15, 2011, was 28,043 male inmates and 2332 female inmates for a total of 30,375 inmates. (http://www.doc.state.al.us/inmsearch.asp).
12 Defendants’ Exhibit 8 is the ADOC’s September 2008 Monthly Statistical Report. It was admitted into evidence at the hearing without objection. The ADOC also publishes on its website current monthly reports. The February 2011 monthly report indicates a jurisdictional population of 31,885, with 26,628 inmates in custody and 25,320 inmates housed in ADOC facilities. (http://www.doc.state.al.us/docs/MonthlyRpts/2011-02.pdf) A review of the monthly reports from 2009 until February 2011 demonstrate that the number of inmates housed by the ADOC has increased during that time period. (http://www.doc.state.al.us/reports.asp)
13 Inmates housed by the ADOC are those inmates in custody and located within correctional facilities owned and operated by the ADOC. See Page 1, Alabama Department of Corrections, Monthly Report, Legend.
14

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 15 of 27
Between 1997 and 2007, the inmate population of the ADOC increased by 23%; it added 6478 inmates.14 Except for the years 2000 and 2004, the number of admissions to the ADOC outpaced the number of releases by almost 5000 offenders. (Id. at 35). Finally, almost 50% of inmates were incarcerated for felonies against persons. (Id.)
The law is well established that security, order, and discipline are compelling governmental interests. See Cutter, 544 U.S. at 722-23 (security concerns constitute compelling governmental interests); Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989) (security, order and rehabilitation are compelling governmental interests); Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 512 (2005) (prison security and discipline are compelling governmental interests).
The defendants first argue that the compelling governmental interest in security is furthered by being able to quickly and correctly identify inmates. The hair length restrictions promote and are necessary to enable the defendants to maintain this security interest. Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that long hair can be used by inmates to alter their appearance to prevent or hinder identification.15 Long hair impedes the ability of officers to
14 The only year the population of the ADOC did not increase was 2004, and the reason for that decrease was the convening of a second parole board charged with increasing the number of non-violent offenders on parole. (Defs’ Ex. 9, at 35, Evid. Hr’g).
15 The plaintiffs argued extensively that a less restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest of identification would be through the purchase and use of the Photoshop computer program which allows a user to manipulate a digital photograph. According to the plaintiffs, Photoshop would allow the ADOC to manipulate inmate photographs to predict any potential alteration to an inmate’s appearance in the case of escape. Beyond the practical matters of cost and training, the use of Photoshop does not alleviate the ADOC’s compelling governmental interest in swift, accurate identification of inmates who are incarcerated.
15

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 16 of 27
quickly identify inmates moving through the prison yard, dining halls and dormitory areas.
Officers are better able to correctly identify inmates when their hair is shorter. (Evid. Hr’g
Tr. at 61). The need to identify inmates quickly and accurately is heightened when the
prisons are operating with a shortage of correctional officers. Additionally, the court finds
that hair length can be used by inmates to identify with “special groups” including gangs.
(Id. at 26). The grooming policies enable prison administrators to reduce gang association
by requiring all inmates to have short hair. Thus, the court concludes that the defendants have demonstrated a compelling governmental interest in security16 that is furthered by the
accurate and swift identification of inmates.
The defendants also argue that preventing weapons and other contraband from
entering the prisons promote the compelling governmental interests of security and order. The court finds that long hair can be used as a means of hiding weapons17 or other
contraband. There is an increased likelihood that inmates with long hair could more easily
16 In Cutter, the Court found that preventing violence in prisons is a compelling governmental interest. 544 U.S. at 723, fn. 11. Gang affiliations often result in violence. Thus, the hair length restrictions, which impede the inmates’ abilities to associate with gangs, further the compelling governmental interest of preventing violence.
17During the evidentiary hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs brought out evidence that the hair length regulation was different for women prisoners than men. The plaintiffs argue that sex based differential application of a hair length regulation demonstrates that any asserted security reason is false. The plaintiffs ignore testimony presented during the hearing which shows that male prisoners constitute a greater threat than female prisoners. Furthermore, the female inmate population is significantly lower than the male inmate population. For example, the Julia Tutweiler Prison for Women housed 729 female inmates in 2007 while the majority of male inmate facilities each exceeded 1000 inmates. (Defs’ Ex. 8, Evid. Hr’g).
Both the Third and Sixth Circuits have concluded that differential hair length regulations in prisons are constitutionally permissible. Dreibelbis v. Marks, 742 F.2d 792, 795-96 (3rd Cir. 1984); Pollock v. Marshall, 845 F.2d 656, 659-60 (6th Cir. 1988).
16

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 17 of 27
conceal in their hair weapons including pieces of razors or wires, as well as other types of contraband. Requiring correctional officers to search long hair for contraband or weapons constitutes a safety and health hazard to the correctional officers. The court also finds that requiring inmates to search their own hair does not assuage this concern because an inmate secreting contraband in long hair can manipulate the search to avoid detection of the contraband. Long hair exacerbates the difficulty of and length of time necessary to search for contraband, which is of particular concern to the ADOC because of their reduced number of correctional officers. The court therefore concludes that the defendants have demonstrated that the compelling governmental interests in security and order are furthered by the hair length restrictions which prevent “the secreting of contraband or weapons in hair or beards.” Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 504 (11th Cir. 1996).
Based on the record before the court, including the testimony of Gwendolyn Mosley, the Institutional Coordinator for the ADOC, Ronald Angelone, the defendants’ expert witness, and Warden Culliver, the court finds that hair length restrictions further the compelling governmental interest in security by allowing the defendants to maintain control, order, and discipline in the prisons.
Order is the fabric that any system runs by . . . The strands that bring it together are the policies and procedures that are put into place for safety, security and health reasons to be able to run that environment so that everyone, from every waking moment that an individual is living there or working there, they know exactly what to expect, and then they make their own individual decisions on how they are going to react to those policies and procedures. And by reacting correctly in a mature manner, whether its those living there or those working there, is able to provide an orderly system for people to exist in
17

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 18 of 27
a safe environment. (Id. at 45).
The plaintiffs suggest in their brief that the defendants did not introduce evidence that security concerns support the hair length regulations. This suggestion is simply incorrect. The court finds that inmates today are “younger, bolder and meaner” and it is necessary to instill discipline and order to control these inmates because violence is prevalent in prisons. (Evid. Hr’g Tr. at 29). Furthermore, the court finds that long hair is a danger because it can be used in a fight. For example, an inmate could “grab a handful” of hair, pull and cause serious injury. (Id. at 69). Mosley testified that “long hair creates problems . . . [in] fights, [inmates] can pull the hair.” (Id. at 27). Angelone testified that long hair is a safety and security concern during fights. (Id. at 52).
The court also finds that ADOC is presently understaffed and overcrowded.18 Mosley testified that the ratio of correctional officers to inmates is presently 10 to 1. (Id. at 28). In light of staff shortfalls, the court finds that maintaining order and discipline in the prisons is critical to ensuring safety for staff and inmates.19 Uniformity within the institutions also instills discipline and promotes order by exercising some control over the inmates. (Id. at 146, 148, 153, 158).
18 Although the parties argued about the methodology and applicability of staffing studies, it was undisputed that Alabama prisons are overcrowded and understaffed.
19 As previously noted, in 2007, the ADOC personnel had initiated 18,226 disciplinary actions against inmates.
18

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 19 of 27
We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety. Our decisions indicate that an accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests. Cutter, 544 U.S. 722 (emphasis added). The court concludes therefore that the ADOC has demonstrated a compelling governmental interest in security and order that encompasses maintaining a safe and controlled environment. The court also finds that the ADOC’s grooming policies promote health, hygiene and sanitation which further compelling governmental interests in cost containment and health care costs which are a significant concern in the current economic environment.20 See Muhammad, 388 Fed. Appx. at 896-97. See also DeMoss, 636 F.3d at 153. The court finds that the hair length restrictions promote cleanliness and reduce health care costs. Angelone testified that inmates with long hair have found cysts and sores on their heads, and on at least one occasion, an inmate found a spider living in his hair. (Id. at 52). The court finds that short hair promotes health and hygiene by making it easier to detect infections and infestations as well as reduce the spread of infections and infestations. (Id. at 33). Reduced infections and infestations also reduce the ADOC’s health care costs. Thus, the court
20 The court can take judicial notice of the current economic climate, including the budgetary woes of the State of Alabama. “A fact may be judicially noticed only if it is not subject to reasonable dispute, either because it is generally known within the district court's territorial jurisdiction or because it can be accurately and readily determined using sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Gregory, 2009 WL 205549, *2 (11th Cir. 2009). See also FED.R.EVID. 201(b) (“A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. . .”)
19

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 20 of 27
concludes that the hair length restrictions further the compelling governmental interests in cost containment and health care costs.
Clearly, Alabama has compelling governmental interests in security and safety in their correctional facilities. The grooming policies that restrict hair length further those interests by maintaining order and discipline, preventing violence, hindering the introduction of contraband into the prisons, and enabling the prompt and accurate identification of inmates. The hair length restrictions also promote the health, hygiene and sanitation of its inmates which reduces health care costs and furthers the defendants’ compelling governmental interest in cost containment and reducing health care costs. These policies are especially compelling in the context of prisons which are overcrowded and understaffed. Thus, the court concludes that the ADOC has demonstrated compelling governmental interests in the areas of security and order, and cost containment and reduction of health care costs.
It may appear to some that it is ironic for the court to conclude that overcrowding in Alabama’s prisons is in part a justification for holding that the plaintiffs’ rights under RLUIPA may be curtailed. In other words, it is ironic that a constitutional violation can justify a statutory violation. But the irony would truly exist only if overcrowding alone were a constitutional violation. Plainly it is not. Overcrowding of prisons is not per se unconstitutional. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347-50 (1981); Collins v. Ainsworth, 382 F.3d 529, 540 (5th Cir. 2004).
Some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation “in combination” when each would not do so alone, but only when
20

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 21 of 27
they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise - for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991). Brown v. Plata, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1910 (2011), is not to the contrary. Plata cannot be read to hold that overcrowding alone is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The three judge panel’s order affirmed by the Court required a reduction in California’s prison system’s population to 137.5% of design capacity. Had the Court found overcrowding itself to be a Constitutional violation, it could not have approved a remedy that permitted continued overcrowding. Rather, the Court found that medical and mental health care in California’s prisons were Constitutionally inadequate and that efforts to remedy that violation were frustrated by overcrowding. Overcrowding has overtaken the limited resources of prison staff; imposed demands well beyond the capacity of medical and mental health facilities; and created unsanitary and unsafe conditions that make progress in the provision of care difficult or impossible to achieve. The overcrowding is the “primary cause of the violation of a Federal right,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(E)(I), specifically the severe and unlawful mistreatment of prisoners through grossly inadequate provision of medical and mental health care. Plata, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. at 1923. Indeed, Plata’s litany of the ills suffered by California’s prison system supports the court’s conclusion in the instant case. The consequences of overcrowding in California’s prisons include (1) increased, substantial risk for transmission of infectious illness, (2) a
21

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 22 of 27
suicide rate approaching an average of one per week, (3) failure to provide even minimal treatment to mentally ill inmates, and (4) severely deficient medical treatment for physical illnesses including the infliction of unnecessary pain. Plata holds that overcrowding in California’s prisons was the cause of these unconstitutional conditions and prevented implementing a remedy for them. As the court has explained, the overcrowded and understaffed prisons in Alabama increase the difficulties prison guards face daily in controlling inmates and securing order within the prisons. Adopting the plaintiffs’ position could exacerbate the consequences of overcrowding by placing increased pressure on already strained security measures. Congress through RLUIPA surely did not intend such a result.
b. Least restrictive means. Finally, the court concludes that the defendants have demonstrated that the grooming policies are the least restrictive means to further the compelling governmental interests in security and order and cost containment and reduction in health care costs. Courts have consistently held that prison grooming regulations restricting inmate hair length are the least restrictive means of advancing compelling governmental interests in maintaining prison security and order. See Brunskill v. Boy, 141 Fed. Appx. 771 (11th Cir. 2005) (prison policies requiring plaintiff to cut hair did not violate RLUIPA); Harris, 97 F.3d at 504. The hair length restrictions are the least restrictive means of maintaining uniformity, impressing order and discipline on prison inmates, preventing gang affiliation and reducing prison violence, hindering the introduction of contraband into the prisons, and enabling the prompt and accurate identification of inmates. The hair length
22

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 23 of 27
restrictions are also the least restrictive means of promoting the health, hygiene and sanitation of its inmates and furthers the defendants’ compelling governmental interest in cost containment and reducing health care costs.
More importantly, the court is bound by the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Harris v. Chapman, supra. Harris was decided under RFRA, but RLUIPA essentially adopts RFRA’s compelling interest/least restrictive means standard, and the plaintiffs have not otherwise distinguished the facts of this case. The court is compelled to follow Harris and other cases applying RFRA to regulations as well as RLUIPA cases. In Harris, the court upheld the Florida Department of Corrections policy which mandated that all inmates have their hair cut short to medium length. Id. In explaining its reasoning, the court indicated “we are unable to suggest any lesser means than a hair length rule for satisfying these interests . . . . we thus join these courts in finding that a reasonable hair length regulation satisfies the least restrictive means test.” Harris, 97 F.3d at 504.
In addition, Harris’s holding is consistent with decisions of other courts which hold that prison grooming regulations restricting inmate hair length are the least restrictive means of advancing the substantial governmental interest in maintaining prison security and order. Almost every court21 that has considered hair length restrictions have upheld prison hair
21 In Warsoldier v. Woodford, the Ninth Circuit held that the California Department of Corrections’ grooming policy “intentionally puts significant pressure on such inmates as [the plaintiff] to abandon their religious beliefs by cutting their hair, [and thus,] . . . imposes a substantial burden on [the plaintiff’s religious practice.” 418 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005). This case is inapposite to the case at bar. The parties do not argue in the case before the court that the ADOC grooming policies pressure inmates to abandon their religious beliefs.
23

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 24 of 27
length restrictions as permissible under RLUIPA. See DeMoss, supra (Texas state prison grooming policies do not violate RLUIPA); Thunderhorse, supra (hair length policies were least restrictive means of protecting State’s compelling interest in maintaining security, and thus, did not violate RLUIPA); Williams v. Snyder, 367 Fed. Appx. 679 (7th Cir. 2010) cert denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 343 (2010); Smith v. Ozmint, 396 Fed. Appx. 944 (4th Cir. 2010) (grooming policy least restrictive means to further compelling governmental interest); Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008) (hair length policies for men do not violate RLUIPA); Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1555, n. 12 (8th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases); Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2007) (prison system’s hair length policies do not violate RLUIPA). See generally Smith v. Kyler, 295 Fed. Appx. 479, 483 (3rd Cir. 2010) (“DOC has demonstrated that the restrictions [regarding paid chaplains to certain groups] are the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest.”); Gooden v. Crain, 353 Fed. Appx. 885 (5th Cir. 2009) (grooming regulations requiring inmates to be clean shaven are least restrictive means of furthering compelling governmental interest in security and do not violate RLUIPA); Couch v. Jabe, 5:10cv72 (W.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2011) (same).
The plaintiffs argue that numerous other jurisdictions and the Federal Bureau of Prisons permit long hair.22 The fact that other jurisdictions permit long hair is insufficient
22 On April 8, 2011, the United States filed a Statement of Interest (doc. # 523) urging the court to require the defendants to “formulate a new policy that accounts for Defendants’ obligations under RLUIPA.” (Doc. # 523 at 2). The court notes that the United States filed its Statement of Interest over two years after the evidentiary hearing, and almost a year after briefing was complete. However, the United States simply
24

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 25 of 27
by itself to demonstrate that the ADOC’s grooming policies are not the least restrictive means of furthering compelling governmental interests in this state.
Although prison policies from other jurisdictions provide some evidence as to the feasibility of implementing a less restrictive means of achieving prison safety and security, it does not outweigh the deference owed to the expert judgment of prison officials who are infinitely more familiar with their own institutions than outside observers. Hamilton, 74 F.3d at 1557 n. 15 (8th Cir. 1996); Fegans, 537 F.3d at 905.
The court must apply RLUIPA “in an appropriately balanced way, with particular sensitivity to security concerns.” Cutter, 544 U.S. at 722. “Context matters” when determining whether the defendants have demonstrated that the hair length restrictions are the least restrictive means of further compelling governmental interests being “mindful of the urgency of discipline, order, safety, and security in penal institutions.” Id. at 723. Here, the context is what occurs in Alabama’s prisons, not prisons in other places. The court has carefully considered the evidentiary material, arguments and briefs of the parties, and finds that the ADOC’s grooming regulations are the least restrictive means to further the compelling governmental interests in security and order in Alabama’s overcrowded, understaffed and underfunded prisons.
In reaching this conclusion, the court is cognizant of its duty to accord “due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with
regurgitates the plaintiffs’ arguments, referencing the parties’ briefs. Argument of counsel is of course not a substitute for evidence.
25

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 26 of 27
consideration of costs and limited resources.” Id. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the prison officials. See Hoevenaar v. Lazaroff, 422 F.3d 366, 370-71 (6th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the ADOC’s regulations restricting inmate hair length do not violate RLUIPA.
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is as follows: 1. That the Court find that the Alabama Department of Corrections’ policies restricting inmate hair length does not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. 2. That the Court enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs; and 3. That the Court dismiss this action with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before July 25, 2011. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the
26

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 530 Filed 07/11/11 Page 27 of 27 Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Done this 11th day of July, 2011. /s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 1 of 5

STlrl IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE ukrTED

I LED.

"~ FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERNDIVISION

,- .• QCJ 1 2101.

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al.,

)

~f/ CLERK

U S. DIST~ICT COURT

)

Plaintiffs,

)

MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA.

)

v.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-D-1404-N

)

LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS

)

OF ALABAMA- TURTLE WIND

)

CLAN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-D-554-N

ORDER

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add

claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 (RLUIPA),

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., and claims under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment

to the Alabama Constitution. The RLUIPA amendment is proper by virtue ofthe remand to

this court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit which directed this

court "to determine whether ... [RLUIPA] entitles plaintiffs to the relief they seek ... "

Thus, the court will allow that amendment.

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 2 of 5
However, the amendment to the complaint additionally seeks to add a direct claim
under Amendment No. 622 to the Alabama Constitution, the Alabama Religious Freedom
Amendment, 1 a claim which has never been considered by any Alabama appellate court.
1Amendment No. 622 provides as follows:
SECTION I. The amendment shall be known as and may be cited as the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment. SECTION II. The Legislature makes the following findings concerning religious freedom: (1) The framers of the United States Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the framers of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, also recognizing this right, secured the protection of religious freedom in Article I, Section 3. (2) Federal and state laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise. (3) Governments should not burden religious exercise without compelling justification. (4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion. (5) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests in areas ranging from public education (pedagogical interests and religious rights, including recognizing regulations necessary to alleviate interference with the educational process versus rights of religious freedom) to national defense (conscription and conscientious objection, including the need to raise an army versus rights to object to individual participation), and other areas of important mutual concern. (6) Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, to establish the compelling interest test set forth in prior federal court rulings, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997),the United States Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional stating that the right to regulate was retained by the states. SECTION III. The purpose of the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is to guarantee that the freedom of religion is not burdened by state and local law; and to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious freedom is burdened by government. SECTION IV. As used in this amendment, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) DEMONSTRATES. Meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion. (2) FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The free exercise of religion under Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. (3) GOVERNMENT. Any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under the color of law) of the State of Alabama, any political subdivision of a state, municipality, or other local government. (4) RULE. Any government statute, regulation, ordinance, administrative provision, ruling guideline, requirement, or any statement oflaw whatever. SECTION V. (a) Government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) Government may burden a person's freedom of religion only if it demonstrates that application ofthe burden to the person: (1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 3 of 5
Furthermore, the amendment is one which this court previously has denied because of the
novel issue of state law presented by it. The plaintiffs argue that because the Eleventh
Circuit specifically stated that it did not intend to restrict this court's consideration of any
issues it deems appropriate, this court should allow the amendment. The plaintiffs'
argument, of course, begs the question of whether it is appropriate for the court to consider
the Alabama constitutional question.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(l), this court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over claims raising "a novel or complex issue of State law." The plaintiffs
request this court to enforce against state officials a recent amendment to the Alabama
Constitution to which no state court has spoken. Aside from the complexity of the issue
presented, forging ahead would place this court in the position of instructing state officials
on the meaning, extent and limitations ofa state constitutional amendment which can be read
to place constraints on official action which far exceed the constraints of federal
constitutional law. Consideration of federalism and comity demand that this court decline
governmental interest. (c) A person whose religious freedom has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. SECTION VI. (a) This amendment applies to all government rules and implementations thereof, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the effective date of this amendment. (b) Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. (c) Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address those portions of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution permitting the free exercise of religion or prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion, or those provisions of Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, regarding the establishment of religion. SECTION VII. (a) This amendment shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial and deterrent purposes. (b) If any provision of this amendment or its application to any particular person or circumstance is held invalid, that provision or its application is severable and does not affect the validity of other provisions or applications of this amendment.

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 4 of 5
to consider the state constitutional law question. This court should not be the first court addressing the difficult question ofthe nature ofthe constraints which the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment places on state prison officials who are charged with the extraordinarily difficult duty of protecting the public through their management of prisons and prison inmates. See e.g. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983) (Prison officials granted wide range of discretion in management ofprisons because of difficulty).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The motion to amend to add claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., is GRANTED, and the plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint consistent with this order on or before October 10, 2001. 2. The motion to amend to add claims under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is DENIED. It is further ORDERED as follows: 1. The defendants shall file an answer to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) claims on or before October 30, 2001. 2. On or before November 16, 2001, the parties shall file with the court a joint notification about whether any discovery is necessary on issues raised in the amendment to the complaint. 3. Unless discovery is allowed based on the parties' joint notification, dispositive motions and any supporting evidentiary materials shall be filed on or before December 3,

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 255 Filed 10/01/01 Page 5 of 5
2001. The movant shall file a brief in support of the motion. This brief may incorporate briefs previously filed. Responsive briefs and any opposing evidentiary materials shall be filed on or before December 17, 2001, at which time the court will take the motions under advisement without ~or~a:l~a~rg:u:m::en~t~.--::::::;::,.-.-e!~'=::-'--......
Done this _j!_ day of Oc

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 434 Filed 10/05/07 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES LIMBAUGH, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

__________________________________ )

)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF )

ALABAMA-TURTLE WIND CLAN, et al.,)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPT. OF

)

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 2:93cv1404-WHA
Civil Action No. 2:96cv554-WHA (WO)

ORDER

This cause is before the court on a Motion to Intervene (Doc. # 432) and a Motion for an

Emergency Restraining Order (Doc. #433) filed by Malcolm S. Driskill, Jr. on October 4, 2007.

This case was closed and Final Judgment entered by the court on September 13, 2006

(Doc. #403). Therefore, the Motion to Intervene is due to be DENIED. In addition, the Motion

for an Emergency Restraining Order involves the state prison located in Bibb County, which is

outside of this district. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion to Intervene (Doc. #433) is DENIED.

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 434 Filed 10/05/07 Page 2 of 2 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to set up a separate lawsuit and file for the Motion for
Emergency Restraining Order (Doc. #433), which will then be transferred to the appropriate district by separate Order of this court. Done this 5th day of October, 2007.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 434-1 Filed 10/05/07 Page 1 of 2
A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on April 9, 2006, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $255.00 to $455.00.
CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST
1. Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:
(a) Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28 U.S.C.§ 158, generally are appealable. A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1 365, 1 368 ( 11th Ci r. 1 983). A magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(b) In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885, 885- 86 (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys’ fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S.196, 201, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 1721-22, 100 L .Ed.2d 178 (1988); LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 1998).
(c) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals are permitted from orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . .” and from “[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.” Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted.
(d) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court’s denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable.
(e) Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F.2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157, 85 S.Ct. 308, 312, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964). Rev.: 4/04

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 434-1 Filed 10/05/07 Page 2 of 2
2. Time for Filing: The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) and (c) set the following time limits:
(a) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 3 must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD – no additional days are provided for mailing. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below.
(b) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): “If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later.”
(c) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion.
(d) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension.
(e) Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.
3. Format of the notice of appeal: Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. See also Fed.R.App.P. 3(c). A pro se notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant.
4. Effect of a notice of appeal: A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 245 Filed 08/13/01 Page 1 of 1

== r··~---

•

IN

THE

:oMU~ ..$:tATES

COURT

OF

~.P~ EALsU.S.

FILED COURT OF

APPEALS

~ E t,; t: I V t:. U

'

ElEVENTH CIRCUIT

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT1

• AUG t 3 P 2= 142

j

AUG 1 0 2001

~ ·

t,A P. HACKEJI, CUi
S. DISTRICT BOOttl-3

6

9

9

-BB

r·:UOLE DISTRICT ALA

THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

RICKY KNIGHT, FRANKLIN IRVIN, ET AL.,

LFILED1

versus

Plaintiffs-Appellants,
-~AUS 1 3 2001}!1S.

LESLIE THOMPSON, in his individual capacity, DONALD PARKER, ET AL.,

I

CLERK

U. S. DISTRICT COURT

i.. MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA. l

Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

BEFORE:

CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and PROPST*, District Judge.

BY THE COURT:

Appellants' motion to remand the issue of appellate attorneys'·

fees to district court for disposition when and if Appellants

prevail on the merits of their claims is GRANTED.

Appellants' alternative motion for an extension of time to

file

their motion

for

appellate

attorneys' fees is DENIED AS
ATa~e Cop}- A~~es!cd: C.,."' l...:dlaf tr;'JH'·J' . 1·I'-~-:.. J-lr,t..t,....Hr. rll..:",'_",~ll"l":,!i.,l"l~
Jr:v&J~ ~h Circ~lit

MOOT.

By:....f..,j~~~~~---­
* The Honorable Robert B. Propst, U.S. Northern District of Alabama~tting by

 
 251 Fed.Appx. 665 This case was not selected for publication in the
Federal Reporter. Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter See
Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Eleventh Circuit Rules 36-2, 36-3. (Find CTA11 Rule 36-2 and Find CTA11
Rule 36-3) United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Matthew LATHAN, et al., Plaintiffs, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Billy
Two Feathers Jones, sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Autry Little Ra Daughtry, sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey,
Michael Clem, United States of America, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v.
Leslie THOMPSON, in his individual capacity, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Chaplain, Willie
Johnson, Dewayne Estes, et al., Defendants– Appellees.
No. 06–15587. | Oct. 19, 2007.
Synopsis Background: Inmates, who adhered to Native American religion, brought action challenging on various constitutional grounds and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) the state Department of Corrections’ policies restricting hair length and prohibiting sweat lodge ceremonies. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted summary judgment to government defendants on their hair length restriction claims and dismissed sweat lodge claims. Inmates appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals held that:
[1] inmates’ claims challenging policy prohibiting sweat lodge ceremonies were moot;
[2] inmates were not entitled to monetary relief on their sweat lodge claims; and

[3] genuine issue of material fact as to whether Department’s total ban on long hair was least restrictive means of furthering compelling governmental interest precluded summary judgment.
Affirmed in part; reversed, vacated and remanded in part.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*666 Mark Sabel, Sabel & Sabel, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Catherine Y. Hancock, Michael S. Raab, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Joseph David Steadman, Dodson & Steadman, P.C., Mobile, AL, for Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 93–01404– CV–N.
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs, inmates who are adherents to the Native American religion, challenge on various constitutional grounds and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., the Alabama Department of Corrections’ policies restricting hair length and prohibiting sweat lodge ceremonies. Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s September 29, 2003 order granting summary judgment to the defendants on their hair-lengthrestriction claims and the district court’s September 14, 2006 order dismissing their sweat-lodge claims.
[1] After review and oral argument, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ sweat-lodge claims as moot. In December 2004, the Alabama Department of Corrections changed its policy and now permits inmates who declare Native American spirituality as their religion to participate in sweat lodge ceremonies four times a year. It is undisputed that, since December 2004, sweat lodge ceremonies have been held repeatedly pursuant to the new policy. We thus conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot and that plaintiffs have failed to rebut the presumption that these
1

public defendants’ objectionable behavior will not recur. See Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections, 382 F.3d 1276, 1282–83 (11th Cir.2004).
[2] As to plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because RLUIPA was not enacted until long after this lawsuit began and the law with regard to Native American inmates’ rights to hold sweat lodge ceremonies under RLUIPA or the Constitution was not *667 clearly established at the time the sweat-lodge ban was implemented. Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity with regard to plaintiffs’ official capacity claims.
[3] With regard to plaintiffs’ hair-length-restriction claims, we conclude that on the present record factual issues exist as to whether, inter alia, the defendants’ total ban on the wearing of long hair and denial of an exemption to the plaintiffs based on their Native American religion is “the least restrictive means of furthering [the defendants’] compelling governmental interest[s]” in security, discipline, hygiene and safety within the prisons and in
	   	  

the public’s safety in the event of escapes and alteration of appearances. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a)(2). In addition, we note that the evidentiary record relating to the hair-length claims is over ten years old and that, in the intervening time, prison staffing and administration, prison safety and security, and the prison population in Alabama have changed. We, thus, vacate and remand to the district court for a full evidentiary hearing and bench trial, following which the district court shall make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In summary, we affirm the district court’s September 14, 2006 order dismissing plaintiffs’ sweat-lodge claims. We vacate the district court’s September 29, 2003 order entering summary judgment on plaintiffs’ hair-lengthrestriction claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
	  

2

 
 Knight v. Thompson, 135 S.Ct. 1173 (Mem) (2015)
135 S.Ct. 1173 Supreme Court of the United States Ricky KNIGHT, et al., petitioners,
v. Leslie THOMPSON, et al.
No. 13–955. |
Jan. 26, 2015.
Case below, 723 F.3d 1275.
Opinion
End	  of	  Document	   	  

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 853, ––– L.Ed.2d ––– – (2015).
All Citations
135 S.Ct. 1173 (Mem)
	  
	  

1

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

RICKY KNIGHT, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_______________________________________

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:93cv1404-WHA (WO)

NATIVE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF ALABAMA - TURTLE WIND CLAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:96cv554-WHA ) ) ) ) )

ORDER This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #530), entered on July 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs' Objection thereto (Doc. #539), and the Defendants' Response (Doc. #546). The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case and, having done so, concludes that the objections are not well-taken and are due to be overruled.

The Plaintiffs complain that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly deferred to prison officials in a manner inconsistent with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), in concluding that the Defendants carried their burden to demonstrate the existence of a compelling interest in requiring that inmates’ hair be cut short. “The compelling interest standard-under both RLUIPA and the Constitution–is not one of deference but one of proof.” (Pl. Objections at 4-5) Of course, the Defendants have a burden of proof on the compelling interest requirement, and the Recommendation fully discussed that. The Plaintiffs' reliance on Gonzales is misplaced. The question in that case was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibited the government from applying the Controlled Substances Act to ban a religious sect's use of hoasca, a tea containing a hallucinogen, in religious ceremonies. The Court found, as did the courts below, that the government failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate a compelling interest. But Gonzales did not involve prisons, and the Plaintiffs ignore the fact that both RFRA and RLUIPA specifically require a court to defer to prison administrators in considering claims of prisoners.
Much of the Plaintiffs’ objections are devoted to a discussion of least restrictive alternatives and the fact that other prisons permit long hair. But, as noted in the Recommendation, context matters and what happens in other prison systems is beside the point. What the Plaintiffs want is that the court decouple deference from least restrictive alternative so that these are considered in isolation. That is inconsistent with RLUIPA.
2

Much of the Plaintiffs’ objections are devoted to a demonstration that other prisons have different regulations and that none of the Alabama Department of Corrections’s officials’ concerns are valid. For the reasons stated in the Recommendation, the fact that other prison officials handle these questions differently is not determinative.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Alabama Department of Corrections’ argument premised on lack of staff is “chutzpah.” ((Pl. Objections at 49) Put another way, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ lack of ability and money is no reason to violate their rights under RLUIPA. Of course, lack of funding is not an excuse for a denial of rights, but here that is not the question. Rather, the question is whether the Defendants’ hair regulations survive scrutiny under the RLUIPA tests. In applying those tests, the court must do so in a manner which takes into account the reality of Alabama prisons which are facts, not excuses. Those facts inform the answer to whether the regulation meets the compelling interest and least restrictive means requirements. The court agrees with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge, based on the facts, that the Alabama Department of Corrections' regulations restricting inmate hair length do not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' Objections are OVERRULED. 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 3. Final Judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendants and this case DISMISSED with prejudice.
3

DONE this 8th day of March, 2012. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 1 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 1 of 27

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 12-11926 ________________________
D. C. Docket Nos. 2:93-CV-01404-WHA-CSC, 2:96-cv-00554-WHA-CSC

RICKY KNIGHT, et al.,

versus

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

LESLIE THOMPSON, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama _________________________
(July 26, 2013) Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District Judge.
* Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 2 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 2 of 27
SCHLESINGER, District Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are male inmates in the
custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). They wish to wear their hair unshorn in accordance with the dictates of their Native American religion, but an ADOC policy forbids them from doing so. Plaintiffs brought this suit against the ADOC and several other defendants (collectively “ADOC”), challenging the ADOC’s hair-length policy on various constitutional grounds and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. The United States has intervened on Plaintiffs’ behalf. After a full evidentiary hearing and bench trial, the District Court made several findings of fact and entered judgment in favor of the ADOC. Because the ADOC carried its RLUIPA burden to demonstrate that its hair-length policy is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling governmental interests, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND The ADOC requires all male prison inmates to wear a “regular hair cut,” defined as “off neck and ears.” Dkt. 471. The ADOC does not grant any exemptions to this policy, religious or otherwise. Dkt. 474 p. 146. Plaintiffs seek
2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 3 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 3 of 27
a complete religion-based exemption to the male hair-length policy.1 Plaintiffs seek this exemption because wearing long hair is a central tenet of their religious faith. No plaintiff is a maximum-security inmate.
A. Procedural History This is the third time that this case has come before this Court. Plaintiffs initially filed suit on November 24, 1993, challenging on various constitutional grounds and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) the ADOC’s policies restricting hair length and prohibiting sweat lodge ceremonies. After entry of summary judgment for the ADOC, Plaintiffs appealed to this Court. Dkt. 218. During that appeal’s pendency, Congress responded to the Supreme Court’s partial invalidation of the RFRA by enacting the RLUIPA, and this Court therefore remanded this case to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Dkt. 235. After Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add claims under the RLUIPA and the Parties engaged in a brief period of additional discovery, the District Court again granted summary judgment to the ADOC. Dkt. 317. Plaintiffs appealed again, and this Court affirmed the judgment of the
1 Three of Plaintiffs seek, in the alternative, a more narrow exemption to wear a kouplock—a two-inch wide strip of hair beginning at the base of the skull and stretching down the back. However, because Plaintiffs first raised their kouplock argument in their objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and because the District Court did not consider the kouplock argument when it ruled on the report and recommendation, Plaintiffs have waived the issue. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (district courts have discretion to decline to consider arguments that are not presented to the magistrate judge).
3

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 4 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 4 of 27
District Court as to all but Plaintiffs’ hair-length restriction claims. As to the hair-
length claims, however, this Court concluded:
[O]n the present record factual issues exist as to whether, inter alia, the defendants’ total ban on the wearing of long hair and denial of an exemption to the plaintiffs based on their Native American religion is “the least restrictive means of furthering [the defendants’] compelling governmental interest[s]” in security, discipline, hygiene and safety within the prisons and in the public’s safety in the event of escapes and alteration of appearances. In addition, we note that the evidentiary record relating to the hair-length claims is over ten years old and that, in the intervening time, prison staffing and administration, prison safety and security, and the prison population in Alabama have changed.
Lathan v. Thompson, 251 Fed. App’x 665, 667 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal citation
omitted, second and third alterations in original). This Court, therefore, vacated
the District Court’s judgment as to the hair-length claims and remanded the case
for a full evidentiary hearing and bench trial, “following which the district court
shall make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id.
B. The Evidentiary Hearing and Bench Trial on Remand
On remand, Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody held an evidentiary hearing
and bench trial. Dkts. 471, 474–76. Plaintiffs proffered undisputed testimony
regarding the burden that the ADOC hair-length policy placed on their religious
practices. They also presented undisputed testimony that a strong majority of U.S.
jurisdictions permit inmates to wear long hair, either generally or as an
4

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 5 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 5 of 27
accommodation for religious inmates.2 A witness for Plaintiffs skilled in the use of Photoshop, a computer program used to digitally alter images, testified that corrections officers could easily be trained to alter inmate images to assist in the identification of escaped long-haired inmates. Finally, George Sullivan, Plaintiffs’ main witness, testified that his tours and audits of 170 correctional facilities and extensive past employment experience in several prison systems that permit long hair led him to conclude that the ADOC does not need to deny religious exemptions to accomplish its stated goals for its short-hair policy. In support of his conclusion, Sullivan opined that inmates have many other locations where they can more easily store contraband (e.g., socks, stitching areas in clothes, gloves, jackets, etc.), long hair does not impede inmate identification, and long hair does not pose any health risks if inmates follow basic hygiene procedures. Dkt. 474 at pp. 121–38, 143–44; Dkt. 475 at pp. 6–29, 118–58; Dkt. 476 at pp. 7–9, 11–29.
The ADOC’s witnesses nonetheless asserted that its policy is necessary to accomplish several compelling goals, including the prevention of contraband, facilitation of inmate identification (both during the usual course of prison business and after escapes), maintenance of good hygiene and health, and facilitation of
2 These jurisdictions are: the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the correctional systems of approximately 38 states, and the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. Dkt. 475 at p. 133.
5

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 6 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 6 of 27
prison discipline through uniformity. Aside from figures demonstrating that Alabama’s prisons have become increasingly over-crowded, under-funded, and under-staffed in recent years, the ADOC’s witnesses offered little statistical evidence to support their claims. But they did offer elucidating expert opinions, lay testimony, and anecdotal evidence based on their decades of combined experience as corrections officers.
For example, Warden Grantt Culliver testified that permitting long hair would slow the process of searching inmates for contraband, increase the risk that inmates could grab each other by the hair during fights, and give inmates an additional location to hide small items like handcuff keys on their person. He also testified that granting religious exemptions to Native American inmates would erode discipline and likely cause the ADOC’s over-worked staff to stop enforcing the policy against non-exempt inmates. As to hygiene, Culliver recounted an incident in which an inmate developed a fungus on his scalp that remained hidden from view until his hair was cut. Dkt. 474 at pp. 124–32, 144–46, 162–68.
Gwendolyn Mosley, institutional coordinator of the ADOC’s southern region and past warden of various ADOC institutions, similarly testified that the hair-length restrictions reduce inmates’ ability to hide contraband, assist inmate identification, reduce the time and difficulty of conducting shake-downs and
6

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 7 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 7 of 27
searches, and prevent inmates from pulling each other’s hair during fights. She further testified that exempting only certain inmates from the policy would allow them to identify as a special group and form gangs, eroding order and control. Finally, like Warden Culliver, Mosley testified that the grooming policy promotes health and hygiene. Dkt. 475 at pp. 5–10, 16–38.
Warden Tony Patterson echoed many of Culliver’s and Mosley’s concerns about Plaintiffs’ requested exemption from the short-hair policy. Patterson testified that the hair-length policy facilitates the detection of contraband and assists with prompt inmate identification, both during day-to-day operations and in the event of an escape. He further testified that a generally applicable policy with no exemptions fosters discipline, and if the ADOC were required to grant exemptions, officers would have trouble enforcing the policy due to the difficulty of readily identifying which inmates are entitled to the exemption. Finally, Patterson testified concerning a September 2008 escape of two inmates, whose subsequent capture was accomplished by distributing pictures of the inmates to the public. Dkt. 475 at pp. 92–97, 103–05.
However, it was Ronald Angelone, former director of several state prison systems, who provided the most thorough defense of the ADOC’s hair length policy. While serving as the director of Virginia’s then-chaotic prison system,
7

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 8 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 8 of 27
Angelone had begun enforcing, in response to security and health concerns, an exceptionless grooming policy for male inmates that required all haircuts to be one inch or shorter.3 Angelone specified several reasons for why he chose to enforce the grooming policy, chief among which was the 1999 escape of a “very dangerous” Virginia prison inmate who had cut his hair to alter his appearance. The inmate was discovered three or four days after his escape, but the haircut had so significantly changed his appearance that Angelone would not have been able to identify him from the photograph that the prison released to local police departments. Angelone also testified that a review of institutional reports confirmed that inmates had hidden ice picks, handcuff keys, wires, bolts, and other contraband items in their hair. He further recounted one incident in which prison staff cut their hands on a hidden razor blade while searching an inmate’s hair. Angelone testified that the short-hair policy reduced the time needed to search inmates, and inmates were aware that officers often will not run their hands through their hair for fear of sharp objects. Angelone further asserted that inmates can grab each other by the hair during fights, and non-exempt inmates might attack exempted inmates out of jealousy for their special long-hair privilege. Turning to the asserted health and hygiene hazards of long hair, he described an incident in
3 The policy had allowed female inmates to wear shoulder-length hair, however, on the rationale that they posed a lesser risk of violence and escape than male inmates.
8

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 9 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 9 of 27
which a black widow spider wove a nest in an inmate’s dreadlocks, and he noted that long hair had also concealed some inmates’ scalp sores, cysts, and tumors. In sum, Angelone opined that his short-hair policy was a factor in his successful restoration of order and control in Virginia’s prison system. Dkt. 475 at pp. 46–54, 64–68, 73–74.
Although the ADOC’s witnesses combined to offer a strong defense of the short-hair policy, they did make several concessions on cross-examination. They admitted that the ADOC allows female inmates to wear shoulder-length hair. They also conceded that they had never worked in—or reviewed the policies of—prison systems that allow long hair, either generally or as a religious exemption. Finally, none of the ADOC’s witnesses could point to any instances where an inmate had attacked an exempted long-haired inmate out of jealousy or grabbed long hair during a fight. Dkt. 475 at pp. 46–54, 64–68.
C. The District Court’s Decision After the evidentiary hearing and bench trial, Magistrate Judge Coody issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that recommended entry of judgment in favor of the ADOC. Dkt. 530. On the basis of exhibits admitted during the trial and in accordance with this Court’s directions on remand, the Magistrate Judge made several factual findings that painted the current context of this case. First, he
9

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 10 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 10 of 27
found that in September 2008, the ADOC housed 25,303 inmates—almost 189% of the statewide design capacity of the ADOC’s facilities. Second, he found that disciplinary actions increased by 62% in 2007 alone, and nearly 50% of the ADOC’s inmates were serving time for felonies against persons. Third, he found that the ADOC’s overcrowded prisons are also under-staffed and under-funded, with approximately one in every four correctional personnel positions remaining vacant. Finally, he found that between 1997 and 2007, the number of admissions to the ADOC outpaced the number of releases by almost 5000 inmates each year, except for the years 2000 and 2004.
Judge Coody also made specific factual findings with regard to male inmates’ hair length, resolving disputes largely in the ADOC’s favor. He found that inmates can use long hair to alter their appearances, long hair impedes the ability of officers to quickly identify inmates in the prisons, and inmates can use long hair to identify with special groups, including gangs. Implementing a Photoshop program for logging and manipulating digital photographs of inmates would raise practical concerns of cost and training, he found, and in any event would not assist in the identification of inmates inside the prisons. He further found that long hair provides an additional location for inmates to conceal weapons and contraband, and correctional officers risk injury from hidden weapons when
10

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 11 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 11 of 27
searching long hair. He also found that inmates can manipulate self-searches of their hair, and permitting inmates to have long hair would make searches for contraband more difficult and more lengthy. In addition, he found that uniformity within the ADOC’s institutions instills discipline and promotes order by allowing officers to exercise control over inmates, and maintaining discipline and order is important because violence is prevalent in the ADOC’s prisons. He specifically found, quoting Mosley’s conclusory testimony, that the inmates incarcerated in the ADOC today are “younger, bolder and meaner” than those of previous years. He concluded that inmates can grab other inmates’ long hair during fights. All these security problems are worse for male inmates than female inmates, he found, because male facilities are more over-crowded than female facilities, and males pose greater security risks than females. Finally, Judge Coody found that requiring inmates to keep their hair short enables corrections officers to more easily detect infections and infestations and prevent their proliferation.
As to his conclusions of law, Judge Coody concluded that the ADOC’s hairlength policy substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. He went on to conclude, however, that the ADOC had carried its RLUIPA burden and shown that its hair-length policy is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interests in security, safety, control, order, uniformity, discipline, health, hygiene,
11

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 12 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 12 of 27
sanitation, cost-containment, and reducing health care costs. That conclusion was compelled, he reasoned, by this Court’s decision in Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996), which upheld a Florida Department of Corrections short-hair policy under the statutory predecessor to the RLUIPA. Judge Coody additionally noted that several of our sister circuits have, in a variety of contexts, sustained prison grooming regulations in the face of RLUIPA challenges. Magistrate Judge Coody then rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the widespread adoption of permissive grooming policies in other jurisdictions should, by itself, invalidate the ADOC’s grooming policy. He reasoned that the practices of other jurisdictions are some evidence—but are by no means dispositive evidence—of the feasibility of less restrictive measures, and the Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts to defer to the reasoned judgments of prison officials when applying the RLUIPA.
The District Court adopted Magistrate Judge Coody’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and overruled Plaintiffs’ objections, noting that “context matters,” “what happens in other prison systems is beside the point,” and Judge Coody appropriately took into account staffing and funding shortages as part of the “context” of the case. Dkt. 549 at pp. 2–3. Furthermore, according to the District Court, Plaintiffs’ heavy reliance on the practices of other jurisdictions mistakenly “decouple[s] deference [to prison officials] from [the RLUIPA’s] least
12

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 13 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 13 of 27
restrictive alternative” prong. Id. at 2. The District Court therefore adopted the
R&R and entered judgment in favor of the ADOC. Dkts. 549, 550. Plaintiffs then
initiated this appeal. Dkt. 556.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review the District Court’s factual determinations for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. In particular, we will conduct a de novo review of the
District Court’s overall legal determination that the ADOC’s hair policy comports
with the RLUIPA. Cf. Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502, 511–12 (11th Cir. 1996)
(“Whether the Rule comports with [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] is a
pure question of law, and is subject to de novo review by this Court.”); accord
Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1552 (8th Cir. 1996); Hoevenaar v. Lazaroff,
422 F.3d 366, 368 (6th Cir. 2005); McRae v. Johnson, 261 Fed. App’x 554, 557
(4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Friday, 525 F.3d 938, 949 (10th Cir. 2008); Garner v. Kennedy, 713 F.3d 237, 242 (5th Cir. 2013).4
A factual finding is clearly erroneous “if the record lacks substantial
4 We acknowledge that Lawson identified a policy’s validity under the statutory predecessor to the RLUIPA as a “pure question of law.” Lawson, 85 F.3d at 512. In this appeal, however, Plaintiffs attack not only the District Court’s overall legal determination that the ADOC’s shorthair policy comports with the RLUIPA, but also the factual findings upon which the District Court rested its ultimate legal conclusion. This appeal, therefore, presents a mixed question of law and fact, and we will review the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo. Accord Garner, 713 F.3d at 242; Hamilton, 74 F.3d at 1552; McRae, 261 Fed. App’x at 557; Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897, 905 and n.2 (8th Cir. 2008).
13

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 14 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 14 of 27
evidence to support it” or we are otherwise “left with the impression it is not the truth and right of the case”—“a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Lincoln v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 697 F.2d 928, 939–40 (11th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). As to the weighing of evidence, a District Court may weigh competing expert testimony but may not arbitrarily ignore expert testimony; rather, “some reason must be objectively present for ignoring expert opinion testimony.” United States v. Hall, 583 F.2d 1288, 1294 (5th Cir. 1978).5 In addition, an evidentiary error is harmless if it “had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” United States v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036, 1048 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. DISCUSSION A. The RLUIPA Standard Congress enacted the RLUIPA as a response to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), and City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). In Smith, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause typically does not shield religiously motivated conduct from the burdens of generally applicable laws. 494
5 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
14

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 15 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 15 of 27
U.S. at 878–79. Congress responded three years later by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). In an effort to restore the level of protection that religious observances enjoyed before Smith, the RFRA commanded that “government”—including state and local governments—“shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless such a burden met a “compelling governmental interest” and “least restrictive means” test. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. In Flores, the Supreme Court declared the RFRA’s application to the States unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power. 521 U.S. at 532–36.
Mindful of the adage “where there’s a will, there’s a way,” Congress responded to Flores with the RLUIPA, predicating its enactment not only on its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, but also on its Spending and Commerce powers. Less sweeping than the RFRA, the RLUIPA targets only two areas: land-use regulation and institutions that receive federal funds. Borrowing the RFRA standard almost entirely, with respect to its protection of institutionalized persons, the RLUIPA commands that:
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person—
15

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 16 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 16 of 27
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). The Act broadly defines “religious exercise” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Id. § 2000cc-5(7)(A). Under the RLUIPA, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove that the challenged law, regulation, or practice substantially burdens his exercise of religion. Once a plaintiff has made this prima facie showing, the defendant bears the burden to prove that the challenged regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Id. § 2000cc-2(b); Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011). Although the RLUIPA protects, to a substantial degree, the religious observances of institutionalized persons, it does not give courts carte blanche to second-guess the reasoned judgments of prison officials. Indeed, while Congress enacted the RLUIPA to address the many “frivolous or arbitrary” barriers impeding institutionalized persons’ religious exercise, it nevertheless anticipated that courts entertaining RLUIPA challenges “would accord ‘due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators.’” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 716–17 (2005) (quoting 146 Cong. Rec. 16698, 16699 (2000) (joint
16

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 17 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 17 of 27
statement of Sens. Hatch and Kennedy on the RLUIPA)). The Supreme Court has
cautioned that “[w]e do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious
observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety,” and “an
accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant
interests.” Id. at 722. The Court further instructed:
We have no cause to believe that RLUIPA would not be applied in an appropriately balanced way, with particular sensitivity to security concerns. While the Act adopts a “compelling governmental interest” standard, context matters in the application of that standard. Lawmakers supporting RLUIPA were mindful of the urgency of discipline, order, safety, and security in penal institutions. They anticipated that courts would apply the Act’s standard with due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.
Id. at 722–23 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This deference is
not, however, unlimited, and “policies grounded on mere speculation, exaggerated
fears, or post-hoc rationalizations will not suffice to meet the act’s requirements.”
Rich v. Secretary, Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 716 F.3d 525, 533 (11th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Application of the RLUIPA Standard to this Case
The ADOC does not dispute that its hair-length policy substantially burdens
Plaintiffs’ religious exercise, nor could it. Plaintiffs’ expert on Native American
spirituality offered extensive, undisputed testimony that long hair has great
17

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 18 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 18 of 27
religious significance for many Native Americans, and each Plaintiff confirmed that his desire to wear unshorn hair stemmed from deep religious convictions. Plaintiffs’ expert further gave an uncontradicted opinion that forcing Native Americans to cut their long hair would amount to an “assault on their sacredness.” The sincerity of these firmly-held beliefs—and the gravity of preventing their exercise—should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Biblical Scripture.6
It is also beyond dispute that the ADOC has compelling interests in security, discipline, hygiene, and safety within its prisons and in the public’s safety in the event of escapes and alteration of appearances. Lathan, 251 Fed. App’x at 667. The crux of this appeal, then, is simply whether the ADOC’s blanket short-hair policy furthers those goals and is the least restrictive means of doing so.
i. In Furtherance of a Compelling Governmental Interest As to the first RLUIPA prong, Plaintiffs merely mount an attack on the District Court’s factual findings and choice to credit the testimony of the ADOC’s witnesses. This attack must surely fail, as the detailed record developed during the trial of this case amply supports the District Court’s factual findings about the risks
6 See, e.g., Judges 16:4–30 (chronicling Delilah’s betrayal of Samson, the forced cutting of Samson’s hair in contravention to his Nazirite vow, and Samson’s subsequent destruction of the Philistine temple); Numbers 6:1–21 (describing the Nazirite vow, which included a promise to refrain from cutting one’s hair unless it became defiled by a sudden death that occurred in the Nazirite’s presence, and which entailed the shaving of one’s head and sacrifice of the hair at the close of one’s period of dedication).
18

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 19 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 19 of 27
and costs associated with permitting male inmates to wear long hair. Ronald Angelone described specific incidents in which male inmates had used long hair to conceal weapons and contraband, as well as a situation in which a male inmate had cut his long hair to significantly change his appearance after a successful escape. Angelone further testified that prison staff have cut their hands on hidden razors when searching male inmates’ long hair. In addition, Angelone and Grantt Culliver testified that long hair had concealed male inmates’ fungus outbreaks, sores, cysts, and tumors, and even a spider’s nest. The ADOC’s witnesses also offered credible opinions, based on decades of combined correctional experience, that inmates can grab long hair during fights, long hair impedes the ability of prison staff to readily identify inmates inside the prison, and an exceptionless short-hair policy promotes order and discipline while removing a physical characteristic that inmates can use to form gangs. Plainly, the ADOC’s witnesses offered more than simply “speculation, exaggerated fears, or post-hoc rationalizations.” Rather, they offered a reasoned and fairly detailed explanation of how the ADOC’s short-hair policy addresses genuine security, discipline, hygiene, and safety concerns.
Plaintiffs point out that their witnesses offered competing testimony, but the District Court, as the finder of fact, remained free to reject it. We cannot say that the District Court clearly erred in its material factual findings with regard to male
19

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 20 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 20 of 27
inmate hair-length.7 Nor can we say that it arbitrarily ignored the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert when the ADOC’s witnesses contradicted his testimony.8 Given
the District Court’s factual findings, it is apparent that the ADOC’s short-hair
policy furthers its compelling interests in security, discipline, hygiene, and safety
within its prisons and in the public’s safety in the event of escapes and alteration of
appearances.
ii. Least Restrictive Means of Furthering the Interest
Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their RLUIPA claim because the ADOC has
shown that its exceptionless short-hair policy for male inmates is the least
restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interests that we have
mentioned. The ADOC has shown that Plaintiffs’ proposed alternative—allowing
an exemption for Native American inmates, requiring exempted inmates to search
their own hair, and using a computer program to manipulate inmate
7 Plaintiffs direct their most vociferous objection toward the District Court’s somewhat conclusory finding that the ADOC’s current inmate population is “younger, bolder and meaner” than in previous years. We cannot say that this finding was wholly unsupported by the record, since the District Court also found that disciplinary actions increased markedly in 2007. But to the extent that the record was insufficient to support this particular factual finding, the error was harmless because it had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the District Court’s determination that the ADOC’s policy furthers compelling governmental interests. Dickerson, 248 F.3d at 1048. 8 As the ADOC points out in its brief, the District Court may have chosen to discredit George Sullivan’s testimony because he has testified in many prisoner religious rights cases, but never on behalf of a prison system, and because he admitted a lack of familiarity with the ADOC’s prisons.
20

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 21 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 21 of 27
photographs—does not eliminate the ADOC’s security, discipline, hygiene, and safety concerns. As the District Court found, inmates can manipulate searches of their own hair to conceal weapons and contraband, and using a computer program to alter photographs does nothing to address the impediments that long hair causes for the identification of inmates within the prisons. Plaintiffs’ proposed alternative also does nothing to assuage the ADOC’s concerns about gang-formation and hairpulling during fights, or the concealment of infections and infestations. Plaintiffs cannot point to a less restrictive alternative that accomplishes the ADOC’s compelling goals, and neither can we. The ADOC has carried its burden on both RLUIPA prongs.
We agree with the District Court that Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996), compels the foregoing analysis. In Harris, this Court confronted a Rastafarian inmate’s RFRA challenge to the Florida DOC’s grooming policy, which, like the policy at-issue here, categorically forbade male inmates from wearing long hair.9 This Court upheld the short-hair policy, reasoning in regards to the first RFRA prong that “[i]t is well established that states have a compelling interest in security and order within their prisons,” and “[t]his general interest in security clearly includes other specific interests . . . such as the identification of
9 As already mentioned, the RLUIPA essentially borrowed the RFRA standard, and the reasoning in Harris therefore applies with equal force in the RLUIPA context.
21

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 22 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 22 of 27
escapees and the prevention of the secreting of contraband or weapons in hair or beards.” Id. at 504. This Court then held that “a reasonable hair length regulation satisfies the least restrictive means test” because neither we nor the plaintiff could conceive of any lesser means that would satisfy these compelling interests. Id. So it is in this case. Plaintiffs have not presented any less restrictive alternative that can adequately contain the risks associated with long hair; they have merely argued that the ADOC should volunteer to assume those risks. The RLUIPA places upon the ADOC no such duty.
In response, Plaintiffs make three arguments that are worth addressing. First, they argue that the ADOC has failed to satisfy the “least restrictive means” standard because all its witnesses admitted that the ADOC never considered any less restrictive alternatives to its short-hair policy before adopting it. Second, Plaintiffs argue that the widespread adoption of permissive grooming policies in other jurisdictions demonstrates the viability of a religious exemption as a less restrictive alternative. Third, Plaintiffs argue that the ADOC’s choice to allow female inmates to wear shoulder-length hair proves that it is able to accommodate their requested religious exemption. All of these arguments are unavailing, and we respond to them in turn.
It is true, as Plaintiffs point out, that some of our sister courts have focused on the RLUIPA’s command that prison administrators “demonstrate” the
22

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 23 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 23 of 27
lawfulness of their policies and have held that notwithstanding Cutter’s deference mandate, prison administrators must show that they “actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures before adopting the challenged practice.” See, e.g., Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 999 (9th Cir. 2005); Spratt v. Rhode Island Dep’t of Corrections, 482 F.3d 33, 41 (1st Cir. 2007) (adopting Warsoldier’s heightened proof requirement); Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 284 (3d Cir. 2007) (same). This, however, is not the law in this circuit, and none of this Court’s cases have adopted Warsoldier’s more strict proof requirement. The language of the RLUIPA directs us to inquire merely whether the policy under review is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. It is certainly possible—though perhaps relatively less common—for prison administrators to promulgate an appropriately tailored policy without first considering and rejecting the efficacy of less restrictive measures. The RLUIPA asks only whether efficacious less restrictive measures actually exist, not whether the defendant considered alternatives to its policy. As already explained, the ADOC has shown that no efficacious less restrictive measures exist and has therefore carried its RLUIPA burden.
Plaintiffs’ heavy fixation on the policies of other jurisdictions similarly misses the mark. While the practices of other institutions are relevant to the RLUIPA analysis, they are not controlling—the RLUIPA does not pit institutions
23

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 24 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 24 of 27
against one another in a race to the top of the risk-tolerance or cost-absorption ladder. See Rich v. Secretary, Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 716 F.3d 525, 534 (11th Cir. 2013) (practices of other institutions are relevant but not controlling); see also Daker v. Wetherington, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1239 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (interpreting the RLUIPA to leave “room for a particular prison to decline to join the ‘lowest common denominator’ when, in the discretion of its officials, the removal of a challenged restriction poses an appreciable risk to security”). The ADOC has shown that Plaintiffs’ requested exemption poses actual security, discipline, hygiene, and safety risks. That other jurisdictions choose to allow male inmates to wear long hair shows only that they have elected to absorb those risks. The RLUIPA does not force institutions to follow the practices of their less riskaverse neighbors, so long as they can prove that they have employed the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interests that they have chosen to address. The ADOC has shown that its departure from the practices of other jurisdictions stems not from a stubborn refusal to accept a workable alternative, but rather from a calculated decision not to absorb the added risks that its fellow institutions have chosen to tolerate. This cannot amount to an RLUIPA violation.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ focus on the ADOC’s different grooming standards for female inmates ignores the District Court’s factual finding—supported by Ronald Angelone’s testimony—that men pose greater safety and security risks than women
24

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 25 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 25 of 27
in prison populations. We are not the first court of appeals to uphold a grooming policy that treats male and female inmates differently when the record shows that there are valid reasons for the different treatment. See, e.g., Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897, 905 (8th Cir. 2008). Given the District Court’s finding that male inmates pose a greater threat than female inmates, the RLUIPA does not require the ADOC to enforce a sex-blind hair-length policy.
C. Plaintiffs’ Additional Legal Rights In a mere two pages at the end of their initial brief, Plaintiffs assert that the ADOC’s hair-length restrictions violate their “additional legal rights.” Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that the ADOC’s hair-length policy violates their free exercise and freedom of association rights under the First Amendment, their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Except for their equal protection claim, Plaintiffs provide no supporting discussion and have therefore abandoned these additional issues in this appeal. See Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998) (issues mentioned in passing but without supporting argument or discussion are abandoned). Plaintiffs do present a cursory equal protection argument, but it is wholly meritless. Plaintiffs claim that the ADOC’s hair-length policy treats them differently than other inmates on the basis of race, religion, and sex. There is
25

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 26 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 26 of 27
absolutely no evidence in the record to support the contention that the hair-length policy—which applies to all male inmates without exception—discriminates on the basis of race or religion. Furthermore, while the policy does establish different standards for male and female inmates, the record unmistakably shows that the ADOC has valid reasons for the different hair-length standards and the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable. See Hill v. Estelle, 537 F.2d 214, 215–16 (5th Cir. 1976) (upholding differential prison grooming regulations against an equal protection challenge because “[t]he disparity between the regulations for male and female inmates is not so grievous as to make them arbitrary or unreasonable, cruel or unusual, and the wisdom of the disparate regulations will be left to the judgment of state penologists”); accord Fegans, 537 F.3d at 906 (upholding differential prison grooming regulations against an equal protection challenge under a “reasonableness” standard).
IV. CONCLUSION In the end, Plaintiffs ask us to hold that because many other prison systems have chosen to accept the costs and risks associated with long hair, the ADOC must accept them as well. This we cannot do. Although many well-run institutions have indeed decided that the benefits of giving inmates more freedom in personal grooming outweigh the disadvantages, the RLUIPA does not prevent the ADOC from making its own reasoned assessment. Allowing male inmates to
26

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 27 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 27 of 27
wear long hair carries with it established costs and risks, and the RLUIPA does not require the ADOC to embrace them merely because other institutions have.
The ADOC may, of course, decide in the future that these costs and risks might be worth absorbing, especially in view of the high value that long hair holds for many religious inmates. And the ADOC might also find persuasive James Madison’s admonition that “[i]t is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him,” and “[t]his duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.” James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (June 20, 1785), in 5 THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, at 82 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987). But that is a decision that the RLUIPA leaves to the discretion of the ADOC’s policy-makers.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
27

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 578 Filed 07/26/13 Page 28 of 28 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 07/26/2013 Page: 1 of 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

John Ley Clerk of Court

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303
July 26, 2013

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES
Appeal Number: 12-11926-DD Case Style: Ricky Knight, et al v. Leslie Thompson, et al District Court Docket No: 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Secondary Case Number: 2:96-cv-00554-WHA-CSC

For rules and forms visit www.ca11.uscourts.gov

This Court requires all counsel to file documents electronically using the Electronic Case Files ("ECF") system, unless exempted for good cause. Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision filed today in this appeal. Judgment has this day been entered pursuant to FRAP 36. The court's mandate will issue at a later date in accordance with FRAP 41(b).
The time for filing a petition for rehearing is governed by 11th Cir. R. 40-3, and the time for filing a petition for rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir. R. 35-2. Except as otherwise provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc is timely only if received in the clerk's office within the time specified in the rules. Costs are governed by FRAP 39 and 11th Cir.R. 39-1. The timing, format, and content of a motion for attorney's fees and an objection thereto is governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2 and 39-3.
Please note that a petition for rehearing en banc must include in the Certificate of Interested Persons a complete list of all persons and entities listed on all certificates previously filed by any party in the appeal. See 11th Cir. R. 26.11. In addition, a copy of the opinion sought to be reheard must be included in any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See 11th Cir. R. 35-5(k) and 40-1 .
Counsel appointed under the CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT must file a CJA voucher claiming compensation for time spent on the appeal no later than 60 days after either issuance of mandate or filing with the U.S. Supreme Court of a petition for a writ of certiorari (whichever is later).
Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, each party to bear own costs.
The Bill of Costs form is available on the internet at www.ca11.uscourts.gov
For questions concerning the issuance of the decision of this court, please call the number referenced in the signature block below. For all other questions, please call Tonya L. Richardson, DD at (404) 335-6176.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Djuanna Clark Phone #: 404-335-6161

OPIN-1A Issuance of Opinion With Costs

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 1 of 8
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 12-11926 ________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC, 2:96-cv-00554-WHA-CSC
RICKY KNIGHT, FRANKLIN IRVIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
THOMAS OTTER ADAMS, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, BILLY TWO FEATHERS JONES, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, et al.,
Consol. Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
LESLIE THOMPSON, in his individual capacity, DONALD PARKER, et al.
Defendants-Appellees,
WILLIAM S. STRICKER, ELLEN RUTH LEONARD, et al. individually and in their official capacity,
Consol. Defendants-Appellees.

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 2 of 8
________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________ (August 5, 2015)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER*, District Judge. PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs, male inmates of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”), brought this suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq., to challenge the ADOC’s “short-hair policy.” The short-hair policy forbids Plaintiffs from wearing their hair unshorn in accordance with the dictates of their Native American religion. In our previous opinion, we affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of the ADOC. See Knight v. Thompson, 723 F.3d 1275, 127677 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Knight I”).1 On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court vacated our previous opinion and remanded for further consideration in light of Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015).
*Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
1The lengthy procedural history and factual background of Plaintiffs’ case are provided in our previous opinion.
2

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 3 of 8
We asked the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the issue on remand. The parties have done so. Having considered both the briefs and Holt, we conclude that Holt does not dictate a change in the outcome of this case. We reinstate our prior Knight I opinion with revisions only to Part III.B.ii, which we set forth below, and we add, with this opinion in Knight II, a discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt and why it does not affect the outcome in our prior decision.
In Holt, the Supreme Court considered a RLUIPA challenge to the Arkansas Department of Correction’s (“the Department”) “no-beard policy.” The no-beard policy prohibited inmates from wearing facial hair other than a neatly trimmed mustache. Holt, 574 U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 860. The policy made no exception for inmates who objected on religious grounds but did allow inmates with diagnosed dermatological problems to wear a ¼-inch beard. Id.
Plaintiff Gregory Holt, an Arkansas inmate and devout Muslim, sought permission to grow a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious belief. Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 859, 861. After the Department denied Holt’s requested exemption, he filed suit under RLUIPA. Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 861. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed Holt’s RLUIPA complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Id. On certiorari review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the
3

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 4 of 8
Department’s grooming policy violated RLUIPA insofar as it prevented Holt from growing a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 867.
Plaintiffs here raise three arguments worth addressing for why Holt changes the outcome in their case. First, Plaintiffs argue that, like the lower courts in Holt, the district court in this case failed to engage in a “focused inquiry.” We disagree. In Holt, in relevant part, the Department argued that its grooming policy represented the least restrictive means of furthering a broadly formulated interest in prison safety and security. Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 863. The Supreme Court cautioned, however, that RLUIPA demands “a more focused inquiry and requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law to . . . the particular claimant.” Id. (quotations omitted). Thus, RLUIPA requires a court to “scrutinize the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants and to look to the marginal interest in enforcing the challenged government action in that particular context.” Id. (quotations omitted and alteration adopted).
While Holt sought to grow a ½-inch beard, such that the Department had to show how denying him a ½-inch beard actually furthered its compelling interests, the Plaintiffs here request a complete exemption of long, unshorn hair from the ADOC’s short-hair policy. See Knight I, 723 F.3d at 1276-77, 1277 n.1.
4

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 5 of 8
Therefore, RLUIPA requires us to scrutinize the asserted harm of granting that specific exemption of long, unshorn hair and to look to the marginal interest in enforcing the short-hair policy in that particular context. That is exactly the focused inquiry that this Court and the district court applied. See, e.g., id. at 1280 (“[The magistrate judge] found that inmates can use long hair to alter their appearances, long hair impedes the ability of officers to quickly identify inmates in the prisons, and inmates can use long hair to identify with special groups, including gangs.”); id. at 1285 (“Plaintiffs have not presented any less restrictive alternative that can adequately contain the risks associated with long hair . . . .”); id. at 1286 (“The ADOC has shown that Plaintiffs’ requested exemption poses actual security, discipline, hygiene, and safety risks.”).
Second, the Plaintiffs claim that the district court applied “unquestioning deference” to prison officials’ testimony. In Holt, the Supreme Court admonished the lower courts for engaging in “unquestioning deference” to the Department’s assertion that allowing Holt to grow a ½-inch beard would undermine its compelling interest instead of requiring the Department “to prove that denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.” Holt, 574 U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 863-64 (emphasis added). Notably, the prison officials in Holt provided largely conclusory and speculative testimony in justification of their no-beard policy; for example, they could point to no
5

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 6 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 6 of 8
instance in Arkansas or elsewhere where an inmate had hidden contraband in a ½inch beard, and they could not explain why a dual-photo method could not be employed to address the concern of an escaped inmate shaving his beard to disguise his appearance. See id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 861.
Here, in contrast, the district court made various factual findings concerning inmates’ hair length based on the ADOC’s witnesses’ “elucidating expert opinions, lay testimony, and anecdotal evidence based on their decades of combined experience as corrections officers.” Knight I, 723 F.3d at 1278. As we explained in our previous decision, “the detailed record developed during the trial of this case amply supports the [d]istrict [c]ourt’s factual findings about the risks and costs associated with permitting male inmates to wear long hair.” Id. at 1284. The ADOC’s witnesses offered more than “speculation, exaggerated fears, or post-hoc rationalizations,” id. (quotation omitted), and the type of “unquestioning deference” that concerned the Holt Court simply did not occur in this case. In other words, the ADOC did prove that denying Plaintiffs’ specific exemption is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling governmental interests.
Third, the Plaintiffs contend that, in light of Holt, the district court erred in disregarding the evidence presented below that the prison systems of 39 other states “would allow the religious accommodation Plaintiffs request.” Holt presented evidence that “the vast majority of States and the Federal Government
6

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 7 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 7 of 8
permit inmates to grow ½-inch beards, either for any reason or for religious reasons.” Holt, 574 U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 866. The Supreme Court concluded that the Department failed to show, in the face of this evidence, why it could not do the same. Id. The Supreme Court explained that “when so many [other] prisons offer an accommodation, a prison must, at a minimum, offer persuasive reasons why it believes that it must take a different course, and the Department failed to make that showing here.” Id.
As an initial matter, on this record, it is not apparent that the Plaintiffs presented evidence that all of these 39 other prison systems would allow their specific requested accommodation—long, unshorn hair. Compare id. (“[T]he Department failed to show . . . why the vast majority of States and the Federal Government permit inmates to grow ½-inch beards . . . but it cannot.”). For instance, while several of the written policies of other prison systems proffered by Plaintiffs indicate that inmates generally have freedom in choosing their hair length, the policies make clear that the chosen hair length cannot pose risks for health, safety, hygiene, order, or security. Thus, it is not clear that these policies would allow for entirely unshorn hair.
In any event, unlike in Holt, the district court here did not defer to the ADOC’s “mere say-so” that it could not accommodate Plaintiffs’ requested accommodation even though other prison systems offer such an accommodation.
7

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 8 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 8 of 8
See id. As already discussed, the “detailed record developed” below distinguishes this case from Holt, where the lower courts gave “unquestioning deference” to prison officials’ conclusory and speculative assertions. As we stated in our previous opinion, the ADOC has “shown that Plaintiffs’ requested exemption poses actual security, discipline, hygiene, and safety risks” and neither we nor Plaintiffs can “point to a less restrictive alternative that accomplishes the ADOC’s compelling goals.” Knight I, 723 F.3d at 1285-86.
Therefore, we reinstate our Knight I opinion with revisions only in Part III.B.ii on pages 1284 to 1286. We file that reinstated opinion with those revisions, contemporaneously with this opinion.
We affirm, once again, the district court’s judgment in favor of the ADOC after our reconsideration in light of Holt, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s mandate.
OPINION REINSTATED WITH MODIFICATIONS; AFFIRMED.
8

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Document 600 Filed 08/05/15 Page 9 of 9 Case: 12-11926 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 1 of 1

Douglas J. Mincher Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303
August 05, 2015

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES

Appeal Number: 12-11926-DD Case Style: Ricky Knight, et al v. Leslie Thompson, et al District Court Docket No: 2:93-cv-01404-WHA-CSC Secondary Case Number: 2:96-cv-00554-WHA-CSC

For rules and forms visit www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Enclosed is a copy of this court's decision filed today in this appeal on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
For questions concerning the issuance of the decision of this court, please call the number referenced in the signature block below. For all other questions, please call Elora Jackson, DD at (404) 335-6173.
Sincerely,
DOUGLAS J. MINCHER, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Djuanna Clark Phone #: 404-335-6161

OPIN-6 Issuance of Opinion Remand SC

 
 Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION


James Morning Raven Limbaugh, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Leslie Thompson, et al.
Defendants.

Civil No. 2:93-cv1404-WHA

Native American Prisoners of Alabama-Turtle Wind Clan, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
State of Alabama, Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 2:96-cv554-WHA
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES

I.INTRODUCTION The United States files this Statement of Interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, because this litigation implicates the proper interpretation and application of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”). Congress gave both private plaintiffs and the United States the authority to bring suit to protect the federal religious rights of individuals confined to institutions. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(f). Accordingly, the United States has a strong interest in ensuring that RLUIPA’s requirements are vigorously and uniformly enforced. Male prisoners confined by the Alabama Department of Corrections are required by Defendants to cut their hair short regardless of any contrary religious conviction, and Defendants have not shown that this requirement is the least restrictive means to further a

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 16
compelling government interest. Defendants contend that their policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ religious exercise and that it is in any case justified by the Defendants’ interests in the security and management of its prison facilities.
Defendants’ position does not conform with either the proper interpretation of RLUIPA or reasonable regulations necessary for prisoner safety and hygiene. A ban on a legitimate religious exercise is ipso facto a substantial burden on religion—Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiffs are not substantially burdened is, in actuality, a request for a judicial determination of the importance and centrality of long hair to the Plaintiffs’ religious practice. This determination, however, is explicitly forbidden by RLUIPA and relevant case law.
Moreover, the vast majority of correctional facilities nationwide, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), do not have such total bans, undermining Defendants’ claims that such bans are the least restrictive means to serve a compelling interest. Indeed, the fact that Defendants allow shoulder-length hair among the Alabama female prison population demonstrates that it is fully capable of assuring safety and hygiene in its facilities without a total ban. Contrary to RLUIPA’s requirements, Defendants have not submitted evidence beyond conclusory statements in support of their claim that a total ban on long hair is the least restrictive means of achieving safety and security.
Defendants cannot satisfy RLUIPA’s requirement that the substantial burden placed on religious exercise be justified through implementation of the least restrictive means to serve a compelling interest. Accordingly, RLUIPA requires that Defendants formulate a new policy that accounts for Defendants’ obligations under RLUIPA.
2


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 16
II.BACKGROUND
 Plaintiffs in this matter are adherents to Native American religious exercises. (P. Brief at 3). Among their religious traditions is the wearing of long hair, typically cut to indicate a time of mourning. (P. Brief at 5-15). Since 1993, the Plaintiffs have sought through this litigation to be exempt from Defendants’ total ban on long hair worn by males. Defendants have contended that the Plaintiffs’ religious exercise with respect to hair length is not substantially burdened by their short-hair policy and that the policy is in any case the least restrictive means to serve Defendants’ compelling interests of safety and security within its prisons. (D. Brief at 9, 15-32). After this court’s decision granting summary judgment to the State on the hair-length claim, Plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. In a 2007 decision, the Eleventh Circuit remanded to this court. The Court of Appeals concluded “that on the present record factual issues do exist as to whether, inter alia, the defendants’ total ban on the wearing of long hair and denial of an exemption to the plaintiffs based on the Native American religion is ‘the least restrictive means of furthering the defendants’ compelling government interests’ in security, discipline, hygiene and safety within the prisons and in the public’s safety in the event of escapes and alteration of appearances.” Lathan v. Thompson, 251 F. App’x 665, 667 (11th Cir. 2007). This court then held an evidentiary hearing.
III.ARGUMENT RLUIPA provides persons in institutional settings with an important framework for challenging restrictions on their religious exercise. Under the statute, when a plaintiff shows that a government authority has placed a substantial burden on the plaintiff’s religious exercise, the government authority must prove that the restriction furthers a compelling government interest and that the means of restricting religious exercise is the least restrictive alternative. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b). Here, Defendants’ argument that the hair policy does not pose a substantial burden is unpersuasive, and Defendants have failed to show that the policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.
3


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 4 of 16
A. RLUIPA Offers Broad Protections of Religious Exercise by Institutionalized Persons The Plaintiffs have offered evidence that their hair length is part of their Native
American religious exercise. RLUIPA guarantees a right to “religious exercise,” which it defines as “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A). Accordingly, under RLUIPA, a religious exercise is protected regardless of the perceived importance of that exercise in the overall religious tradition. This is consistent with the First Amendment requirement that courts are not to judge the merits or centrality of specific religious practices. See Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 886-87 (1990) (“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.”); Watts v. Florida Int’l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007); Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299, 1313 (11th Cir. 2004) (finding that RLUIPA’s definition of religious exercise “‘mitigates any dangers that entanglement may result from administrative review of good-faith religious belief.’”) (quoting Madison v. Riter, 355 F.3d 310, 320 (4th Cir. 2003)). Instead, courts look only to see that there is a religious exercise that is impeded by an institutional policy. Whether the practice is universal to adherents of a particular faith is of no consequence. See Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707, 715-16 (1981) (finding that even under less protective First Amendment free exercise doctrine “ . . . it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow worker more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.”). Courts must apply a broad, inclusive standard when determining whether a religious exercise is burdened, rather than conducting their own assessments of the importance of the exercise. But it is just such an assessment that Defendants urge, as discussed in further detail below.
4


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 5 of 16
B. Defendants’ Ban on Long Hair Imposes a Substantial Burden on the Religious Exercise of Native American Prisoners
Defendants’ hair length policy imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Plaintiffs have cited extensive evidence that the length of their hair plays an important or central role in their religious tradition. (P. Brief at 9-15). Although it is not necessary for a given religious exercise to occupy a particularly important or central role in a religious tradition to merit RLUIPA’s protection, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A), limitation of such an exercise certainly satisfies RLUIPA’s substantial burden standard. Indeed, numerous courts have concluded that restrictions on long hair comprise a substantial burden on religious exercise. See Warsoldier v. Woodward, 418 F.3d 989, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that state prison policy of requiring short hair placed a substantial burden on Native American’s religious exercise); Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898, 903 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding Native American prisoner had stated a claim that “grooming policy substantially burdened religious exercise.”); Thunderhorse v. Pierce, 364 F. App’x 141, 146 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting cases in which Fifth Circuit has found religious exercise of long hair to be substantially burdened by grooming policy); Smith v. Ozmint, 444 F. Supp. 2d 502, 506 (D.S.C. 2006) (finding that “a policy which requires hair to be cut, and ensures compliance by force, imposes a substantial burden to one of the Rastafarian faith”).
Citing Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2007), Defendants argue that their short hair policy poses only an incidental burden on Plaintiffs primarily because Defendants allow Plaintiffs to engage in other, related religious exercises—maintaining long hair, on the Defendants’ account, is an unimportant religious exercise in the Native American religious tradition.1 (D. Brief at 11-14). Defendants’ argument conflicts with RLUIPA’s express terms.
1 Defendants argue the point although the question of substantial burden does not appear
 to be before this court. The Eleventh Circuit ordered this court to consider on remand
 open factual questions, including whether “the defendants’ total ban on the wearing of
 long hair and denial of an exemption to the plaintiffs based on the Native American
 religion is ‘the least restrictive means of furthering the defendants’ compelling
 government interests’ in security, discipline, hygiene and safety within the prisons and in
 the public’s safety in the event of escapes and alteration of appearances.” Lathan v.
 Thompson, 251 F. App’x 665, 667 (11th Cir. 2007). The circuit court did not question

5

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 6 of 16
RLUIPA protects practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious
belief,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A), and courts are not permitted to evaluate the importance of a religious exercise to a religious tradition.2 RLUIPA therefore explicitly contradicts
Defendants’ contention that long hair is simply not an important enough religious exercise to
merit RLUIPA’s protection.
Nor can the test for determining a substantial burden delineated in Allen be read to
require that a religious exercise be a central tenet of faith or a compelled religious practice in
contravention of the statute’s express terms. In Allen, the Eleventh Circuit distinguished
between substantial burdens on religious exercise and incidental burdens on religious exercise.
whether the policy banning long hair substantially burdens Native American religious practice. 2 The Supreme Court’s aversion to adopting a requirement that religious exercise be
 mandated by a faith in order to be protected flows directly from the Court’s consistent
 position that “[c]ourts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.” Thomas v. Review Bd.
 of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 716 (1981). See also, Presbyterian Church v.
 Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 450 (1969)
 (holding that the First Amendment “forbids civil courts” from “the interpretation of
 particular church doctrines and the importance of those doctrines to the religion”); Jones
 v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 603 (1979) (adopting a neutral-principles approach to resolving
 church property disputes because it frees courts from deciding “questions of religious
 doctrine, polity, and practice”); United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 87 (1944) (“[L]ittle
 indeed would be left of religious freedom” if courts were allowed to determine “truth or
 falsity” of religious beliefs); W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642
 (1943) ( “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official,
 high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or
 other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”)
 (emphasis added). To require a court to inquire into whether a particular religious
 practice is compelled by the believer’s faith is to force a court into a role “not within the
 judicial function and judicial competence” because it necessitates a judgment as to what a
 religion requires of its believers. Thomas, 450 U.S. at 707. See also Smith v. Ozmint, 444
 F. Supp. 2d 502, 506 n. 4 (D.S.C. 2006) (noting that prison officials’ argument that a
 burden is not “substantial” because other religious practices are permitted is in actuality a
 prohibited inquiry into the importance of the practice). Of course, courts are permitted to
 examine the sincerity of religious belief under RLUIPA. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S.
 709, 725 n.13 (2005) (“[RLUIPA] does not preclude inquiry into the sincerity of a
 prisoner’s professed religiosity.”).

6

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 7 of 16
But the distinction was not based on whether a prisoner was given opportunities to engage in other religious exercises, as Defendants argue, but rather on whether there had been any evidence—beyond the statement of the prisoner—that denial of the religious exercise in question was a substantial burden. See Allen, 502 F.3d at 1278-79. The Allen court concluded only that the inmate in question had offered no meaningful evidence that the religious exercise he requested was more than an idiosyncratic, unrelated desire.3 Id. at 1278. In the court’s own words, the inmate “failed to establish the relevance of the crystal to his practice of Odinism, as he was obligated to do in order to demonstrate that the denial of that item would significantly hamper his religious observance.” Id. Allen is therefore best understood as simply requiring probative evidence that the exercise denied by prison authorities is, in fact, a religious exercise rather than simply an idiosyncratic desire of the plaintiff. Such idiosyncratic desires are virtually by definition “incidental.”
Defendants’ argument about the burden imposed by their short hair policy is not based on the proven relevance of wearing long hair to Native American religious practice, the central inquiry in Allen, but on the inapposite considerations of 1) other Native American religious practices Defendants do permit; 2) Plaintiffs’ testimony articulating the importance of long hair to their religious practice in diverse ways; and 3) expert testimony that not all Native Americans feel compelled by their Native American religious practice to wear long hair.4
3 The Allen court’s inquiry into whether the requested religious exercise was
 “fundamental” should not be read as establishing a threshold below which authentic
 claimed religious exercises do not merit RLUIPA’s protection; the court itself
 acknowledged this limitation by citing RLUIPA’s prohibition on considering the
 centrality of a religious exercise. See 502 F.3d at 1278. The court instead could find no
 evidence in the record that the requested practice was an authentic religious exercise as
 defined by RLUIPA: “In short, neither Smith’s request, nor the outside sources that he
 submitted in connection with it, demonstrate the need for a quartz crystal in order to
 practice Odinism.” Id.
 4 Defendants also argue that long hair might distinguish Native American religious
 practitioners as a group from the remainder of the prison population, thereby implying the
 receipt of special privileges. While this may be germane to determining whether
 Defendants’ policies serve a compelling government interest, it is difficult to see how this
 possibility bears in any way on the substantial burden analysis.

7

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 8 of 16
Allen does not support any of these arguments as a basis for finding that Plaintiffs’ religious exercise is not substantially burdened. Instead, as Allen requires, Plaintiffs have cited considerable evidence regarding the importance of long hair in their religious practice, (P. Brief at 9-15). Such evidence has been the basis for other courts to conclude that restrictions on long hair comprise a substantial burden on religious exercise. See Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 995-96; Longoria, 507 F.3d at 903; Thunderhorse, 364 F. App’x at 146; Ozmint, 444 F. Supp. 2d at 506.
C. Defendants Have Not Demonstrated That the Total Ban Is in Actual Furtherance of a Compelling Governmental Interest Once Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial burden on religious exercise under
RLUIPA, Defendants must show that the ban on long hair furthers a compelling governmental interest. Defendants must first show that the challenged burden is in actual furtherance of a cited compelling interest—a tangential or tenuous relationship between the policy and the interest is insufficient. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1). Specifically, Defendants have the burden of showing that security, their asserted compelling interest, is actually furthered by banning these specific Plaintiffs from having long hair. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) (prohibiting government imposition of a substantial burden on “religious exercise of a person” unless “the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person” furthers a compelling government interest) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Jova v. Smith, 582 F.3d 410, 415 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he state may not merely reference an interest in security or institutional order in order to justify its actions.”); Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 283 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Even in light of the substantial deference given to prison authorities, the mere assertion of security or health reasons is not, by itself, enough for the Government to satisfy the compelling governmental interest requirement. Rather, the particular policy must further this interest.”); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 988-89 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[Officials] must do more than offer conclusory statements and offer post hoc rationalizations.”).
8


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 9 of 16
In this case, the Defendants have not demonstrated that the blanket ban on long hair for men in correctional facilities actually increases security—their policy does not meaningfully further their stated compelling interest. While the Defendants articulated some circumstances in which long hair could conceivably be tied to potential security risks, they have not cited evidence of actual or threatened security breaches caused by nonconformity with the policy in Defendants’ facilities for men or with respect to these Plaintiffs. Even the expert testimony about the relationship between hair length and security risks in another state was not supported by specific evidence. (D. Brief at 25) (“Angelone testified that the situation vastly improved during his time as Commissioner and that in his judgment the grooming policy played a role.”).
As Congress acknowledged when passing RLUIPA, prisons retain the authority to ensure order and security. 146 Cong. Rec. 16698, 16699 (2000) (joint statement of Sen. Hatch and Sen. Kennedy on RLUIPA) (hereinafter Joint Statement) (“[T]he committee expects that the courts will continue the tradition of giving due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline.” (quoting S. Rep. 103-111 at 10 (1993))). Maintaining security is a well-recognized compelling state interest. See, e.g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 717, 722 (2005). However, simply uttering the word “security” is not enough to meet the state’s burden of demonstrating that a compelling interest is at stake. Joint Statement, 146 Cong. Rec. at 16699 (“[I]nadequately formulated prison regulations and policies grounded on mere speculation, exaggerated fears, or post-hoc rationalizations will not suffice to meet the act’s requirements.” (quoting S. Rep. 103-111 at 10 (1993))); see also Spratt v. Rhode Island Dep’t of Corr., 482 F.3d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 2007) (“[M]erely stating a compelling interest does not fully satisfy [State]’s burden on this element of RLUIPA”). Only when prison authorities have shown a close-fitting connection between the claimed security interest and the religious exercise, should the case move forward for a determination of whether the policy in question is the least restrictive means of protecting that interest.
In Defendants’ facilities for women, hair length is not similarly restricted, further indicating that the interest in security is not closely tied to hair length. Cf. Church of the
9


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 10 of 16
Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 543 (1993). (“The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.”). Defendants have cited no evidence that the permissive policy regarding women’s hair length has eroded security.5 Defendants did not identify any examples of contraband in hair in the women’s facilities, where long hair is permitted. (P. Brief at 18). Defendants also acknowledged that women inmates have escaped and their ability to change their hairstyles has not dictated a change in grooming policy. (P. Brief at 19).
Even if some connection between grooming and security is accepted, Defendants certainly have not shown that hair length policy has a meaningful impact on security. Defendants have offered no specific evidence that their policy meaningfully advances the interest in improving security in their prisons. Indeed, as Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge, “some forty state prisons and the Federal Bureau of Prisons either do not require short hair or recognize a religious exception to a grooming policy requiring short hair.” (P. Brief at 16; D. Brief at 29). That each of these prison systems permits long hair underscores the negligible gains in security—if any—Defendants’ restrictive grooming policy may achieve.
Defendants are under an obligation to provide specific evidence regarding their security interests with respect to the these Plaintiffs. See Spratt, 482 F.3d at 39 (criticizing prison authority affidavit that cited no evidence in support of restricting religious exercise). Without such evidence, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that Defendants’ ban on these Plaintiffs having long hair furthers a compelling interest in safety and security.
5 The paucity of evidence cited by Defendant in this regard is similar to the lack of evidence offered to justify the differing treatment of women in Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 1000, and distinguishes it from Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897, 904-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing evidence offered to justify differing treatment of women).
10

Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 11 of 16
D. Defendants’ Ban on Long Hair is not the Least Restrictive Means of Serving a Compelling Government Interest Even if the Defendants had established that the ban on long hair furthers a compelling
state interest in security, Defendants have not demonstrated that the blanket rule is the least restrictive means of serving that interest. In order to meet their burden under this prong of the RLUIPA analysis, Defendants must demonstrate 1) that they considered alternatives, 2) that widely accepted alternatives employed elsewhere cannot be implemented, and 3) that concerns about alternatives measures are based on real evidence rather than on conclusory statements.
Defendants did not offer evidence that they considered alternatives to their policy burdening Plaintiffs’ religious exercise, as RLUIPA requires. See, e.g., Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897, 904 (8th Cir. 2004) (upholding policy where state had actually attempted a less restrictive alternative). It is not enough to assert that no exceptions are possible. See Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 436 (2006) (interpreting the precursor to RLUIPA and finding “RFRA operates by mandating consideration, under the compelling interest test, of exceptions to “rule[s] of general applicability.”). Instead, where less restrictive alternatives are available, State officials must consider and offer a legitimate reason for rejecting those alternatives. See, e.g., Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 284 (3d Cir. 2007); Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (“CDC cannot meet its burden to prove least restrictive means unless it demonstrates that it has actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures before adopting the challenged practice.”); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 989 (8th Cir. 2004) (“It is not clear that MDOC seriously considered any other alternatives, nor were any explored before the district court.”). Rather than actually considering alternatives, Defendants explain that they made a “judgment on this matter” when establishing their grooming policy, though they did not review less restrictive grooming policies. (D. Brief at 29; P. Reply Brief at 17). An unsupported “judgment” is insufficient under the standards described in Warsoldier and Klem.
11


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 12 of 16
Defendants have also failed to show that they cannot implement widely accepted alternatives to its blanket policy. Both parties acknowledge that forty state prisons and the BOP have implemented such alternatives, either by granting a religious exemption or by having less restrictive grooming policies in general. Where there are successful, less restrictive policies in place elsewhere, prison authorities must show evidence that their situation is different. Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 1000 (“[T]he failure of a defendant to explain why another institution with the same compelling interests was able to accommodate the same religious practices may constitute a failure to establish that the defendant was using the least restrictive means.”).
Here, the evidence demonstrated that a more permissive policy has not hampered security in other prisons and even in a portion of their own system. Defendants do not distinguish their circumstances; Defendants’ merely assert that because other southern states have restrictive policies, the Alabama Department of Corrections need not consider the prevailing approach. (D. Brief at 29).
Finally, where prison authorities reject alternatives, their reasons must not be “grounded on mere speculation, exaggerated fears, or post-hoc rationalizations.” Joint Statement, 146 Cong. Rec. 16699; see also Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 1000 (“prison officials must set forth detailed evidence, tailored to the situation before the court, that identifies the failings in the alternatives advanced by the prisoner.”); Spratt, 482 F.3d at 41 (“RIDOC offers no explanation for why alternative policies would be unfeasible, or why they would be less effective in maintaining institutional security”). When rejecting less restrictive policies during the hearing on this matter, Defendants have not offered specific evidence supporting legitimate security concerns in Defendants’ facilities, but rather have relied on conclusory statements to support their positions. For example, Defendants asserted that they cannot allow exceptions because hair length differences would induce jealousy, but they have cited no specific evidence that similar exceptions had caused any danger at Defendants’ facilities or elsewhere. (D. Brief at 19, 26; P. Reply Brief at 28-29). In fact, Defendants do allow prisoners to engage in other religious practices that set them apart. Native American inmates in Defendants’ prisons are
12


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 13 of 16
allowed medicine bags and participate in sweat lodge ceremonies, which set them apart from their peers. (P. Reply Brief at 28-29).
Similarly, Defendants make conclusory statements to support their position that exceptions to the long hair policy would allow inmates to hide contraband and would make it easier for escapees to go undetected. While there was general testimony about contraband in the prisons, Defendants have cited no evidence of contraband in hair in Alabama. (See D. Brief at 16, 19). Likewise, Defendants introduced testimony about inmates who had escaped from their facilities and were eventually identified and returned to custody, but they did not cite evidence of difficulty capturing an Alabama escapee who had changed his appearance. (D. Brief at 22). Defendants dismiss possible less restrictive policies based on safety concerns that they do not support with specific evidence.
Importantly, Defendants allow women to maintain long hair, undermining their position that an alternative policy permitting long hair would lead to disastrous outcomes. See Hialeah, 508 U.S. at 547 (“[i]t is established in our strict scrutiny jurisprudence that ‘a law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the “highest order” . . . when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited.’” (citation omitted)). Defendants argue that the comparison to women is inapposite, saying that, “female inmates have exhibited lower misconduct rates than male inmates,” though there was evidence at trial that there are assaults and violent acts in Defendants’ facilities for women. (D. Brief at 37; P. Reply Brief at 33). Defendants’ expert explained, without supporting evidence, that women should have differential treatment because requiring short hair for women “would promote a stereotype of homosexuality among the women.” (D. Reply Brief at 25). The total ban on long hair is thus an example of a policy rooted in conclusory positions rather than specific evidence. RLUIPA is intended to ensure that such policies do not burden sincere religious practice.
Defendants have not demonstrated that their ban on long hair is the least restrictive means of furthering their interest in security.
13


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 14 of 16

IV.CONCLUSION Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that there is a compelling interest justifying the substantial burden they have placed on Native American religious practitioners, nor have they shown that their total ban on long hair is the least restrictive means for furthering a compelling interest. As the State has not met its obligations under RLUIPA, the United States urges the Court to vacate Defendants’ policy and require Defendants to formulate a new policy that recognizes its obligations under RLUIPA.

DATED: April 8, 2011
Leura G. Canary United States Attorney Middle District of Alabama
/s/James J. DuBois JAMES J. DUBOIS Assistant United States Attorney GA Bar Number: 231445 Post Office Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone No.: (334) 223-7280 Facsimile No.: (334) 223-7418 E-mail: James.DuBois2@usdoj.gov

Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
Assistant Samuel R. Bagenstos Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
/s/ Deena Fox Timothy D. Mygatt (PA Bar #90403) Amin Aminfar (NC Bar #36589) Deena Fox (DC Bar #992650) U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (ph) 202-514-6255 / (fax) 202-514-4883 (email) deena.fox@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States

14


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 15 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 8, 2011, I electronically transmitted a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
Peter Sean Fruin Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 pfruin@maynardcooper.com
Mark Wayne Sabel, Jr. Sabel & Sabel, P. C. 2800 Zelda Road Suite 100-5 Montgomery, AL 36106 mksabel@mindspring.com
Roy S. Haber 570 E. 40th Avenue Eugene, OR 97405 haberpc@cyber-dyne.com
Joseph David Steadman Dodson & Steadman, PC P.O. Box 1908 Mobile, AL 36633-1908 jds@dodsonsteadman.com
Kim Tobias Thomas Alabama Department of Corrections P.O. Box 301501 Montgomery, AL 36130-1501 kim.thomas@doc.alabama.gov
Andrew Weldon Redd Alabama Department of Transportation 1409 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, AL 36110 redda@dot.state.al.us
15


Case 2:93-cv-01404-WHA -CSC Document 523 Filed 04/08/11 Page 16 of 16

DATE: April 8, 2011

/s/James J. DuBois James J. Dubois Assistant United States Attorney

16


 
 Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 1 of 85
CLOSED,CSC_ClerkC,LEAD,MAG+
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:93−cv−01404−WHA−CSC

Knight, et al v. Thompson, et al (LEAD CASE) Assigned to: Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III Referred to: Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody Demand: $0 Case in other court: USCA, 06−15587−B
USCA, 12−11926−D
USDC, 14−12915−E Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/24/1993 Date Terminated: 03/08/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Matthew Latham TERMINATED: 12/09/1994

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter Maynard, Cooper &Gale, P.C. 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1081 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: cburkhalter@maynardcooper.com TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin Maynard Cooper &Gale, PC 1901 6th Avenue North; Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1068 Fax: 205−714−6368 Email: pfruin@maynardcooper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Thomas Hogan TERMINATED: 01/27/1994

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Richard Robinson TERMINATED: 01/25/1994

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ricky Knight

represented by James Arnold Tucker Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program P. O. Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 205−348−4928 Fax: 205−348−3909

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 2 of 85

Email: jtucker@adap.ua.edu TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. Sabel Law Firm, L.L.C. P.O. Box 231348 Montgomery, AL 36123 334−546−2161 Fax: 334−819−7051 Email: mksabel@mindspring.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy S. Haber Attorney at Law 570 E 40th Ave Eugene, OR 97405 541−485−6418 Email: haberpc@cyber−dyne.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Lynn Holliday Copeland Franco Screws &Gill, PA PO Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101−0347 334−834−1180 Fax: 334−834−3172 Email: holliday@copelandfranco.com TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Franklin Irvin

represented by Franklin Irvin AIS 141535 ADOC BIBB Bibb Correctional Facility 565 Bibb Lane Brent, AL 35034 PRO SE

James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 3 of 85

Plaintiff James Limbaugh
Plaintiff Timothy Gray Wolf Smith

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy S. Haber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy S. Haber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy S. Haber (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 4 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Native American Prisoners Organization of America

represented by James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy S. Haber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Consol Plaintiff
Native American Prisoners of Alabama − Turtle/Wind Clan

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Quincey Somerville Galloway &Somerville, LLC 11 Oak Street Birmingham, AL 35213 205−871−2183 Fax: 205−871−2184 Email: jqs@gallowaysomerville.com

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 5 of 85

TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Preston Martin Maynard, Cooper &Gale PC 1901 6th Ave N − 2500 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203−2618 205−254−1000 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: pmartin@maynardcooper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Thomas Otter Adams sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Billy "Two Feath Jones sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Andrew Hosp Maynard Cooper &Gale, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North; Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1077 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: thosp@maynardcooper.com TERMINATED: 10/20/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 6 of 85

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Thomas "RavenChenoweth sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Billy "Three Fea Isbell sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Mark "Blackhawk Patterson sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
John "Wind Hors Wambles sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 7 of 85

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Autry "Little Ra Daughtry sue individually and on behalf of a class of perons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Roger "Light Foo Manning sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff Michael Clem

represented by Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff USA

represented by James Joseph DuBois U. S. Attorney's Office

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 8 of 85
PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101 334−223−7280 Fax: 334−223−7418 Email: james.dubois2@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Eli Zimmerman US Department of Justice −− DC Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 7111 Washington, DC 20530 202−353−0441 Fax: 202−318−7610 Email: jonathan.zimmerman@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Annelli Rivera U. S. Department of Justice−Civil Division Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Room 7114 Washington, DC 20001 202−514−4020 Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: karen.a.rivera@usdoj.gov (Inactive) TERMINATED: 04/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth E. Vines U.S. Attorney's Office PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101−0197 334−223−7280 Fax: 223−7560 TERMINATED: 02/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert D. McCallum , Jr. U. S. Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−3338 Fax: 616−8202 TERMINATED: 08/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Sara W. Clash−Drexler U. S. Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division P. O. Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 514−3146 Fax: 616−8202 TERMINATED: 02/18/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Theodore Charles Hirt U. S. Department of Justice−Civil Division Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusets Avenue NW

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 9 of 85
Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4785 Fax: 212−616−8470 Email: theodore.hirt@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deena S Fox United States Department of Justice 601 D St NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−1361 Email: deena.fox@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Michael Doyle United States Attorney's Office − ALM Middle District of Alabama 131 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−223−7280 Fax: 334−223−7418 Email: stephen.doyle@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Leslie Thompson in his individual capacity

represented by Charles A. Graddick Sims, Graddick &Dodson, PC PO Box 1908 Mobile, AL 36633−1908 251−690−9300 Fax: 690−9311 Email: cag@simsgraddick.com TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
David E Belser Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &Berkowitz 614 Hull Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−223−3012 Fax: 334−263−0960 Email: dbelser@bakerdonelson.com TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fred Frank Bell Fred Bell, Attorney at Law 1015 South McDonough Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−265−8176 Fax: 334−265−8178 Email: ffbell@netzero.com TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy Dennis Nabors Nabors Belser &Debray, LLC 614 South Hull Street

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 10 of 85

Montgomery, AL 36104 334−262−2000 Fax: 334−263−0960 Email: dnabors@nbdlegal.com TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman Dodson &Steadman, PC 4087−B Cottage Hill Road Mobile, AL 36609 251−661−0702 Fax: 251−661−0712 Email: jds@dodsonsteadman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division PO Box 301501 Montgomery, AL 36130 334−353−3870 Fax: 334−353−3891 Email: kim.thomas@doc.alabama.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Donald Parker

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 11 of 85

Kenneth Patrick Chaplin

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Willie Johnson

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 12 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dewayne Estes

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
J. McClure Officer

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 13 of 85

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Alabama Department of Corrections

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jeff Sessions Attorney General, officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James D. White Deputy Commissioner of Department of Corrections, officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 14 of 85

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ronald E. Jones Commissioner of Department of Corrections, officially TERMINATED: 02/13/1998

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Michael Shaver officially

represented by Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004

Defendant
Tom Allen officially TERMINATED: 02/13/1998

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
E. L. Harrelson officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James Bowen officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 15 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ralph Hooks Warden, officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bill Lindsey officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Steve Walker officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 16 of 85

Willie Whiting officially

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Fictitious Defendant(s) A−Z; individually and officially; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS AA−ZZ, individually and officially

V.
Consol Defendant
William S. Sticker individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne Alabama State Personnel Dept. Legal division 64 N. Union Street; Suite 316 Montgomery, AL 36130−4100 334−242−3450 Fax: 334−353−4481 Email: aliceann.byrne@personnel.alabama.gov TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Andrew Weldon Redd Alabama Department of Corrections 301 S Ripley St Montgomery, AL 36110 334−353−3879 Fax: 334−353−3891 Email: andy.redd@doc.alabama.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
John McGavock Porter Alabama Attorney General's Office P O Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130 334−242−7420 Fax: 334−242−2848 Email: jporter@ago.state.al.us TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 17 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Ellen Ruth Leonard individually and in her official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Billy Mitchem individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 18 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Lt. Estes individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Neal W. Russell individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 19 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Tommy Herring individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Morris L. Thigpen individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 20 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Thomas Gilkerson individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Roy Hightower individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 21 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Andrew Redd individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Eddie Carter individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 22 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Roy Dunaway individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
J. C. Giles individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 23 of 85

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Officer Wynn individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Steven Dees Warden, individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 24 of 85

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interpleader USA

represented by Jonathan Eli Zimmerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Z. Rabinovitz U. S. Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−4652 Fax: 616−8470 TERMINATED: 04/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen Annelli Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth E. Vines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia A. Watson U.S. Attorney's Office PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101−0197 334−223−7280 Fax: 223−7418 Email: Patricia.Snyder@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter D. Keisler U.S. Attorney's Office PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101−0197 334−223−7280 Fax: 223−7560 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert D. McCallum , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Sara W. Clash−Drexler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Theodore Charles Hirt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 25 of 85

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas E. Caballero U. S. Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−3338 Fax: 616−8202 TERMINATED: 02/18/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Stephen Michael Doyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Roy Dickey TERMINATED: 04/06/2007

Movant
Daniel Malone TERMINATED: 04/06/2007

Movant
Richard Mingos TERMINATED: 06/16/2008

Movant
Royce Privett TERMINATED: 06/16/2008

Movant
Elmer Taylor TERMINATED: 06/16/2008

Movant
Malcolm S. Driskill TERMINATED: 10/05/2007

Movant
Michael Moore TERMINATED: 06/21/2010

Plaintiff Jimmy Lee Bowen

represented by James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 26 of 85

Plaintiff Douglass Dark Horns Bailey

Roy S. Haber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Andrew Hosp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Michael Haley Commissioner of Department of Corrections
Defendant Ron Sutton
Defendant

represented by Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004
represented by Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 27 of 85

Gwendolyn Mosley in her official capacity as Warden of Easterling

represented by Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Gerald Ward TERMINATED: 10/31/2000

Date Filed 11/24/1993 11/24/1993
11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 12/02/1993
12/09/1993
12/10/1993 12/14/1993 12/27/1993 12/28/1993

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/19/2001 (ydw, ). (Entered: 11/29/1993)
1 MOTION by Matthew Latham, James Limbaugh, Thomas Hogan, Richard Robinson, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for temporary restraining order , for Appointment of Counsel Referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
2 Affidavit by Matthew Latham to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
3 Affidavit by James Limbaugh to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
4 Affidavit by Thomas Hogan to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
5 Affidavit by Richard Robinson to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
6 Affidavit by Ricky Knight to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
7 Affidavit by Franklin Irvin to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
Case reassigned to Staff Attorney Anderson effective 11/10/97 (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
8 ORDER denying [1−1] motion for temporary restraining order; Referring Case to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to plaintiff. (djy) Modified on 12/27/1993 (Entered: 12/02/1993)
9 ORDER directing plaintiff Robinson that on or before 12/22/93, to return the copy of the complaint supplied to him by the court, and it should contain his signature; pending plaintiff Robinson's compliance with order, it is ORDERED staying further proceedings; ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs; with copy of complaint mailed to plaintiff Robinson, as directed. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 12/09/1993)
Plaintiff Hogan's copy of 12−2−93 order returned in mail with the following notation, "return to sender− addressee unknown". Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) Modified on 12/13/1993 (Entered: 12/13/1993)
10 ORDER directing that on or before 12−28−93, plaintiff Hogan notify the court of his present address, as further set out in order ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs. (djy) (Entered: 12/14/1993)
11 MOTION by Matthew Latham for Appointment of Counsel referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 12/27/1993)
12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that plaintiff Robinson be dismissed as a party to the present complaint; that this case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. Objections to R and R due by 1/17/94. Copies mailed to plaintiffs and defendants. (djy) (Entered: 12/28/1993)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 28 of 85

12/28/1993 12/28/1993
01/03/1994 01/06/1994
01/06/1994
01/10/1994
01/10/1994
01/12/1994 01/13/1994 01/18/1994 01/18/1994 01/18/1994 01/19/1994 01/25/1994
01/25/1994 01/26/1994 01/27/1994

13 ORDER denying [11−1] motion for Appointment of Counsel ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs. (djy) (Entered: 12/28/1993)
14 ORDER directing that plaintiff Irvin forward to the Clerk of this court the sum of $3.00 as a partial filing fee; setting filing fee deadline for 1/11/94 for Franklin Irvin ; granting [7−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis, except to the extent payment is required by this order ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs. (djy) (Entered: 12/28/1993)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $ 3.00 RECEIPT # 50120. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that plaintiff Hogan be dismissed as a party to the complaint for his failure to prosecute the case and his failure to keep the court informed as to his current address. Objections to R and R due by 1/24/94. Copies mailed to plaintiffs and defendants. (djy) (Entered: 01/06/1994)
17 ORDER granting [2−1], [3−1] and [6−1] motions to proceed in forma pauperis filed by plaintiffs Latham, Limbaugh and Knight; setting Answer deadline to 2/16/94 for Leslie Thompson, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs; mailed w/copies of complaint to Jimmy Evans &General Counsel for DOC; mailed CMRRR w/copies of complaint to named defendants. (djy) (Entered: 01/06/1994)
Stamped ORDER denying [15−1] motion for Reconsideration of [13−1] order, which denied motion for appointment of counsel ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiff and defendants. (djy) Modified on 02/17/1994 (Entered: 01/10/1994)
18 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of complaint on Ed Murray on 1/7/94 for Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick . Answer due on 2/17/94 for Dewayne Estes, for J. McClure, for Donald Parker, for Kenneth Patrick (djy) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
19 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of complaint on Kay P. Hope on 1/10/94 for Willie Johnson; on Bette Schild for Dept. of Corrections . Answer due on 2/22/94 for Willie Johnson, for Dept. of Corrections (djy) (Entered: 01/13/1994)
20 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of complaint on no signature on 1/12/94 for Leslie Thompson . Answer due on 2/22/94 for Leslie Thompson (djy) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
File referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
Plaintiff Hogan's copy of 1−10−94 order returned in mail with the following notatition, "returned to sender−addressee unknown". (djy) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
File w/proposed order referred to Judge De Ment. (djy) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
Plaintiff Hogan's copy of recommendation of 1−6−94 returned in mail with the following notation, "returned to sender − addressee unknown". (djy) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
21 ORDER (rendered 1−24−94) adopting [12−1] report and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge filed 12−28−93; ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that Richard Robinson be and is hereby dismissed as a plaintiff in this case; referring Case back to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to plaintiff and defendants. (djy) Modified on 01/25/1994 (Entered: 01/25/1994)
File referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
File w/proposed order referred to Judge De Ment. (djy) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
22 ORDER adopting [16−1] report and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge filed 1−6−94; ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that Thomas Hogan be and is hereby dismissed as a plaintiff for his failure to prosecute the case

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 29 of 85

02/03/1994 02/16/1994 02/18/1994
02/23/1994 02/23/1994 02/23/1994 03/02/1994
03/09/1994 03/09/1994 03/10/1994 03/14/1994 05/17/1994
05/19/1994 06/08/1994

and his failure to keep the court informed as to his current address ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and defendants. (djy) (Entered: 01/27/1994)
Plaintiff Hogan's copy of 1−25−94 order returned in mail with the following notation, "returned to sender−addressee unknown". (djy) (Entered: 02/04/1994)
23 MOTION (Exhibits A thru E attached) by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Extend Time in which to file their special report referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) Modified on 02/17/1994 (Entered: 02/17/1994)
Stamped ORDER granting [23−1] motion to Extend Time in which to file their special report; resetting Answer deadline to 2/28/94 for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and counsel. (djy) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
24 MOTION by Matthew Latham, James Limbaugh to Compel referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) Modified on 03/02/1994 (Entered: 02/23/1994)
24 Motion to compel filed 2−23−94 also contstrued as a discovery request per order of 3−2−94. (djy) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
25 BRIEF by Matthew Latham in support of [24−1] motion to Compel referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
26 ORDER also construing the motion to compel discovery as a discovery request; denying [24−1] motion to Compel, as not discovery requests have heretofore been filed in this matter prior to the plaintiffs filing the motion to compel; directing that (1) all further discovery requests shall be filed with the court and served on the proper party on or before 3−15−94; (2) responses to requests for discovery shall be filed within 30 days of service of such request; (3) all discovery shall be completed on or before 4/14/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and counsel. (djy) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
27 SPECIAL REPORT (Exhibits A thru E attached) by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections (Attorney Fred Bell), Answer via special report referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
27 Special report treated as a MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections for Summary Judgment per order of 3−14−94. (djy) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
AO FORM 85 mailed to counsel for defendant. (djy) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
28 ORDER treating the special report filed 3−9−94 as a motion for summary judgment; [27−1] motion for Summary Judgment by defendants be set for submission on 4/12/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and counsel. (djy) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
29 ORDER setting ORAL ARGUMENT for 2:00 6/8/94 for [27−1] motion for Summary Judgment by telephone conference arranged by counsel for the defendants; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to make them available for the telephone conference as hereinabove decsribed ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel and Cecil Atchison; furnished to Marie &Ace. (djy) (Entered: 05/17/1994)
Plaintiff Limbaugh's copy of 5−17−94 order returned in mail with the following notation, "returned to sender−not here". Per Dept of Corrections now at J.O. Davis Correctional Facility. Re−mailed to new address this date. (djy) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
Motion hearing held by telephone conference re: [27−1] motion for Summary Judgment by defendants. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/09/1994)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 30 of 85

06/09/1994
07/11/1994 07/15/1994 07/18/1994 07/19/1994 07/20/1994 07/25/1994 07/26/1994 08/24/1994 08/24/1994 08/25/1994 08/31/1994
09/06/1994 09/22/1994
09/26/1994 10/04/1994

30 ORDER staying all further proceeding except settlement negotiations; directing defendants to negotiate with the plaintiffs toward reaching a settlement of the issues raised in this case; directing defendants to report to the court whether this case has been settled, on or before 7/8/94. Signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody. Copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
31 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Extend Time in which to comply with the court's order of 6/9/94 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
32 MOTION by Matthew Latham for denial of extension of time requested by defendants per motion filed 7/11/94 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 07/15/1994)
Stamped ORDER granting until 8/8/94 [31−1] motion to Extend Time in which to comply with the court's order of 6/9/94 ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 07/18/1994)
33 MOTION by Matthew Latham for inmate assistance at the meeting scheduled for 7/20/94 with the Attorney General's office referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) Modified on 07/26/1994 (Entered: 07/20/1994)
Stamped ORDER denying [32−1] motion for denial of extension of time ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 07/20/1994)
34 Objection to extension of time construed as a MOTION by Matthew Latham to Strike [31−1] motion to Extend Time per order of 7/26/94 (cc) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
35 ORDER denying as moot [34−1] motion to Strike [31−1] motion to Extend Time; denying as moot [33−1] motion for inmate assistance at the meeting scheduled for 7/20/94 with the Attorney General's office ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
36 MOTION by James Limbaugh to Show Cause for defendants' failure to comply with order of 6/9/94 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
37 MOTION by James Limbaugh for Judgment on the Pleadings (attachments) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
38 Defendants' RESPONSE to order of 6/9/94 (attachments) referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
39 ORDER setting Status Conference 9:00 9/20/94 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody , at the Kilby Correctional Facility; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at the status conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel &Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie &Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order of 8/31/94 returned with following notation "Not Here, Returned to Sender". Per the DOC was paroled 8/29/94. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
40 ORDER resetting Status Conference for 9:00 10/4/94 at the Kilby Correctional Facility before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at the status conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel &Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie &Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
Plaintiff Latham, Irvin &Knight's copies of order of 9/22/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here, Easterling Correctional Facility". Remailed Irvin &Kinght's copies to Kilby same date. No current address on Latham. (cc) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
Status Conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 31 of 85

10/04/1994 10/05/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994
10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/11/1994
10/11/1994 10/12/1994 10/13/1994 10/14/1994
10/14/1994 10/18/1994 10/19/1994
10/20/1994 10/21/1994 10/25/1994 10/27/1994 11/04/1994

41 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
42 Motion to compel construed as a MOTION by James Limbaugh for free copies per order of 10/7/94 (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
44 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for temporary restraining order referred to Judge Ira De Ment (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
45 ORDER setting Evidentiary Hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for 9:00 12/6/94 , at the Kilby Correctional Facility; set Witness List deadline to at least 10 days before trial , as further set out; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at said evidentiary hearing (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel &Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie &Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
46 ORDER denying [42−1] motion for free copies ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
Stamped ORDER denying [43−1] motion for Reconsideration of [13−1] order denying appointment of counsel ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
47 ORDER denying [44−1] motion for temporary restraining order filed 10−7−94; referring case back to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and counsel. (djy) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
File referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copies of orders of 10/7/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order of 10/11/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/13/1994)
49 ORDER granting [48−1] motion for Reconsideration with respect to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaintiffs' 10/13/94 motion and denying [48−1] motion for Reconsideration with respect to paragraphs 1−4 and 7; directing the clerk to mail to the plaintiffs a copy of the case action summary sheet and a copy of the defendants' 3/9/94 special report ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs w/documents as directed and to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/14/1994)
50 ORDER directing plaintiff Latham that on or before 10/24/94 to notify the court of his present address ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/14/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copies of orders of 10/14/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/18/1994)
52 ORDER denying [51−1] motion for Reconsideration of [47−1] order denying their motion for TRO; referring this case to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate (signed by Judge Ira De Ment), copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
53 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin to Compel defendant Johnson to comply with the courts order of 1/6/94 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order of 10/19/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
Stamped ORDER denying [53−1] motion to Compel ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/25/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of stamped order of 10/25/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
54 ORDER resetting Evidentiary Hearing for 9:30 12/6/94 in instead of 9:00; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce the plaintiffs at

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 32 of 85

11/08/1994 11/17/1994 11/21/1994
11/21/1994
11/28/1994 12/06/1994 12/06/1994 12/06/1994 12/08/1994
12/09/1994
12/14/1994 12/20/1994 12/21/1994 12/27/1994 01/19/1995 02/07/1995 02/24/1995

9:30 at the Kilby Correctional Facility at the evidentiary hearing ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel &Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie &Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 11/04/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order of 11/4/94 returned with the following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
55 Witness list by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
56 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that plaintiff Latham be dismissed from this action with prejudice for his failure to prosecute the case and his failure to keep the court imformed of his current address. Objections to R and R due by 12/9/94 , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 11/21/1994)
57 ORDER directing the State of Alabama to produce inmates William J. Heup, AIS #Unknown, Floyd Foster, AIS #Unknown, Shirley McCall, AIS # Unknown, Samuel Weaver, Jr., AIS #146467 and Arron Lesperance, AIS #172694 for the evidentiary hearing set for 12/6/94 at 9:30 a.m. at the Kilby Correctional Facility ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel &Cecil Atchison. (cc) (Entered: 11/21/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order &recommendation of 11/21/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, not Here". (cc) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
Evidentiary Hearing held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
58 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings; Exhibit List; Witness List; EXHIBITS UNDER SEPARATE COVER W/FILE (cc) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
59 BRIEF by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin in support of [1−1] complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
60 ORDER directing the parties to file a joint status report indicating (1) whether a policy has been promulgated, (2) whether appropriate officials of the department have met with the plaintiffs concerning these policies, (3) whether the plaintiffs agree to the policies; set Status Report deadline to 12/27/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
61 ORDER adopting [56−1] report and recommendations; dismissing Matthew Latham as a plaintiff because of his failure to prosecute and his failure to keep the court informed of his current address; Referring Case to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs &counsel. (cc) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copies of orders of 12/8/94 and 12/9/94 returned with the following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here, Easterling Correctional Facility". (cc) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
62 STATUS REPORT (w/attachment) by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
63 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for Summary Judgment referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
64 Defendants' response to order of 12/8/94 referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
65 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for Final Judgment on the Case referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
66 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for Summary Judgment referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 02/07/1995)
67 MOTION to Intervene as a plaintiff in this action by Jimmy Lee Bowen, AIS #141620 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody [Construed as Motion to Amend

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 33 of 85

02/24/1995 03/03/1995 03/08/1995 06/12/1995 06/19/1995 07/21/1995 07/21/1995 07/24/1995
08/16/1995 08/21/1995 08/21/1995 08/22/1995
08/22/1995 08/22/1995 08/23/1995

the Complaint to Add Jimmy Lee Bowen as a Plaintiff pursuant to Court's Order of 3/25/99] (cc) Modified on 03/26/1999 (Entered: 02/24/1995)
68 STATUS REPORT (w/Exhibits A−C attached) by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) Modified on 03/26/1999 (Entered: 02/24/1995)
69 SUPPLEMENT TO STATUS REPORT (document #62) by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 03/03/1995)
70 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Supplement the Status Report filed 2/24/95 ; attachment referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 03/09/1995)
71 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen by Mark W. Sabel Jr. (dmk) (Entered: 06/13/1995)
72 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh by James A. Tucker (cc) (Entered: 06/19/1995)
73 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, James Limbaugh for Leave to File a first amended and substituted complaint ; proposed amended complaint attached referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
74 MEMORANDUM by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, James Limbaugh in support of [73−1] motion for Leave to File a first amended and substituted complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
75 ORDER setting argument for 9:00 8/21/95 in the third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Fed. Bldg. &U.S. Courthouse, Montg., Ala. before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on [73−1] motion for Leave to File a first amended and substituted complaint ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
76 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh for Leave to File the second amended complaint ; proposed amendment attached referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/18/1995)
Motion hearing held re: [76−1] motion for Leave to File the second amended complaint and [73−1] motion for Leave to File a first amended and substituted complaint by James Limbaugh, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight (cc) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
77 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings (cc) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
78 ORDER stating that the court believes that settlement of the issues raised in this case is appropriate and desirable for all parties; affording the parites a reasonable period of time to reach settlement; Staying all further proceedings in this case ; setting Status Conference 10:00 10/4/95, in chambers before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished Marie &Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
79 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
80 BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh in support of [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief (w/Exhibits 1−2 attached) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
81 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh for Partial Summary Judgment ; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 34 of 85

08/24/1995
09/01/1995 09/06/1995
09/20/1995 09/20/1995 10/03/1995 10/03/1995 10/03/1995 10/04/1995 10/05/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995

82 ORDER setting hearing and argument for 9:00 10/4/95 on [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief , before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Fed. Bldg. &U.S. Courthouse, Montg., Ala.; set Witness List deadline to at least 20 days before trial, as further set out ; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at said hearing ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel &Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie &Clayton. RESCHEDULED PER ORDER OF 9/6/95 (cc) Modified on 10/04/1995 (Entered: 08/24/1995)
83 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh to reschedule hearing referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 09/05/1995)
84 ORDER granting [83−1] motion to reschedule hearing; reset Status Conference for 9:30 10/10/95 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody , in third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Fed. Bldg. &U.S. Courthouse, Montg., Ala.; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at said status conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel &Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie &Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 09/06/1995)
85 Witness list by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
86 Witness list by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
87 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Consolidate w/Case 94−U−186−NE in the Northern District of Alabama referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
88 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh for Preliminary Injunction / for temporary restraining order referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
89 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh to Produce Witnesses referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
90 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections by David E. Belser, G. Dennis Nabors, Charles A. Graddick referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
91 RESPONSE by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh in opposition to delay of the hearing for a preliminary injunction referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/05/1995)
Motion hearing held [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief [88−1] &supplement by James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight. (djy) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
92 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings; ORAL ORDER resetting hearing for 10−13−95 @ 9:00 a.m. (continued to allow further settlement negotiations). [Tape 1765 (1−1084)]. (djy) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
93 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh to Produce witnesses referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
94 ORDER setting hearing and oral argument for 9:00 a.m. on 10/13/95 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on plaintiff's [79−1] [88−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief, as supplemented , in the third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson Jr. Federal Bldg. &U.S. Courthouse, Montgomery, Alabama; directing the State of Alabama produce the following inmates at the hearing and oral argument: Timothy Gray Wolf Smith AIS#178396 &Douglas Tuskahens Bailey AIS # 122609; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 35 of 85

10/13/1995 10/13/1995 10/16/1995 10/17/1995 10/18/1995 10/19/1995 10/20/1995 10/20/1995 10/20/1995 10/20/1995 11/28/1995
11/28/1995
11/28/1995 11/28/1995 11/30/1995

produce the plaintiffs at the hearing and oral argument described above ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to counsel and Cecil Atchison; furnished to Marie, Ace &USM. (djy) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
Motion hearing held re: [88−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight (cc) (Entered: 10/16/1995)
95 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings; Exhibit Lists; Witness Lists; Exhibits under SEPARATE COVER w/file (cc) (Entered: 10/16/1995)
AO FORM 85 mailed to counsel for defendant. (cc) (Entered: 10/16/1995)
96 Post−Hearing BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh in support of [88−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction, and [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/18/1995)
97 JOINT STIPULATION of parties; proposed order attached referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 10/19/1995)
98 SUPPLEMENTAL POST−HEARING BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh in support of [88−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction, and [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/19/1995)
99 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW with respect to the preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
100 NOTICE of Filing of proposed order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh; proposed order attached. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
101 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
102 BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections in support of [101−1] motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
103 ORDER granting [76−1] motion for Leave to File the second amended complaint; granting [73−1] motion for Leave to File a first amended complaint; set Answer deadline to 12/18/95 for defendants ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; mailed by CMRRR w/copy of both amended complaints to added defendants. (cc) Modified on 11/28/1995 (Entered: 11/28/1995)
104 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (w/attachments) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Smith, the Native American Prisoners Organization of America (NAPOA) against Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Fictitious Defendant(s) (cc) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
105 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA (cc) Modified on 11/28/1995 (Entered: 11/28/1995)
106 SUMMONS issued; summons, amended complaint, the amendment thereto &order of 11/28/95 mailed by CMRRR to Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting (cc) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
107 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons &amended complaint on Brian Green on 11/29/95 for James Bowen, E. L. Harrelson; on H. Dilly on 11/29/95 for Willie Whiting. Answer due on 12/19/95 for Willie Whiting, for

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 36 of 85

12/01/1995 12/04/1995 12/05/1995 12/18/1995 12/22/1995 01/03/1996 01/04/1996
01/17/1996 01/18/1996 01/24/1996 02/13/1996 02/15/1996 05/14/1996
05/14/1996
05/14/1996

James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
108 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons &amended complaint on Preston E. Herbert on 11/30/95 for Steve Walker ; on Mike Ellis on 11/29/95 for Bill Lindsey. Answer due on 12/20/95 for Steve Walker, 12/19/95 for Bill Lindsey (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
109 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons, &amended complaint on K. Senn on 11/30/95 for Ronald E. Jones; on (illegible) McDaniel on 11/29/95 for Ralph Hooks. Answer due on 12/19/95 for Ralph Hooks, 12/20/95 for Ronald E. Jones (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
110 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons &amended complaint on D. Sutherland on 12/4/95 for Tom Allen; on M.A. Thornton (undated) for James D. White. Answer due on 12/24/95 for Tom Allen, for James D. White (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
111 MOTION by defendants to Dismiss Amendment to Amended Complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/19/1995)
112 MOTION (attachment 1 attached) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA to Compel defendants' to permit an inspection of DOC facilities on January 17−19, 1996 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 12/22/1995)
Tele−conference − HELD − before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/3/96 (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
113 ORDER denying [112−1] motion to Compel defendants' to permit an inspection of DOC facilities on January 17−19, 1996; further ORDERED that counsel shall confer and determine a date on which the plaintiffs' expert may conduct a tour of the facilities in the presence of counsel; ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
114 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA for Roy S. Haber to Appear Pro Hac Vice referred to Judge Ira De Ment (djy) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
115 AMENDMENT TO JOINT STIPULATION of parties filed 10−18−95. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/19/1996)
116 Plaintiff's statement regarding remaining issues raised by the joint stipulation of the parties. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
117 NOTICE of filing certificate of good standing for Roy Haber by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA (djy) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
Stamped ORDER granting plaintiff's 1−17−96 [114−1] motion for Roy S. Haber to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
118 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to plaintiff Limbaugh. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
119 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to James Limbaugh. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) Modified on 05/14/1996 (Entered: 05/14/1996)
120 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L.

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 37 of 85

05/14/1996 05/14/1996 05/14/1996 05/14/1996 05/14/1996 07/01/1996 07/01/1996 11/21/1996 12/18/1996 12/18/1996 04/16/1997

Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to plaintiff Irvin. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
121 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to Franklin Irvin. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) Modified on 05/14/1996 (Entered: 05/14/1996)
122 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to plaintiff Knight. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
123 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to Ricky Knight. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
124 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to plaintiff Timothy Smith. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
125 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
126 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
127 BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting in support of [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
128 ORDER setting Scheduling Conference for 1:30 p.m. on 12/18/96 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody , in the third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Federal Bldg., &U. S. Courthouse, Montgomery, Alabama, as further set out in order ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to counsel; furnished to Marie, Ace &USM. (djy) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Scheduling conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/19/1996)
129 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings of Scheduling Conference (cc) (Entered: 12/19/1996)
130 ORDER staying this action pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, ____U.S.____, 117 S.Ct.293(1996), where the

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 38 of 85

08/18/1997 09/02/1997 09/02/1997 09/02/1997 09/18/1997 09/19/1997 09/19/1997 09/19/1997
09/19/1997
09/19/1997 10/06/1997
10/16/1997

Court has granted certiorari on the issue of the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to counsel. (djy) Modified on 04/16/1997 (Entered: 04/16/1997)
131 ORDER, setting Scheduling Conference for 1:30 9/2/97 , third floor courtroom, before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, CA. (dmk) (Entered: 08/18/1997)
132 ORDER, setting Scheduling Conference by telephone conference for 4:00 9/18/97 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; that counsel for plaintiff set up conference call ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, CA. (dmk) (Entered: 09/02/1997)
Scheduling conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/2/97 (dmk) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
133 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: 9/2/97 − Scheduling conference held before Mag. Judge Coody (dmk) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
Telephone conference held on September 18,1997 between counsel and Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
134 ORDER that on or before 10/6/97, counsel in each case who moved for class certification shall notify the court whether they intend to go forward with a class action ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
135 ORDER that these cases (93−D−1404−N and 96−D−554−N) be and are hereby consolidated for all future proceedings; Civil Action No. 93−D−1404 shall be the lead case ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
136 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Rule 16 Pretrial Conference for 1/6/98, in Montgomery, AL, at 9:00 a.m., before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody; evidentiary hearing commencing on 2/9/98, in Montgomery, AL; Discovery cutoff 1/26/98 prior to Evidentiary Hearing; Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/9/98, in Montgomery, AL; plaintiff's pretrial brief on all issues shall be filed on 1/26/98; defendants' responsive briefs due on 2/2/98; and as further setout ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, RL. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
Deadline updated as per scheduling order 9/19/97; setting Evidentiary Hearing for 2/9/98 in Montgomery, AL, before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; setting reply brief deadline for 2/2/98 for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for Tom Allen, for John Michael Shaver, for Ronald E. Jones, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections ; setting reply brief deadline for 2/2/98 for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
Consolidated Lead Case − as per order 9/19/97 signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
137 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees to Withdraw [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action by defendants ; referred to Judge Coody (dmk) Modified on 10/09/1997 (Entered: 10/06/1997)
138 ORDER denying as moot [89−1] motion to Produce Witnesses ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel . (dmk) (Entered: 10/16/1997)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 39 of 85

10/17/1997 10/30/1997
11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/18/1997
11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 12/02/1997

139 ORDER that plaintiffs file pleading indicating any objections to actions on behalf of named plaintiffs; , Response to Motion set to 10/30/97 for [137−1] motion to Withdraw [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action by defendants ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
140 RESPONSE by Matthew Latham, Thomas Hogan, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning to [137−1] motion to Withdraw [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action by defendants by consolidated defendant ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 10/31/1997)
141 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached); referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/10/1997)
142 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoners (Notice of Taking Deposition attached) ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
143 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
144 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached) ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
145 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
146 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached) ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
147 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached) ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
148 ORDER granting [141−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached);, granting [147−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached), granting [146−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached), granting [145−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner, granting [144−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached), granting [143−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached, granting [142−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoners (Notice of Taking Deposition attached), granting [137−1] motion to Withdraw [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action by defendants ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 11/18/1997)
149 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Roger Manning ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
150 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections For Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Aughtry Daughtry ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
151 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections For Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Michael Clem ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
152 ORDER, setting Pretrial Conference for 9:00 1/7/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel;

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 40 of 85

12/02/1997 12/30/1997 12/31/1997 01/07/1998
01/08/1998 01/14/1998 01/16/1998
01/20/1998 01/21/1998

furnished to MT, CA. (dmk) (Entered: 12/02/1997)
153 ORDER granting [151−1] motion For Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Michael Clem, granting [150−1] motion For Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Aughtry Daughtry, granting [149−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Roger Manning ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 12/02/1997)
154 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA for James A. Tucker to Withdraw as Attorney ; to Substitute Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
155 Witness list by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Willie Whiting; referred to Mag. Judge McPherson (dkt clerk) Modified on 12/31/1997 (Entered: 12/31/1997)
Stamped ORDER granting [154−1] motion for James A. Tucker to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney James A. Tucker for NAPOA, attorney James A. Tucker for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, attorney James A. Tucker for James Limbaugh, attorney James A. Tucker for Jimmy Lee Bowen, attorney James A. Tucker for Franklin Irvin, attorney James A. Tucker for Ricky Knight, granting [154−2] motion to Substitute Attorney terminated attorney James A. Tucker for NAPOA, attorney James A. Tucker for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, attorney James A. Tucker for James Limbaugh, attorney James A. Tucker for Jimmy Lee Bowen, attorney James A. Tucker for Franklin Irvin, attorney James A. Tucker for Ricky Knight Added ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel (STAMPED ORDER RENDERED ON 1/8/98) (dkt clerk) Modified on 01/08/1998 (Entered: 01/08/1998)
156 ORDER that on or before 1/15/98, counsel for the plaintiffs shall file a list of the plaintiffs, including AIS numbers, to be produced at the evidentiary hearing set on 2/9/98 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
157 (Notice) MOTION by Matthew Latham, Thomas Hogan, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning for production of inmates for evidentiary hearing referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dmk) Modified on 01/15/1998 (Entered: 01/14/1998)
158 ORDER granting [157−1] motion for production of inmates for evidentiary hearing; directing the persons having custody of the following plaintiffs to produce them at the 2/9/98 evidentiary hearing: Douglas Bailey, AIS #122609, Franklin Irvin, AIS #141535, James F. Limbaugh, Jr., AIS #148178, Autry Daughtry, AIS #124105, Jimmy L. Bowen, AIS #141620, Timothy G. Smith, AIS #178396, Billy Jones, AIS #131471, Michael Clem, AIS #130522, Ricky Knight, AIS #171382 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished Cecil Atchison. (cc) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
159 MOTION for John Q. Somerville to Withdraw as Attorney of record for plaintiffs Native American Prisoners of Alabama−Turtle Wind Clan referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
Stamped ORDER granting [159−1] motion for John Q. Somerville to Withdraw as Attorney of record for plaintiffs Native American Prisoners of Alabama−Turtle Wind Clan (Terminated attorney John Q. Somerville for Roger "Light Foot" Manning, attorney John Q. Somerville for Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, attorney John Q. Somerville for John "Wind Horse" Wambles, attorney John Q. Somerville for Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, attorney John Q. Somerville for Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, attorney John Q. Somerville for Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, attorney John Q. Somerville for Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, attorney John Q. Somerville for Thomas "Otter" Adams, attorney John Q. Somerville for Native American ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 41 of 85

01/23/1998 01/26/1998 01/26/1998 01/30/1998 01/30/1998 01/30/1998
02/02/1998 02/02/1998 02/06/1998

(Entered: 01/21/1998)
160 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning to photograph &inspect the grounds and premises at Staton CF, Elmore, CF, J.O. Davis CF, Fountain CF &Kilby CF (w/attachment 1) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
161 ORDER granting [160−1] motion to photograph &inspect the grounds and premises at Staton CF, Elmore, CF, J.O. Davis CF, Fountain CF &Kilby CF on the schedule that is set out in the order; directing the officials of the DOC facilities named to make every effort to permit photographing and inspecting as set out in this schedule ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; faxed to attorneys Sabel and Graddick as directed. (cc) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
162 PRETRIAL BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning; referred to Judge Coody. (dmk) (Entered: 01/27/1998)
163 ORDER, setting Evidentiary Hearing for 9:00 2/9/98, in third floor courtroom, before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, CA. (dmk) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
164 SUPPLEMENTAL Witness list by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees; referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dmk) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
165 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees to Produce Witnesses ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) Modified on 02/02/1998 (Entered: 01/30/1998)
166 ORDER granting [165−1] motion to Produce Witnesses; that persons having custody of witnesses Michael Moore, Charles Sellers, Robert McCain and Ronnie Phillips, produce them at evidentiary hearing 2/9/98 at 9:00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel and Cecil Atchison. (dmk) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
167 PRETRIAL BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees; referred to Mag. Judge Coody . (dmk) Modified on 02/03/1998 (Entered: 02/02/1998)
Stamped ORDER denying [168−1] motion to Strike Witnesses from [164−1] witness list by defendants, denying [168−2] motion to Vacate [166−1] order producing such witnesses for trial ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 42 of 85

02/06/1998 02/09/1998
02/09/1998 02/13/1998
02/13/1998 02/13/1998 03/04/1998 03/04/1998
03/05/1998 03/11/1998
03/20/1998 03/23/1998

mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
170 Defendants' Exhibit list (w/proposed Exhibits 1−6F &8−11) FILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER; referred to Mag. Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
171 OBJECTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning to [170−1] exhibits list and identification of depositions by consolidated defendants; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
Evidentiary Hearing held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on February 9−13 (cc) (Entered: 03/02/1998)
172 ORDER granting [169−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint; directing the parties that on or before 2/27/98 to file a joint stipulation concerning the issues on which they have reached agreement or shall notify the court that they have been unable to agree; advising that if the parties are unable to agree, the hearing will reconvene on 3/2/98 at 9:00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies furnished to counsel at hearing. (cc) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
173 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT by plaintiffs amending [104−1] amended complaint to add defendants Joe Hopper, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, and plaintiff Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. Amendment also removes defendants Ron Jones &Tom Allen. (cc) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
174 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings; 2/9/98 oral motion by plaintiff's to Amend Complaint , granted same date; 2/12/98 oral motion to Seal ; granted same date; witness list; exhibit lists; Exhibits under SEPARATE COVER w/file; Exhibits I, H, V and 4 of plaintiffs' 12−B FILED UNDER SEAL (cc) (Entered: 03/02/1998)
175 ORDER advising that the parties have informed the court that they have resolved all issues in the lawsuit with the exception of the sweat lodge and hair length issues; directing the parties that on or before 3/11/98 to submit to the court their stipulation for resolution of all but these two issues ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
176 ORDER directing that the deposition of the expert witness be taken and the deposition transcript be filed with the court on or before 3/25/98 , at which time the sweat lodge and hair length issues will be taken under submission; setting Brief deadline to 3/25/98 for any further briefs on these two issues to be filed ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
177 Parties' Stipulation of facts; referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dmk) (Entered: 03/06/1998)
178 MOTION (Request) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Be Released From A "Court Hold" at Kilby Prison ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
179 ORDER denying [178−1] motion to Be Released From A "Court Hold" at Kilby Prison ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 03/20/1998)
180 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles,

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 43 of 85

03/25/1998 04/27/1998
04/27/1998
04/27/1998
04/27/1998
05/04/1998
06/04/1998 06/19/1998 06/26/1998 01/08/1999

Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Joe Hopper, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley to Extend Time for filing post evidentiary briefs ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 03/24/1998)
Stamped ORDER granting [180−1] motion to Extend Time for filing post evidentiary briefs ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 03/25/1998)
181 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to file post−hearing brief ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
182 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for an order on all matters agreed upon by the parties as reflected in the joint stipulation filed 3/5/98 ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
183 NOTICE by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey OF FILING expert telephonic testimony of George Sullivan (Expert Testimony maintained in separate binder); referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
182 Motion for Order construed as MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for a Rule 54(a) Judgment [PER RECOMMENDATION OF 09/10/99] h(hc) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
184 POST−HEARING BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [1−1] complaint; (w/attachments) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (vmc) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
185 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order and Injunction by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey; referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dkt clerk) Modified on 06/05/1998 (Entered: 06/05/1998)
186 ORDER denying [1−2] motion for Appointment of Counsel ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
187 MOTION for G. Dennis Nabors to Withdraw as Attorney , referred to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody (war) Modified on 06/29/1998 (Entered: 06/29/1998)
188 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Leave to Amend Complaint Without Reproducing the Entire Pleading , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/11/1999)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 44 of 85

01/08/1999 03/25/1999
09/10/1999 09/10/1999
09/22/1999 09/24/1999 09/28/1999 11/18/1999 11/19/1999

190 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Status Conference , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/11/1999)
191 ORDER denying as moot [36−1] Motion to Show Cause; denying [37−1] Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying [65−1] Motion for Final Judgment on the Case; granting [67−1] Motion to Amend [1−1] Complaint; granting [70−1] Motion to Supplement the Status Report filed 2/24/95; denying as moot [87−1] Motion to Consolidate w/Case 94−U−186−NE in the Northern District of Alabama; granting [181−1] Motion to Extend Time to file post−hearing brief; granting [187−1] Motion for G. Dennis Nabors to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Attorney G. Dennis Nabors for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to counsel, Gwendolyn Mosley, Joe Hopper. h(hc) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
192 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that on the Sweat Lodge Ceremony and Hair Length Issues, Judgement be entered in favor of the Defendants. Objections to R and R due by 9/23/99, copies mailed to Counsel and Defendants John Shaver, Gwendolyn Mosley, Ron Sutton and Joe Hopper. h(hc) (Entered: 09/10/1999)
193 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that 1) Final Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs in accordance with the findings and conclusions contained in this recommendation; 2) based on the Stipulation, the testimony in the consolidated cases, and the entire record, the Commissioner of the Alabama DOC, his officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order, be enjoined to comply with the injunctive relief set forth in this recommendation; 3) nothing herein shall be construed to limit the rights that the defendants may accord to Native Americans, as the defendants are free to exceed the constitutional requirements set out herein; 4) the Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for a period of one year to allow the defendants to modify their policies and practices in accordance with the Court's injunction and to demonstrate their compliance with federal law and the orders, decrees, and injunction of this court; 5) the costs of this proceeding be taxed against the defendants; 6) if the Plaintiffs seek to recover fees, costs, and expenses, they ge directed to file a petition within 30 days of the date of a final order adopting this recommendation. Objections to R and R due by 9/23/99, copies mailed to Counsel and Defendants John Shaver, Gwendolyn Mosley, Joe Hopper and Ron Sutton. h(hc) (wcl, ). (Entered: 09/10/1999)
194 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to file objections to the recommendation of the Mag. Judge that is addressed to the sweat lodge and hair length issues referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (vmc) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
195 ORDER granting [194−1] motion to Extend Time to file objections to the recommendation of the Mag. Judge that is addressed to the sweat lodge and hair length issues; Objections reset to 11/23/99 for [192−1] report and recommendations (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody). Copies mailed to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 09/24/1999)
196 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey by Attorney Peter S. Fruin h(hc) (Entered: 09/29/1999)
197 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Transcription of Trial Testimony without payment , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
198 SECOND MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that is addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues , referred to

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 45 of 85

11/23/1999 11/23/1999 11/29/1999 12/16/1999 12/16/1999 12/16/1999 01/06/2000 01/06/2000 01/07/2000
01/18/2000

Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 11/22/1999)
Stamped ORDER granting [198−1] Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that is addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, Objections reset to 1/24/00 for [192−1] Report and Recommendations (by Judge Ira De Ment), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
Stamped ORDER granting [197−1] Motion for Transcription of Trial Testimony without payment (by Judge Ira De Ment), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
File referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody re: No Objections to [193−1] Recommendation h(hc) (Entered: 11/29/1999)
199 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for A Rule 54(B) Judgment (Proposed Order attached), referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
Court Reporter Lewis Wimberley's TRANSCRIPT filed for Evidentiary Hearing (Morning Session Only) for 2/9/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in Montg., AL from record of proceeding from audio tape, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
Court Reporter Lewis Wimberley's TRANSCRIPT filed for Evidentiary Hearing (Testimony) for 2/12/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in Montg., AL from record of proceeding, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
Court Reporter Julia A. Duncan's TRANSCRIPT filed for Testimony and Proceedings for 2/9/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in Montgomery, AL from record of proceedings, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
Court Reporter Jaymie Pappanastos's TRANSCRIPT filed for Testimony and Proceedings for 2/10/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in Montgomery, AL from record of proceedings, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
200 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Plas' Motion for rule 54(B) Judgment should not be granted: 1) Response to Order to Show Cause due on 1/21/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Joe Hopper, for Steven Dees, for Officer Wynn, for J. C. Giles, for Roy Dunaway, for Eddie Carter, for Andrew Redd, for Roy Hightower, for Thomas Gilkerson, for Morris L. Thigpen, for Tommy Herring, for Neal W. Russell, for Lt. Estes, for Mitchem, for Ellen Ruth Leonard, for William S. Sticker, Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson; 2) Pla file Reply, set Reply Brief deadline for 1/28/00 for Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, for Roger "Light Foot" Manning, for Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, for John "Wind Horse" Wambles, for Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, for Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, for Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, for Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, for Thomas "Otter" Adams, for Native American, for NAPOA, for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, for James Limbaugh, for Jimmy Lee Bowen, for Franklin Irvin, for Knight (signed by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Dfts and Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
201 Response by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Joe Hopper, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley to [200−1] Order to Show Cause, referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 01/18/2000)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 46 of 85

01/21/2000 01/24/2000 01/27/2000 01/28/2000 01/28/2000 01/31/2000 02/02/2000
02/14/2000 02/18/2000
03/14/2000

202 FINAL MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Extension of Time to File Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge that is addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [202−1] Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge that is addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, Objections reset to 1/31/00 for [192−1] Report and Recommendations (by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Pla and Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
203 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections, J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, Willie Johnson, Kenneth Patrick, Donald Parker, Leslie Thompson for David E. Belser to Withdraw as Attorney , referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [203−1] motion for David E. Belser to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Atty David E. Belser for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker and for Leslie Thompson (by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 01/28/2000)
204 REPLY by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [201−1] Response to [200−1] Order to Show Cause, referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 01/28/2000)
205 OBJECTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [192−1] Report and Recommendations of the Mag. Judge that is Addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 02/01/2000)
206 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Plas' Objections should be overruled: Response to Order to Show Cause due on 2/15/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Joe Hopper, for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson; Plas my file Reply thereto, set deadline for Reply to Response to Order to Show Cause for 2/22/00 for Dark Horns Bailey, for NAPOA, for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, for James Limbaugh, for Jimmy Lee Bowen, for Franklin for Ricky Knight (signed by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 02/02/2000)
207 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Joe Hopper, Ron Sutton for Extension of Time with which to File Brief in Opposition to Plas' Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 02/15/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [207−1] Motion for Extension of Time with which to File Brief in Opposition to Plas' Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge, Brief in opposition due by 3/13/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Joe Hopper, for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for Thomas "Otter" Adams, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson ; terminated deadlines (by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 02/18/2000)
208 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to File Brief in opposition to Plas' Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Out of Time Beyond 3/13/00 Deadline (Brief in Opposition attached), referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 03/16/2000)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 47 of 85

03/17/2000 03/17/2000 03/21/2000 03/22/2000 03/24/2000
03/31/2000 04/03/2000 04/04/2000 04/05/2000
04/10/2000 06/12/2000
06/12/2000 06/16/2000

Stamped ORDER granting [208−1] Motion for Leave to File Brief in opposition to Plas' Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Out of Time Beyond 3/13/00 Deadline (by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel and Dfts. h(hc) (Entered: 03/17/2000)
209 BRIEF by Dept. of Corrections in opposition to [205−1] Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate regading Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 03/17/2000)
210 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Set 3/31 as Date to File Reply Brf to Dfts' Brf regarding Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
Order of 3/14/00 mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 03/23/2000)
211 ORDER granting [210−1] Motion to Set 3/31 as Date to File Reply Brf to Dfts' Brf regarding Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues; set Reply Brief deadline for 3/31/00 for Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, for NAPOA, for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, for James Limbaugh, for Jimmy Lee Bowen, for Franklin Irvin, for Ricky Knight (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
212 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to set 4/3 as Date to File Reply Brf to Dfts' Brf regarding the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 04/03/2000)
213 REPLY BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [209−1] Brief in opposition to [205−1] Objections to Recommendation of Mag. Judge that Addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues by Dept of Corrections, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 04/04/2000)
Order of 3/24/00 mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Return to Sender − Not Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 04/04/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [212−1] Motion to Extend Time to set 4/3 as Date to File Reply Brf to Dfts' Brf regarding Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, reset Reply Brief deadline for 4/3/00 for Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, for NAPOA, for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, for James Limbaugh, for Jimmy Lee Bowen, for Franklin Irvin, for Ricky Knight (by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
Stamped Order of 4/5/00 returned w/notation "Return to Sender − Not Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 04/10/2000)
214 ORDER overruling [205−1] Objection; adopting [192−1] Report and Recommendations; considered, order and adjudged that Jgmt be entered in favor of Dfts on the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues; adopting [193−1] Report and Recommendations; considered, ordered and adjudged that Jgmt be entered in favor of Plas in accordance with Findings and Conclusions contained in Recommendation of Mag. Judge concerning Issues agreed upon by Parties in Stipulation filed on 03/05/98; denying [188−1] Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Without Reproducing the Entire Pleading and [189−1] Motion to Amend [1−1] Complaint to Add a Claim Based on the Newly Enacted Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment (signed by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/12/2000)
Case closed h(hc) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
Order of 06/12/00 mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 48 of 85

06/26/2000 07/07/2000 07/12/2000
07/12/2000
07/12/2000
07/14/2000 07/14/2000
07/17/2000 07/19/2000 07/21/2000 07/21/2000 07/24/2000

(Entered: 06/19/2000)
215 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses , referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 06/27/2000)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody: [215−1] Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 07/07/2000)
216 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Opposing Party why Pla's Preliminary Motion for Attys' Fees, Cost &Expenses should not be granted: Rsp to Order to Show Cause due on 8/1/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Michael Haley, for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
217 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time and/or Set Date Certain to File A Cost Bill; a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attyorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses and supporting Brf and Evidentiary Materials , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 07/13/2000)
218 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Douglas Bailey, Franklin Irvin, James F. Limbaugh, Jr., Autry Daughtry, Jimmy L. Bowen, Billy Jones, Michael Clem and Ricky Knight from the final order entered on June 12, 2000, to the extent such Order and Judgment enters judgment in favor of the Defendants on the sweat lodge and hair length issues. Copies mailed to Attorney's Mark Sabel and Peter Fruin with an appeal information sheet and civil docketing statement, Counsel and to USCA, Eleventh Circuit along with certified copies of orders appealed from and docket entries. FILING FEE 82788 RECEIPT # 105.00 (kcg) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
Notice of Appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith (kcg) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
219 ORDER granting [217−1] Motion to Extend Time and/or [217−2] Motion Set Date Certain to File A Cost Bill; a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attys' Fees, Costs, Expenses and supporting Brf and Evidentiary Materials; 1) on or before 08/02/00 Plas shall file Bill of Costs; 2) on or before 08/23/00 Dfts shall file Brf and Evidentiary Materials; 3) on or before 09/06/00 Counsel for Parties shall Conduct Conf, reporting Result of Conf to Court on or before 09/08/00; vacating [216−1] Order (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
07/12/00 Order mailed to John M. Porter returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − Forward Time expired" New Address 2865 Zelda Rd Montg AL 36106; remailed to new address h(hc) (Entered: 07/18/2000)
07/14/00 Order mailed to John M. Porter returned w/notation "Return to Sender − Forward Time Expired"; remailed to new address h(hc) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
07/14/00 Order mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Return to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
USCA Case Number Re: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith USCA NUMBER: 00−13699−B (kcg) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
Received transcript order information sheet from Attorney Mark Sabel with the notation "I am ordering a transcript of the following proceedings": 12/6/94 Pre−Trial Testimony of Defendant Leslie Thompson held before Judge Coody. (kcg) (Entered: 07/25/2000)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 49 of 85

07/28/2000 08/02/2000 08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/10/2000 08/16/2000 08/18/2000
08/18/2000 08/21/2000 08/21/2000 08/21/2000
08/21/2000 08/21/2000

220 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Transcription of One Witness's Testimony (Dft Leslie Thompson) without Payment , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
221 SECOND MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to File Costs Bill, a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attyorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses and supporting Brf and Evidientiary Materials , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 08/03/2000)
222 Stamped ORDER granting [221−1] Motion to Ext Time to File Costs Bill, a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attyorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses and supporting Brf and Evidientiary Materials until 08/18/00 (by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
Received transcript order form from Lewis Wimberley with the notation "Satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript have not been made". (kcg) (Entered: 08/10/2000)
08/02/00 Order mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 08/10/2000)
223 ORDER denying [220−1] Motion for Transcription of One Witness's Testimony (Dft Leslie Thompson) without Payment (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 08/16/2000)
224 Bill of costs (w/attachments) received on 8/18/2000 in the amount of $26,815.14 entered by James Morning R. Limbaugh, et al, to be taxed against Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
225 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to File a Costs Bill; a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; and a Supporting Brief and Evidentiary Materials; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
226 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to File a Brief and Evidentiary Materials Supporting their Claims for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; etc; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
Costs in the amount of $ 26,851.14 taxed for Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, against defendants per Bill of Cost Received on 8/18/2000; copies mailed to counsel (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
227 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [226−1] motion to Extend Time to File a Brief and Evidentiary Materials Supporting their Claims for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; etc; by plaintiffs referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) Modified on 08/22/2000 (Entered: 08/22/2000)
227 EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSIONS by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [226−1] motion to Extend Time to File a Brief and Evidentiary Materials Supporting their Claims for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; etc; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
228 NOTICE OF SUSBMISSION OF EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS (w/Exhibits 1−7 attached) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh,

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 50 of 85

08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/23/2000
08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/31/2000 09/12/2000
10/24/2000 10/24/2000 10/31/2000 11/14/2000 11/29/2000 02/09/2001 02/12/2001 02/16/2001

Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [227−1] support memorandum, [226−1] motion to Extend Time to File a Brief and Evidentiary Materials Supporting their Claims for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; etc; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
Court reporter's [Lewis Wimberley] TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of December 6, 1994 Testimony Of Leslie Thompson. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of record on appeal mailed to USCA, 11th Circuit and counsel: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith (kcg) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
229 ORDER granting [226−1] motion to Extend Time ; granting [225−1] motion to Extend Time; directing defendants to show cause; set response to Order to Show Cause due on 9/11/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Michael Haley, for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson as to why [215−1] motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses should not be granted ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
Doc #227 and #228 referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/24/2000)
Bill of Costs mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC" h(hc) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
Mail returned from Postal Service for Ron Sutton with the notation "Return to Sender − Not Employed by DOC". (kcg) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
230 BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees in opposition to [215−1] Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
231 MOTION by Gerald Ward for Writ of Mandamus (w/attachments) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (kcg) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
231 Writ of Mandamus treated as a MOTION by Gerald Ward to Intervene by Gerald Ward [PER COURT'S ORDER OF 10/31/00] h(hc) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
232 ORDER denying [231−1] Motion to Intervene by Gerald Ward; terminating [231−1] Motion for Writ of Mandamus (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
Order of 10/31/00 mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − Not Employed by DOC" h(hc) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
233 MOTION (REQUEST) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Mediation for Resolution of Outstanding Attys Fees , referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
REQUEST for Record On Appeal from USCA re: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
Certified and transmitted Record on Appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of RECEIPT of RECORD ON APPEAL from USCA Re: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith USCA Number: 00−13699−BB @ 2 Boxes (dkt clerk) (Entered: 02/23/2001)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 51 of 85

05/09/2001
06/12/2001
06/12/2001 06/13/2001 06/28/2001 06/28/2001 06/28/2001 06/28/2001 07/09/2001 07/11/2001
07/17/2001

234 NOTICE of filing discovery related to compliance with court ordered injunctive relief (first consolidated set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding implementation of the court ordered relief) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. Referred to Mag Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/11/2001)
235 ORDER (rendered June 11, 2001, is issued as the mandate) of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, that since the district court issued its judgment in this case, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. section 2000cc, et seq., that the plantiffs have filed a motion to remand the case for further consideration in light of that new statute, and a motions panel ordered that motion carried with the case for decision by this panel, as further set out in order, Remanding this case to the District Court , that this is not a limited remand, and we do not mean to restrict the district court's scope of authortiy to consider or reconsider any issues it deems appropriate. ( Before: CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and PROPST*, District Judge. ) , copies provided. [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
Record on Appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals: [218−1] appeal [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
File w/copy of USCA ORDER ON REMAND forwarded to Judge De Ment. [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
Case reopened per 6/12/01 remand by Eleventh Circuit. (djy) Modified on 11/08/2001 (Entered: 11/08/2001)
236 ORDER referring this case to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
CASE REFERRED to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for all pretrial matters. (mfm) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
File referred to Mag. Judge Coody (mfm) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
Ron Sutton's order filed 6/28/01 returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted not known; no longer employed by DOC. (sl) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
237 ORDER directing parties to file briefs specifically addressing the issues raised by the remand by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals setting Brief deadline on or before 8/13/01 ; parties shall file reply briefs setting reply brief deadline on or before 8/28/01 for Gerald Ward, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Gwendolyn Mosley, Ron Sutton, Michael Haley, Steven Dees, Officer Wynn, J. C. Giles, Roy Dunaway, Eddie Carter, Andrew Redd, Roy Hightower, Thomas Gilkerson, Morris L. Thigpen, Tommy Herring, Neal W. Russell, Lt. Estes, Billy Mitchem, Ellen Ruth Leonard, William S. Sticker, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Native American, NAPOA, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Fictitious Defendant(s), Willie Whiting, Steve Walker, Bill Lindsey, Ralph Hooks, James Bowen, E. L. Harrelson,r Tom Allen, John Michael Shaver, Ronald E. Jones, James D. White, Jeff Sessions, James Limbaugh,r Jimmy Lee Bowen, Dept. of Corrections, J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, Willie Johnson, Kenneth Patrick, Donald Parker, Leslie Thompson, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight, Richard Robinson, Thomas Hogan, Matthew Latham , and setting Oral Argument for 10:00 on 9/13/01 in the Third Floor Courtroom in the FMJFB &USC, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Susan R. Walker ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. Furnished to YG, HC, CA (sl) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
238 NOTICE of change of address for Peter Fruin, counsel for plaintiffs. (sl) (Entered: 07/18/2001)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 52 of 85

07/18/2001 07/19/2001 07/20/2001 07/27/2001
08/06/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001
08/15/2001
08/28/2001 08/30/2001
08/30/2001

239 MOTION for leave for Alice Ann Byrne to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Judge Coody (sl) Modified on 07/19/2001 (Entered: 07/19/2001)
Deadline updated; updating Oral Argument for 10:00 9/13/01 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 7/11/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted not known. (sl) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
240 Stamped ORDER granting [239−1] motion for Alice Ann Byrne to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Alice Ann Byrne for Steven Dees, Officer Wynn, Roy Dunaway, Eddie Carter, Andrew Redd, Roy Hightower, Thomas Gilkerson, Morris L. Thigpen, Tommy Herring, Neal W. Russell, Lt. Estes, Billy Mitchem, Ellen Ruth Leonard, William S. Sticker ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 7/18/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: "Return to Sender−−no longer employed by DOC." (sl) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
241 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Leave to File amended complaint without reproducing the entire pleading referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
243 BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [242−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint to add claims based on the RLUIPA and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment and brief addressing the remand order. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
245 ORDER (rendered August 10, 2001) of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, GRANTING Appellants' motion to remand the issue of appellate attorneys' fees to district court for disposition when and if Appellants prevail on the merits of their claims, DENYING AS MOOT Appellants' alternative motion for an extension of time to file their motion for appellate attorneys' fees. (BEFORE: CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and PROPST*, District Judge.) , copies provided. [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
244 REPLY BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley on Post−remand issues in light of passage of RLUIPA. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
246 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to notify the U. S. Attorney General of claim by defendant of unconstitutionality of federal statute , and to Stay briefing schedule pending notification referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
247 ORDER granting [246−1] motion to notify the U. S. Attorney General of claim by defendant of unconstitutionality of federal statute; granting [246−2] motion to Stay briefing schedule pending notification. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and the defendants' brief on post−remand issues in light of passage of RLUIPA on the Attorney General for the United States and the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. The Attorney General for the United States is hereby directed to notify the court in writing within 30 days of service whether the United States intends to intervene in this matter. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
248 REPLY BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J.

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 53 of 85

09/04/2001
09/05/2001 09/05/2001 09/06/2001 09/07/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/11/2001 09/14/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001 10/01/2001

C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley in opposition to [243−1] plaintiffs' brief addressing the remand order and supporting plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint to add claims on the RLUIPA and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment .Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
249 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley for Leave to File Corrected affidavit of Rachel Lee (Exhibit B attached) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
250 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of order &pleading on (illegible) for Charles Niven, U. S. Attorney on 9/4/01 . (sl) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
251 Stamped ORDER granting [249−1] motion for Leave to File Corrected affidavit of Rachel Lee ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 8/30/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−−no longer employed by the DOC. (sl) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 8/30/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender; unknown; not at this address. (sl) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
252 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of 8/30/01 order &pleading on Ernest Parker on 9/5/01 for John Ashcroft.. (sl) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
Roy S. Haber's copy of 8/30/01 order returned in mail with the following notation:Return to sender: attempted, not known. (sl) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 9/4/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted not known (sl) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
253 ORDER setting telephone Status Conference at 4:00 on 9/26/01 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody The plaintiffs shall set up the conference call. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 9/14/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to Sender, Unknown, Not at this address. (sl) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
Roy S. Haber's copy of 9/14/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted, not known. (sl) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
256 MOTION by USA to Intervene referred to Judge Ira De Ment (sl) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
257 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by USA in support of [256−1] motion to Intervene by USA. Referred to Judge Ira De Ment (sl) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
254 [DOCKETING ERROR−PLAINTIFF DIRECTED TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDER (ORDER DOCKET #255)−DISREGARD THIS DOCKET ENTRY−EDIT 11/1/01 DJY] Fourth AMENDED COMPLAINT by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey asserting claims pursuant to the RLUIPAA and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment. (sl) Modified on 11/01/2001 (Entered: 10/01/2001)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 54 of 85

10/01/2001
10/03/2001 10/04/2001 10/05/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001
10/12/2001 10/15/2001 10/17/2001 10/22/2001

255 ORDER granting [242−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint to add claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA); denying that part of motion [242−1] to add claims under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment. Plaintiffs shall filed an amended complaint consistent with this order on or before October 10, 2001. It is further ORDERED that the defendants shall file an answer to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 claims on or before 10/30/01. On or before 11/16/01, the parties shall file with the court a joint notification about whether any discovery is necessary on issues raised in the amendment to the complaint. Unless discovery is allowed based on the parties' joint notification, dispositive motions and any supporting evidentiary materials shall be filed on or before 12/3/01. The movant shall file a brief in support of the motion. This brief may incorporate briefs previously filed. Responsive briefs and any opposing evidentiary materials shall be filed on or before 12/17/01, at which time the court will take the motions under advisement without oral argument. setting Amended Pleadings deadline to 10/10/01 , setting Answer deadline to 10/30/01 for Gwendolyn Mosley, Ron Sutton, Michael Haley, Steven Dees, Officer Wynn, J. C. Giles, Roy Dunaway, Eddie Carter, Andrew Redd, Roy Hightower, Thomas Gilkerson, Morris L. Thigpen, Tommy Herring, Neal W. Russell, Lt. Estes, Billy Mitchem, Ellen Ruth Leonard, f William S. Sticker, Willie Whiting, Steve Walker, Bill Lindsey, Ralph Hooks, James Bowen, E. L. Harrelson, Tom Allen, John Michael Shaver, Ronald E. Jones, James D. White, Jeff Sessions, Dept. of Corrections, J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, Willie Johnson, Kenneth Patrick, Donald Parker, Leslie Thompson , setting Motion Filing deadline to 12/3/01 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
258 ORDER granting [256−1] motion to Intervene unless within seven (7) days from the date of this order an opposing party files objections. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 10/1/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Not at this address. (sl) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 10/1/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to Sender−no longer employed by DOC. (sl) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
259 ORDER denying as moot [241−1] motion for Leave to File amended complaint without reproducing the entire pleading ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
261 OBJECTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [255−4] order of the Magistrate Judge to the extent denied leave to amend to add an ARFA claim; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (mfm) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
262 MOTION by James Limbaugh for Shannon Holliday to Withdraw as Attorney ; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (mfm) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
265 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, asserting claims pursuant to the RLUIPA by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey amending [1−1] complaint filed pursuant to court's order entered 10/1/01 (Doc #255). Referred to Mag Judge Coody (djy) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 10/3/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−no longer employed by DOC. (sl) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
File referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
Roy Haber's copy of 10/03/01 order returned in mailed with the following notation: Attempted, not known. (sl) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
263 RESPONSE by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 55 of 85

10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/30/2001
11/02/2001 11/02/2001 11/02/2001
11/08/2001 11/16/2001 11/19/2001 11/21/2001 11/26/2001 11/27/2001 11/27/2001 11/28/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001

Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley in opposition to [261−1] objection by plaintiffs. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
264 MOTION by Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Edward A. Hosp to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
Roy S. Haber's copy of 10/11/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted not known. (sl) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
266 ANSWER by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley to fourth amended complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
267 ORDER overruling [261−1] objection, as further set out ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ), copies provided to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
268 ORDER overruling [261−1] objection as further set out in order ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
269 ORDER denying as MOOT [260−1] motion to File Fourth [254−1] amended complaint. Previously, the court by order allowed the fourth amended complaint based on claims asserted on the basis of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 11−2−01 order returned in mail with the following notation, "returned to sender−no longer employed by DOC" (djy) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
Roy S. Haber's copies of orders dated 11/2/01 (docs. 267, 268, 269) returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender − attempted unknown. (sl) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
270 Notice of the parties, filed by counsel for plaintiffs, to the Court order [255−4] regarding RLUIPA Discovery. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 11/02/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender − no longer employed by DOC. (sl) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 11/2/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−unclaimed (sl) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
271 Statement by USA on its position with respect to discovery. (sl) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
272 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for USA by Sara W. Clash−Drexler (sl) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
273 Stamped ORDER granting [262−1] motion for Shannon Holliday to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Attorney Holliday) ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
274 Stamped ORDER granting [264−1] motion for Edward A. Hosp to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Attorney Hosp) ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 11/29/2001)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 56 of 85

11/30/2001 12/12/2001
12/21/2001 12/21/2001
02/08/2002 02/14/2002 03/11/2002
06/11/2002
06/11/2002 06/19/2002 06/25/2002 06/25/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/02/2002

275 RESPONSE by parties to proposed scheduling order. Referred to Judge Ira De Ment (sl) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
276 ORDER setting Status Conference for 2:00 on 12/19/01 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody This proceeding shall be conducted by telephone conference and plaintiff shall set up conference as further set out in order. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. Furnished to YG, HC, CA (sl) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
Scheduling and Status Conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/19/01 (sl) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
277 ORDER setting Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery cutoff set to 5/10/02; Dispositive Motion Filing set to 6/10/02 as further set out in order; , setting Oral Argument for 10:00 on 8/27/02n in the Third Floor Courtroom, FMJFB &USC, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. Furnished to YG, HC, CA (sl) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
278 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA for Shannon Holliday to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
279 Stamped ORDER granting [278−1] motion for Shannon Holliday to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Holliday) ( by Judge Ira De Ment , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
280 ORDER denying, without prejudice [233−1] motion for Mediation for Resolution of Outstanding Attys Fees and [215−1] motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses; the plaintiff may seek such attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to which they may be entitled after resolution of all pending issues in this case. ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
281 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims with respect to hair length and sweat lodge policies ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
282 BRIEF by defendants in support of [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims with respect to hair length and sweat lodge policies; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
283 ORDER directing the defendants that on or before 7/3/02 to file an appendix in accordance with the previous orders of this court ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
284 MOTION by Franklin Irvin for the issuing of non−hostile and hostile subpoenas referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
285 MOTION by Franklin Irvin to withdraw Mark Sabel as Attorney ; and for Evidentiary Hearing referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
286 MOTION by NAPOA for Coercive Sanctions and for Civil Contempt Proceedings referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
Roy S. Haber's copy of 6/19/02 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender − attempted, not known (sl) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
287 BRIEF (w/Appendix Vol 1−3 maintained in separate binders) by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 57 of 85

07/08/2002 07/09/2002
07/25/2002 07/25/2002 07/25/2002
07/30/2002
07/30/2002
08/05/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002

W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley in support of [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims with respect to hair length and sweat lodge policies referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody. (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/03/2002 (Entered: 07/03/2002)
288 ORDER denying [284−1] motion for subpoenas; that on or before 8/1/02, counsel for the plaintiff shall confer with Irvin and report to the court counsel's position with regard to the motion ( signed by Mag Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson ) , copies provided to plaintiff and counsel; copy of motion furnished to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
289 ORDER denying [286−1] motion for Coercive Sanctions; denying [286−2] motion for Civil Contempt Proceedings; the plaintiffs in this case are represented by counsel, and the court otherwise will not consider motions filed pro se on behalf of prisoners who may be affected by the prior orders entered in this case who have not intervened; the Clerk of the Court is Directed to send to counsel for the plaintiff a copy of the motion filed by the prisoners. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
290 MOTION by USA to Substitute Attorney Joshua Z. Rabinovitz for Sara W. Clash−Drexler and Thomas E. Caballero referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
291 MEMORANDUM by Intervenor USA in support of the Constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. (Appendix Vol. 1 &2 maintained in separate binders) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
292 BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in opposition to [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims with respect to hair length and sweat lodge policies referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
293 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time until 8/16/02 to respond to the court's order of 7/8/02 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/31/2002)
294 NOTICE of filing three volume appendix to plaintiff's brief in response to defendant's motion for summary judgment on RLUIPA claims pursuant to the court's 6/19/02 order by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. (Appendix maintained in separate binders) Referred to Judge Coody (sl) Modified on 07/31/2002 (Entered: 07/31/2002)
CASE reassigned to Judge W. H. Albritton III (mfm) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
295 REPLY to Plaintiff's Brief and Brief of Intervenor United States by defendants. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (Appendix VOL. IV maintained in separate binder) (sl) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
296 RESPONSE by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [288−2] order regarding plaintiff Irvin. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/19/2002)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 58 of 85

08/23/2002 08/27/2002
08/27/2002 08/27/2002 09/16/2002 09/17/2002 09/27/2002 10/01/2002 10/09/2002 01/01/2003
01/02/2003 02/03/2003 02/18/2003
03/12/2003

297 OBJECTION by defendants to Response of Plaintiff's Counsel to "Plaintiff Irvin's Motion to Withdraw Plaintiffs Attorney Mark Sabel and Notice of Appearance" to referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
298 Upon consideration of the arguments presents at the 8/27/02 hearing on the defendants [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims, it is ORDERED that (1) on or before twenty−one days from the entry of this order, the plaintiffs shall file a brief addressing the issue of whether they have satisfied their burden of establishing that the defendants' prohibition on inmate hair length and participation in sweat lodge ceremonies imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion as further set out in order setting Brief deadline to 9/17/02 for plaintiffs ; (2) that within fourteen days after the receipt of the plaintiffs' brief, the defendants may file a reply addressing the issues raised in the plaintiffs' brief setting reply brief deadline for 10/1/02 for defendants ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
ORAL ARGUMENT held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 8/27/02 (sl) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
299 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Oral argument on pending motions; Tape # 3714S (sl) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
300 NOTICE of Recent Authority by USA. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 09/17/2002)
301 Plaintiffs' Brief Demonstrating that Defendants' Total Ban on Sweat Lodge Ceremonies and Wearing Long Hair Constitutes a Substantial Burden Within the Meaning of RLUIPA. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
302 MOTION by defendants to Extend Time to file response brief to plaintiffs' brief on "substantial burden" issues referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
303 Stamped ORDER granting [302−1] motion to Extend Time to file response brief to plaintiffs' brief on "substantial burden" issues resetting reply brief deadline for 10/8/02 for defendants ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
304 REPLY BRIEF by defendants regarding plaintiffs' failure to show a substantial burden on the free exercise of their religion as required by RLUIPA. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
318 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting for John M. Porter to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody [DOCUMENT #318 WAS DOCKETED TWICE, ONE HAVING AN INCORRECT DATE OF 01/01/03 sb] (sl) Modified on 10/03/2003 (Entered: 10/03/2003)
305 NOTICE of Recent Authority (with attachments) by USA. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
306 NOTICE of Recent Authority by defendants. Referred to Judge Coody. (sl) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
307 ORDER denying [285−1] motion to withdraw Mark Sabel as Attorney; denying [285−2] motion for Evidentiary Hearing; granting [290−1] motion to Substitute Attorney Joshua Z. Rabinovitz for Sara W. Clash−Drexler and Thomas E. Caballero (terminated attorney Sara W. Clash−Drexler for USA, attorney Thomas E. Caballero for USA); denying as moot [293−1] motion to Extend Time ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
308 NOTICE of Recent Authority by defendants (Decision and order attached) Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 03/13/2003)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 59 of 85

03/14/2003
03/17/2003 03/25/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 04/08/2003 08/08/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003
10/01/2003
10/02/2003

309 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (1) that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted on the plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy restricting inmate hair length violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; (2) that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied on the plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy prohibiting inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; (3) that the court reserve ruling on the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 until after a determination of RLUIPA's applicability. Objections to R and R due by 4/1/03 , copies provided to plaintiffs and defendants. (sl) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
310 RESPONSE by USA to [308−1] and [306−1] notices of recent authority by defendants; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
311 [DOCKETED IN ERROR−SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR FILING−RETURNED TO JAMES DRAUGHON sl] MOTION by NAPOA (James A Draughon) to hold defendants in contempt of court for violating federal magistrate judge's order (with attachemnts) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) Modified on 04/07/2003 (Entered: 03/26/2003)
312 OBJECTION by defendants to [309−1] report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
313 OBJECTION by plaintiffs to [309−1] report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
314 RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to [313−1] objection of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation by plaintiffs. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
315 NOTICE of Recent Authority by USA (Opinion attached) (sl) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
316 ORDER setting Status Conference, by telephone, at 2:30 p.m. on 10/14/03 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; the defendant shall set up the telephone conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. Furnished to YG, HC, WS (sl) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
317 ORDER (1) adopting [309−1] report and recommendations of the magistrate judge;(2) the defendant's [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on the plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy restricting inmate hair length violates the Religious Land Use and institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; (3) the defendants' [281−1] motion for summary judgment is DENIED on the plaintifs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy prohibiting inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; (3) the court reserves ruling on the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 until after a determination of the RLUIPA's applicability; (4) this case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings ( signed by Judge W. H. Albritton III ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
318 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley for John M. Porter to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) Modified on 10/03/2003 (Entered: 10/02/2003)
319 Stamped ORDER granting [318−1] motion for John M. Porter to Withdraw as Attorney ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/02/2003)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 60 of 85

10/02/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/15/2003
10/16/2003 10/20/2003 10/31/2003 11/13/2003 12/10/2003 01/14/2004
02/09/2004 02/12/2004 02/17/2004
02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/18/2004

320 NOTICE of Recent Authority by USA. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
Status Conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/14/03 (sl) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
322 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Telephone Status Conferenced held on 10/14/03 before Judge Charles S. Coody; Courtroom Deputy: Wanda Stinson; Digital Recorded 2:36 to 2:47. (sl) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
321 ORDERED that the parties shall have until 2/16/04 to complete discovery and/or settlement negotiations in this case with regard to the remaining issues; it is further ORDERED that a scheduling and status conference is set setting Scheduling and Status Conference for 9:00 a.m. on 2/17/04 in Courtroom 4B, U. S. Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
323 MOTION by Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, and Douglass Bailey for Edward A. Hosp to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
324 Stamped ORDER granting [323−1] motion for Edward A. Hosp to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
325 NOTICE of recent authority by USA (w/attachment). Referred to Judge Albritton. (djy) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
326 NOTICE of Recent Authority by defendants. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
327 NOTICE of Recent Authority by USA (with attachments). Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
328 INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
329 MOTION by parties to enlarge discovery period (Exhibit A attached) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
330 MOTION for Kenneth E. Vines to Withdraw as Attorney and to Substitute Attorney Patricia A. Snyder for Attorney Vines referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
331 Stamped ORDER granting [330−1] motion for Kenneth E. Vines to Withdraw as Attorney; granting [330−2] motion to Substitute Attorney Patricia A. Snyder for Attorney Vines Added Patricia A. Snyder ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
Scheduling/Status conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 02/17/04 (mfm) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
332 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Scheduling/Status Conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 02/17/04; FTR: 9:00 − 9:10 (mfm) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
333 ORDER granting [329−1] motion to enlarge discovery period; the parties shall disclose to each other the identity of ANY person who may be used at the evidentiary hearing and provide reports of retained experts or witnesses on or before 04/19/04 from the plaintiff(s) and 03/26/04 from the defendant(s); reset Discovery cutoff to 5/17/04 ; set Scheduling Conference for 10:00 6/18/04 by telephone before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; set Status Conference for 10:00

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 61 of 85

04/26/2004 05/17/2004 05/19/2004 05/31/2004 06/07/2004
06/18/2004 06/18/2004 07/06/2004 07/13/2004
07/15/2004 07/20/2004 07/21/2004

6/18/04 by telephone before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; counsel for defendants shall set up the telephone conference; set Evidentiary Hearing for 9:00 7/14/04 in Courtroom 4B, USC, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody); copies provided to counsel; furnished to YG, HC, WS. (dmn) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
334 NOTIFICATION that this circuit has found RLUIPA to be constitutional filed by plaintiffs. (sl, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
335 JOINT MOTION to enlarge Discovery period by plaintiffs and defendants(djy, ) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
336 ORDER grantaing the 335 JOINT MOTION to enlarge the discovery period.Discovery period is extended from 5/17/04 to 6/18/2004.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 05/19/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
337 MOTION to Strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial and for a determination of the factual issues to be re−tried by Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith (with Exhibits A−F attached). (sl, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
338 RESPONSE to 337 MOTION to Strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (sl, ) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
339 ORDER extending Discovery deadline to 8/19/2004. Evidentiary Hearing reset from 7/14/04 to 9/2/2004 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 06/18/04. (Furnished to YG, HC, WS)(sl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
340 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telphone Status Conference held on 6/18/2004. Courtroom Deputy: Wanda Stinson; Law Clerk: Wynn D. Allen (Tape #Digital Recorded.) (sl, ) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
341 ORDER denying 337 Motion to Strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial and for a determination of the factual issues to be retried . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/6/04. (cc, ) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
342 MOTION for Extension of Time to Report on Settlement by Alabama Department of Corrections, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, William S. Sticker, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (sl, ) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
343 ORDER granting 342 Motion for Extension of Time to Report on Settlement Responses due by 7/21/2004. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 07/15/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
344 MOTION to Reconsider plaintiffs' 337 Motion to strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial.. (sl, ) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
***Attorney Kim Tobias Thomas for Eddie Carter; Steven Dees; Roy Dunaway; Dewayne Estes; Lt. Estes; J. C. Giles; Thomas Gilkerson; E. L. Harrelson; Tommy Herring; Roy Hightower; Ralph Hooks; Willie Johnson; Ellen Ruth Leonard; Bill Lindsey; J. McClure; Billy Mitchem; Donald Parker; Kenneth Patrick; Andrew Redd; Neal W. Russell; Jeff Sessions; William S. Sticker; Morris L. Thigpen;

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 62 of 85

07/21/2004
07/23/2004
07/30/2004 07/30/2004 08/17/2004 08/19/2004 08/19/2004 08/20/2004 08/23/2004 08/26/2004 08/26/2004 08/30/2004
09/02/2004

Leslie Thompson; Steve Walker; James D. White; Willie Whiting; Alabama Department of Corrections and James Bowen added. (sl, ) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
345 Notice of Mediation and Settlement Conference by Alabama Department of Corrections, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, Billy Mitchem, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, William S. Sticker, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn (sl, ) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
346 ORDEED that the 344 MOTION to Reconsider plaintiffs' motion to strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial is set for Oral Argument on 7/30/2004 at 9:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody. The plaintiff shall set up the telephone conference.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 07/23/04. (Furnished to YG, HC, WS)(sl, ) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
347 RESPONSE to Motion re 344 MOTION for Reconsideration re 338 Response to Motion,, filed by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
348 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone/State Conference Conference held on 7/30/2004. (Ditigal Recorded 9:06 to 9:18) (sl, ) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
349 MOTION for Charles A. Graddick to Withdraw as Attorney for defendants. (sl, ) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
350 ORDER granting 349 Motion for Charles Graddick to Withdraw as Attorney. . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 08/19/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
*** Attorney Charles A. Graddick terminated per order entered on 8/19/04 (sl, ) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
351 NOTICE by Alabama Department of Corrections DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING OF DRAFT SWEAT LODGE POLICY INCLUDING ATTACHEMENT (Steadman, Joseph) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/26/2004 (sl, ). (Entered: 08/20/2004)
352 NOTICE of Deficiency re electronic signatures for 351 Notice of Filing of Draft Sweat Lodge Policy (mfm, ) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
353 NOTICE of Correction re: 351 Notice of filing of Draft Sweat Lodge Policy. This notice is filed to enter the signature page with the electronic signatures. (Attachments: # 1)(sl, ) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
354 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Status Conference held on 8/26/2004. (Tape #Digital Recorded − 2:05 to 2:23) (sl, ) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
355 MOTION to Continue Hearing presently set for 9/2/04 by Alabama Department of Corrections, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, James Bowen, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Franklin Irvin, Willie Johnson, Ricky Knight, Ellen Ruth Leonard, James Limbaugh, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, William S. Sticker, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (sl, ) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
356 ORDERED that the 355 MOTION to Continue the evidentiary hearing for the purpose of negotiations seeking an amicable resolution of this case is GRANTED and the hearing is continued from 9/2/04 to 12/9/04 at 9:00 in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL. It is further ordered that a telephone status conference is set for 9/16/2004 at 11:00 AM.

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 63 of 85

09/07/2004 09/09/2004
09/24/2004 09/28/2004 10/01/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 11/08/2004 11/24/2004 11/24/2004 11/29/2004 12/01/2004 12/03/2004 12/06/2004
12/07/2004 12/07/2004

The defendants shall set up the conference call. counsel for parties are advised that if their respective clients wish to consent they should complete the attached form and have it available for delivery to the clerk of court on 9/16/04.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 09/02/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
357 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Continue Tele−Conference presently set for 9/16/04 filed by plaintiffs (w/attachment). (sl, ) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
358 ORDER granting 357 MOTION to Continue and the Status Conference is CONTINUED from 9/16/04 to 9/28/04 at 1:00 p.m. The defendant shall set up the conference call. All deadlines are adjusted accordingly.Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 09/09/09. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
***Attorney Joseph David Steadman for Ron Sutton; Gwendolyn Mosley and John Michael Shaver added. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
359 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Status Conference held on 9/28/2004. (Digital Recorded 1:00 p.m. to 1:08.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
360 ORDER setting Status Conference for 10/28/2004 09:00 AM in by telephone call to be set up by plaintiffs before Honorable Charles S. Coody. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/1/04. (cc, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
362 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status Conference, by telephone, held on 10/28/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded 8:59 − 9:03.) (sl, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
361 ORDER setting Status Conference, by telephone, on 11/8/2004 at 4:30 PM. Plaintiff shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/29/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
363 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone/Status Conference held on 11/8/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 4:27 p.m. to 4:32 p.m..) (sl, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
364 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Status Conference held on 11/24/2004. (Recording Time 9:33 a.m. − 9:46.) (sl, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/3/2004 04:30 PM before Honorable Charles S. Coody. (sl, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
365 ORDER setting Status Conference for 12/3/2004 at 4:30 PM by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody. Plaintiff shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/29/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
366 MOTION to Produce Specified Plaintiff/Inmates for December 9th Hearing by James Limbaugh. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
369 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone/Status Conference held on 12/3/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 4:33 p.m. to 4:47 p.m..) (sl, ) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
367 ORDER granting 366 Motion to Produce specified plaintiffs/inmates; the persons having custody of the inmates shall produce Billy Jones AIS# 131471; Michael Clem, AIS# 130522; Franklin E. Irvin, AIS# 141535; James F. Limbaugh, Jr., AIS# 148178; and Ricky Knight, AIS# 171382 for the evidentiaqry hearing set on 12/9/04 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL (Copy of order furnished to Transfer Agent, DOC and U.S. Marshal's Service). Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/6/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
368 ORDER directing the defendants to make John Jacobs available for deposition on or before 12/8/04. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/7/04. (cc, ) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
370 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone/Status Conference held on 12/7/2004. (Recording Time Digital

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 64 of 85

12/09/2004
12/10/2004
12/10/2004
12/21/2004 01/17/2005 01/18/2005 01/20/2005 01/25/2005 01/25/2005 01/26/2005 01/26/2005 01/27/2005 02/01/2005 02/10/2005 03/03/2005

Recorded − 8:31 a.m. to 8:41 a.m..) (sl, ) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
372 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/9/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 9:12 a.m. to 10:18 a.m. &1:02 p.m. to 3:53 p.m..) (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 #(2) Defendant's Exhibit 2# 3 Defendant's Exhibit 3# 4 Defendant's Exhibit 4# 5 Defendant's Exhibit 5# 6 Defendant's Exhibit 6# 7 Defendant's Exhibit 7# 8 Defendant's Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit List/Plaintiff &Defendants# 10 Witness List) (sl, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
371 ORDER that on or before December 24, 2004, the defendants shall file anotice concerning whether the Alabama Department of Corrections' regulations havebeen modified to permit the conduct of Native American Sweat Lodge ceremonies &file a copy of the final policy. Briefs due by 1/17/2005 on parties' positions about what further action this court should take to bring these cases to final resolution. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/10/04. (cc, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
373 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/10/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 9:04 a.m. to 10:56 a.m..) (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1A# 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2# 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3# 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4# 5 Defendant's &Plaintiff's Exhibit List# 6 Witness List) (sl, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
374 NOTICE by Alabama Department of Corrections of Promulgation of Revised Administrative Regulation 333 (Attachments: # 1)(Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
375 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 371 Order,, Set Deadlines, Concerning the Final Resolution of this Case filed by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 01/17/2005)
376 BRIEF on Resolution of this Case in compliance with 371 Order filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2# 3 Attachment 3# 4 Attachment 4)(sl, ) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
377 ORDER setting a status conference and oral argument for 2/7/05 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL re 375 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support and 376 Reply Brief. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/20/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
378 MOTION to Continue Status Conference by Alabama Department of Corrections defendants. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
***Attorney Theodore Charles Hirt for USA added. (sl, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
379 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen Annelli Rivera on behalf of USA (Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
380 MOTION Excuse Appearance at Conference and Oral Argument re 377 Order,, Set Hearings, by USA, USA. (Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
381 ORDERED that the status conference and oral argument set for 2/7/05 is reset to 2/10/2005 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/27/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
382 ORDER granting 380 Motion to excuse appearance of Karen A. Rivera at status conference and oral argument set for 2/10/05 . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/1/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
383 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status Conference held on 2/10/2005. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 1:27 p.m. − 2:01 p.m..) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John R. Jacobs) (sl, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
384 ORDER denying as moot 344 Motion to strike redundant and cumulative testimony . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/3/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 65 of 85

03/04/2005 03/04/2005 03/11/2005 03/21/2005 03/28/2005 03/29/2005
03/29/2005 04/07/2005 04/14/2005 04/14/2005 04/26/2005
05/09/2005 09/06/2005
09/06/2005 09/19/2005
09/19/2005 09/21/2005

385 NOTICE by Alabama Department of Corrections of Filing Of Proposed Order (Attachments: # 1)(Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
386 NOTICE of Submission of Proposed Order pursuant to argument held on 2/10/05 filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Recommendation)(sl, ) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
387 REPLY BRIEF In Opposition to Proposed Order Submitted by Plaintiffs filed by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
388 MOTION Further Relief on Behalf of Plaintiff Irvin by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
389 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
390 ORDER granting 389 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Joseph D. Steadman is substituted for attorney Fred Frank Bell as counsel for the Alabama Department of Corrections . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/29/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
*** Attorney Fred Frank Bell terminated per order entered 3/29/05 (sl, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
391 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Jonathan E. Zimmerman by USA. (Zimmerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
392 ORDER granting 391 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Jonathan Eli Zimmerman for USA. . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/14/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
*** Attorney Joshua Z. Rabinovitz and Karen Annelli Rivera terminated per order entered on 4/14/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
393 ORDER that a status conference regarding the implementation of the sweat lodge policy on the Spring Equinox celebration in March 2005 is set on 5/9/2005 at 3:30 PM. This proceeding shall be conducted by telephone conference. Plaintiffs' counsel shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 04/26/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
394 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status Conference held on 5/9/2005. (Recording Time 3:34 p.m. to 3:50.) (sl, ) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
395 RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: (1) to the extent the plaintiffs request injunctive and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs' claim that the ADOC's absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies is a violation of RLUIPA be dismissed as moot; (2) to the extent the plaintiffs request damages, the plaintiffs' claim that the ADOC's absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies is a violation of RLUIPA be dismissed. Objections to RRdue by 9/19/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/6/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
396 RECOMMEDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Irvin's 388 MOTION for Further Relief be denied. Objections to RRdue by 9/19/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/6/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
397 OBJECTION to 395 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on the Sweat Lodge Issue filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1−Religious Program Services# 2 Attachment 3−Declaration of Michael Clem# 3 Attachment 4−Declaration of Billy Jones# 4 Attachment 5−Proposed Order) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
398 NOTICE of Filing Attachments in Support of plaintiff's 397 Objection to Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on the Sweat Lodge Issue. (These attachmets are filed with 397 Objection.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
399 ORDERED that defendants are given until 9/28/05 to respond to the plaintiffs' 397 Objection to Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 9/21/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 66 of 85

09/21/2005 09/23/2005 09/26/2005 09/26/2005 09/28/2005 09/14/2006
09/14/2006 09/28/2006 09/28/2006 10/02/2006 10/11/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/17/2006

400 ORDER ADOPTING 396 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and Ordered that plaintiff Irvin's Motion for Further Relief is DENIED. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 9/21/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing held on December 9 &10, 2004 before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter: Risa L. Entrekin. (PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY DIGITAL SOUND RECORDING; TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY STENOGRAPHY AND COMPUTER.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 2/10/05 before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter: Risa L. Entrekin. (PROCEEDNGS RECORDED BY DIGITAL SOUND RECORDING. TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY STENOGRAPHY AND COMPUTER.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on 5/9/05 before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter: Risa L. Entrekin. (PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY DIGITAL SOUND RECORDING. TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY STENOGRAPHY AND COMPUTER.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
401 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate's Recommendation of September 6, 2005 filed by defendants (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
402 ORDER objections are overruled; ADOPTING 395 Report and Recommendations; 1)To the extent that the Plaintiff's request injunctive and declaratroy relief, the Plaintiffs' claim that the ADOC's absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies is a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 200)(RLUIPA), 42 USC 2000cc, et seq., is dismissed as moot; 2) To the extent that the Plaintiff's request damages, the Plaintiff's claims that the ADOC's absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies was a violation of RLUIPA is dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity and soverign immunity as further set out. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 9/14/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
403 FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in favor of all defendants and against all plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 9/14/06. (vma, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
404 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs by Native American Prisoners of Alabama − Turtle/Wind Clan. (Fruin, Peter) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
405 MOTION for Attorney Fees by James Limbaugh, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
406 ORDERED that on or before 10/17/06, the opposing party shall show cause why the 404 and 405 Motions for Attorney Fees should not be granted. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/2/06. (sl, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
408 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Plaintiffs' to the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit from the 402 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 403 Judgment, entered on September 14, 2006. Copies mailed (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
407 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by John Michael Shaver. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 111761 re 408 Notice of Appeal filed by Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified copy of Docket Sheet and Order to US Court of Appeals re 408 Notice of Appeal (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
409 ORDERED as follows: (1) the 407 motion to establish a briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion and renewed motion for fees and costs is granted; (2) the plaintiffs shall file detailed billing records on or before 10/30/06; (3) the defendants shall be granted an extension to file a response to this court's 406 show cause order on or before 11/20/06; (4) the plaintiffs may file a reply to the defendants' response on or before 12/4/06. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/17/06. (sl, )

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 67 of 85

10/20/2006
10/27/2006 11/02/2006 11/06/2006 11/06/2006 11/08/2006 11/09/2006 11/13/2006
11/20/2006
12/01/2006 12/04/2006 12/15/2006 12/20/2006
01/09/2007

(Entered: 10/17/2006)
410 RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 408 Notice of Appeal from Attorney Mark Sabel counsel for Plaintiffs with following notation: "I Am Ordering A Transcript Of The Following Proceeding" Other− −Evidentiary Hearing proceedings held on 12/09−10/04 before Judge Charles S. Coody. [TRANSCRIPT FILED 09/23/2005, BY RISA L. ENTREKIN](ydw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
USCA Case Number 06−15587−B for 408 Notice of Appeal filed by Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
411 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Time to File Detailed Billing Records (pursuant to 409 Order), filed by plaintiffs. . (sl, ) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
412 ORDER granting 411 Motion for Extension of time to file detailed billing records. The plaintiffs' time for filing detailed billing records is extended from 10/30/06 until 11/8/06. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/6/06. (sl, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
413 NOTICE of Filing Billing Records filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Itemized Time Logs/Records)(sl, ) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
414 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Support of 413 Billing Records filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Implementation of Hourly Rate Increase for CJA Panel Attorneys# 2 Affidavit of Mark Sabel)(sl, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
415 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen Michael Doyle on behalf of USA, USA (Doyle, Stephen) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
416 RECEIVED AMENDED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 06−15587−B, 408 Notice of Appeal by Attorney Mark Sabel counsel for appellant with following notation: Telephone Status Cnf. proceedings held on 2/13/98 before Judge Mag. Judge Charles Coody (ydw, ) Modified on 12/4/2006 to reflect that the 2/13/08 were court proceeding. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
417 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition To the Petition for Attorney Fees and Expenses of Sabel &Sabel filed by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
418 TRANSCRIPT re 408 Notice of Appeal (PDF available for court use only) COURT proceedings held on 2/13/98 before Judge Charles S. Coody, Court Reporter: Shannon M. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Second of Three Parts Continue # 2 Third Part of Three)(ydw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
419 Brief in Response to defendants' submission of 11/20/06, pursuant to 409 Order filed by plaintiffs.. (sl, ) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
420 TRANSCRIPT re 408 Notice of Appeal (PDF available for court use only) of Telephone Status Conference held 7/30/04 before Judge Charles S. Coody, Court Reporter: Risa Entrekin. (ydw, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
421 ORDERED that the 405 MOTION for Attorney Fees is STAYED pending resolution of settlement negotiations. Ordered that on or before 1/31/07, the defendants shall file a report informing the court of the results of their settlement negotiations. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/20/06. (sl, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
422 MOTION for Contempt Order and Injunction by Roy Dickey, Daniel Malone, Richard Mingos, Royce Privett, Elmer Taylor. (sl, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 68 of 85

01/23/2007 01/31/2007
02/05/2007 02/05/2007 02/07/2007 02/21/2007 03/08/2007
03/09/2007
03/19/2007 04/06/2007
04/06/2007 04/12/2007 05/04/2007

Certificate of Readiness to US Court of Appeals re re 06−15587−B, 408 Notice of Appeal by Attorney Mark Sabel (ydw, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
423 STATUS REPORT DEFENDANTS REPORT ON STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Lt. Estes, Thomas Gilkerson, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
424 ORDER that the request for an extension of time contained within doc. 423 be and is hereby granted; Ordered that on or before 2/26/07, the defendants shall file a report informing the court of the results of their settlement negotiations. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/5/07. (vma, ) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
Request for Record on Appeal By USCA Eleventh Circuit re 06−15587−B, 408 Notice of Appeal by Attorney Mark Sabel (ydw, ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 06−15587−BB, 408 Notice of Appeal (ydw, ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Acknowledgement of Receipt of Record on Appeal from USCA re 06−15587−BB, 408 Notice of Appeal (ydw, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
425 STATUS REPORT Defendants' Report on the Status of Settlement Negotiations on Plaintiffs' Petitions for Attorneys Fees by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
426 ORDER directing as follows: 1) That the stay on the motions for attorneys' fees, previously entered in this case on 12/20/2006 be and is hereby LIFTED; 2) That Fruin's 404 Motion for Attorney's Fees be and is hereby DENIED as moot; 3) That on or before 5/9/2007, the dfts shall execute and complete all necessary documentation to resolve Sabel and Sabel's 405 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and that on or before that date, the parties shall file a joint report informing the court of the execution and conclusion of the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/9/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
427 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that pursuant to 28 USC 1404 the 422 MOTION for Injuctive Relief and for Contempt be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; Objections to RRdue by 4/2/2007. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/19/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
428 ORDER adopting the 427 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; ORDERED that the 422 Motion for Contempt and Injunction is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, pursuant to 28 USC 1404(a); DIRECTING the Clerk to take appropriate steps to effect the transfer. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 4/6/2007. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(wcl, ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
422 Motion for Contempt and Injunction transferred to the Western District of Louisiana; Certified copies of 422 Motion, 427 Recommendation, 428 Order, and Docket Sheet mailed by CMRRR to Clerk. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
429 Return Receipt Card showing service of Transfer of 422 Motion signed by Tori Luce for Robert H. Shemwell. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
430 Response to Order Defendants' Report on the Status of Settlement Issues on Plaintiffs' Petitions for Attorneys Fees by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J.

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 69 of 85

05/07/2007 10/04/2007 10/04/2007 10/05/2007
10/19/2007 11/19/2007
11/20/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/28/2007
12/11/2007 12/12/2007

McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
431 ORDER denying as moot 405 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 5/7/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
432 MOTION to Intervene by Malcolm S. Driskill. (djy, ) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
433 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Malcolm S. Driskill. (Attachments: # 1 copy of motion to intervene)(djy, ) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
434 ORDER directing as follows: (1) denying 432 Motion to Intervene by Malcolm S. Driskill, Jr.; (2) directing the Clerk to set up a separate lawsuit and file for the 433 Motion for Emergency Restraining Order, which will then be transferred to the appropriate district by separate Order of this court. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 10/5/07. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist) (djy, ) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
435 MOTION to Hold Defendants in Contempt by Richard Mingos, Royce Privett, Elmer Taylor. (wcl, ) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
436 MANDATE of USCA ISSUED 11/19/07 as to 408 Notice of Appeal filed by Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 06−15587−BB; In summary, we affirm the district court's September 14, 2006 order dismissing plaintiffs' sweat−lodge claims. We vacate the district court's September 29, 2003 order entering summary judgment on plaintiffs' hair−length−restriction claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
Appeal Record Returned: RE: USCA Case Number 06−15587−B for 408 Notice of Appeal filed by Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey and 436 USCA Mandate (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
Case reopened. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
437 ORDERED that this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody for report and recommendation on the hair−length issue. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 11/27/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
438 ORDER directing that a Status and Scheduling Conference be and is hereby set for 1:30 p.m. on 12/11/2007, in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/28/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
439 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status/Scheduling Conference held on 12/11/2007 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 1:30 − 1:50.) (ws, ) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
440 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Preliminary Pretrial Conference for 5/20/2008, in Montgomery, Alabama, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody, as further set out in order; setting Final Pretrial Conference for 9/29/2008, in Montgomery, Alabama, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody, as further set out in order; The parties are DIRECTED to jointly prepare a proposed pretrial order, as further set out in order; Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/22/2008; setting Evidentiary Hearing for 10/27/2008, commencing at 10:00 AM, in Montgomery, Alabama before Honorable Charles S. Coody.; setting Discovery due by 8/29/2008, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/12/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 12/12/2007)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 70 of 85

12/17/2007 04/14/2008
04/14/2008 05/16/2008 05/20/2008 05/20/2008 05/20/2008
05/21/2008 06/16/2008 06/19/2008
06/19/2008 06/27/2008

Mail Returned as Undeliverable. {440] Order sent to Peter D. Keisler returned by the US Attorney's Office with the following notation, "No Longer Employed." (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
441 MOTION to Compel by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
442 ORDERED that the 441 Motion to Compel be DENIED pursuant to FRCP 26(c) and 37(a)(1), as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/14/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
443 ORDERED that the Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 5/20/2008 at 10:00 AM before Honorable Charles S. Coody be and is hereby RESET to be conducted by teleconference. The plf shall set up the teleconference. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/16/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
444 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Pretrial Conference held on 5/20/2008 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 10:02 − 10:15.) (ws, ) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
445 ORDERED that with respect to the issues as discussed in open court during the preliminary pretrial conference, the dfts shall file their brief on or before 6/20/2008 and the plf shall file their reply brief on or before 7/21/2008. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/20/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
446 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Opinion/Expert Testimony Disclosure by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Eddie Carter, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 5/21/2008 to reflect as filed on behalf of all dfts (wcl, ). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
447 ORDER granting 446 Motion for Extension of Time, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/21/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
448 ORDER denying 435 Motion to Hold the Defendants in Contempt. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/16/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
449 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Defendants' Briefing Deadline re 445 Order, by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
450 ORDER granting 449 Motion for an Extension of Time and the dfts' deadline for filing their brief be and is hereby EXTENDED from 6/20/2008 until 6/27/2008; The plf's deadline is adjusted accordingly. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/19/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
451 REPLY BRIEF re 445 Order, Defendants' Brief on the Scope of the Issues before the Court on Remand filed by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson,

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 71 of 85

06/30/2008
06/30/2008 07/28/2008 07/29/2008 07/29/2008 08/15/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008
08/19/2008 08/22/2008 08/25/2008

Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
452 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Extension of Time to Provide Report of Retained Expert re 447 Order on Motion for Extension of Deadline by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
453 ORDER granting 452 Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Expert Reports. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/30/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
454 REPLY BRIEF re 451 Reply Brief (Brief on the Scope of the Issues before the Court on Remand) filed by Ricky Knight. (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 7/29/2008 to add link to 451 Reply Brief (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/29/2008 to attach a corrected PDF to include the electronic signature on the certificate of service page: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction re 454 Reply Brief to add link to 451 Reply Brief. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
455 NOTICE of Correction re 454 Reply Brief, to attach a corrected PDF to include the electronic signature on the certificate of service page. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Main Document to Docket Entry 454 )(wcl, ) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
456 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Exchange Expert Reports by Ricky Knight. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
457 ORDER granting 456 Motion for Extension of Deadline to exchange expert reports. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 8/18/2008. (cc, ) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
458 Joint MOTION to Continue Discovery Cutoff and Evidentiary Hearing by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
459 ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby set for a Status and Scheduling Conference on 8/22/2008, at 09:30 AM by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody; The dfts shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 8/19/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
460 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/22/2008 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 9:33 − 9:48.) (ws, ) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
461 ORDER granting 458 Joint MOTION to Continue Discovery Cutoff and Evidentiary Hearing, and the scheduling order entered on 12/12/2007 (doc. # 440 ) be and is hereby AMENDED, as follows: Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/6/2009,in Montgomery, AL, at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody; The parties are DIRECTED to jointly prepare a proposed pretrial order, as further set out in order; Proposed Pretrial Order due by 12/29/2008; Evidentiary Hearing set for 1/21/2009, commencing at 09:00 AM, in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Charles S. Coody; setting Discovery due by 11/28/2008. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 8/25/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ws, eb) (wcl, ) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 72 of 85

12/01/2008 12/03/2008 12/10/2008
12/11/2008 12/30/2008
01/06/2009 01/07/2009 01/07/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009

462 (STRICKEN AND RETURNED TO PLF ADAMS PURSUANT TO 466 ORDER) MOTION for Contempt of Court Against Defendant Pursuant to FRCP − Rule 70(e) by Thomas Otter Adams. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(wcl, ) Modified on 12/30/2008 (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/30/2008: # 2 main document) (wcl, ). (Entered: 12/01/2008)
463 (STRICKEN AND RETURNED TO PLF ADAMS PURSUANT TO 466 ORDER) AMENDED DOCUMENT (Addendum to Plf's 462 MOTION for Contempt of Court Against Defendant Pursuant to FRCP − Rule 70(e)) by Thomas Otter Adams.(wcl, ) Modified on 12/30/2008 (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/30/2008: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Entered: 12/04/2008)
464 MOTION for Protective Order Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Protective Order by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Protective Order)(Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
465 ORDER granting 464 Motion for a Protective Order re Confidential documents, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 12/11/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
466 ORDERED that Documents # 462 &463 , docketed as a pro se motion for contempt of court and amended motion for contempt of court, be and are hereby STRICKEN from the record; DIRECTING the Clerk as follows: 1) Attach a copy of the pro se documents to this order and forward a copy of the documents to the plf's counsel; 2) Return the original documents to the plf; 3) Do not accept for filing in this case any pro se pleadings or documents, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 12/30/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Motion for Contempt (Doc. 462 ), # 2 Attachment Amended Motion for Contempt (Doc. 463 )) (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
467 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Pretrial Conference held on 1/6/2009 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time 3:00 − 3:23.) (jct, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
468 MOTION for Order to Transport Inmates to Trial by Michael Clem, Thomas Otter Adams, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 1/8/2009 to reflect as also filed on behalf of Thomas Otter Adams and Franklin Irvin (wcl, ). (Entered: 01/07/2009)
***Attorney Mark Wayne Sabel, Jr, Peter Sean Fruin for Thomas Otter Adams added pursuant to 468 Motion. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction re 468 MOTION for Order to Transport Inmates to Trial to reflect as also filed on behalf of Thomas Otter Adams and Franklin Irvin. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
469 ORDER granting 468 Motion to Produce Witnesses; further ORDERED that the persons having custody of Michael Clem, AIS # 130522, Thomas Otter Adams, AIS # 100621, and Franklin Irvin, AIS # 141535, state inmates in custody of the AL DOC, shall produce these individuals for trial, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 1/8/2009. (furn: ALDOC TRANSPORT AGENT, USM ) (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
470 PRETRIAL ORDER directing as follows: (A) that all of the allowances and agreements contained in this order be, and the same are hereby, binding upon all parties in this case unless this order is hereafter modified by the Court; (B) that at the beginning of trial, the parties shall inform the court whether and to what extent they have reached agreement on the stipulation of facts which the dfts contend should not be in dispute. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 1/8/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 73 of 85

01/21/2009 01/22/2009 01/23/2009 02/06/2009
02/09/2009 02/09/2009
02/09/2009
02/09/2009

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/21/2009 (NO PDF attached see final minute entry dated 1/23/09). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ws ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/22/2009 (NO PDF Attached see final entry dated 1/23/09. (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ws, ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
471 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/23/2009 (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (Attachments: # 1 Witness List, # 2 Joint Exhibit, # 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit List, # 4 Defendant's Exhibit List) (ws, ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
472 MOTION For Transcription of Trial Testimony Without Payment by Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Matthew Latham, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Native American Prisoners of Alabama − Turtle/Wind Clan, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Thomas "RavenChenoweth, Billy "Three Fea Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk Patterson, John "Wind Hors Wambles, Autry "Little Ra Daughtry, Roger "Light Foo Manning, Thomas Hogan, Richard Robinson, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Invoice for Transcript)(Fruin, Peter) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
473 ORDER granting 472 Motion For Transcription of Trial Testimony Without Payment. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/9/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
474 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing/Bench Trial Proceedings, Volume 1, (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 1/21/2009, before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell Reisner, Telephone number 334−235−8218. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 3/2/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/12/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2009. (wcl, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/13/2009 to attach the correct PDF document: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2009: # 2 2nd corrected main document) (djy, ). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
475 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing Proceedings, Volume 2, (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 1/22/2009, before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell Reisner, Telephone number 334−235−8218. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 3/2/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/12/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2009. (wcl, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/13/2009 to attach the correct PDF document: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2009: # 2 2nd corrected main document) (djy, ). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
476 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing Proceedings, Volume 3, (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 1/23/2009, before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell Reisner, Telephone number 334−235−8218. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 3/2/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/12/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2009. (wcl, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/13/2009 to attach the correct PDF document: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2009: # 2 2nd corrected main document) (djy, ). (Entered: 02/09/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 74 of 85

02/09/2009 02/10/2009 02/11/2009 02/12/2009 02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/18/2009 02/20/2009 02/25/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/10/2009 03/12/2009 03/23/2009 03/26/2009

477 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Certain Evidentiary Submissions by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
478 ORDERED that the 477 Motion for Extension of Time be and is hereby GRANTED and the plfs shall have until 2/23/2009 to file their objections and rebuttal. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/10/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
479 ORDERED that the pfls shall file their post−trial brief on or before 3/9/2009 and the dfts shall file their post−trial brief on or before 3/30/2009. The plfs may file a reply brief on or before 4/14/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/11/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
480 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Carl S. Burkhalter by Jimmy Lee Bowen, Matthew Latham, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Thomas Hogan, Richard Robinson, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. (Burkhalter, Carl) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
481 ORDER granting 480 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/13/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
***Attorney Carl Stanley Burkhalter terminated as counsel for plfs pursuant to 481 Order. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
482 NOTICE of Intent to Request Redaction by Mark Wayne Sabel, Jr re 475 Transcript,,, 476 Transcript,,, 474 Transcript,,, (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 3/5/2009: Attorney Sabel informs that Redaction will not be requested. (yg, ). (Entered: 02/18/2009)
483 Second MOTION for Extension of Deadline of Objections and Response to Exhibits by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
484 ORDER granting 483 Second Motion for an Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 3/9/2009 to file their objections and rebuttal. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/25/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
485 Objection to Several Defense Exhibits filed by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Expert's Response to DEX 52, Staffing Study)(Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
486 TRIAL BRIEF by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
487 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responses to Inmate File Excerpts by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
488 ORDER granting 487 Motion for an Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 3/23/2009 to file their responses. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 3/12/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
489 NOTICE by Michael Clem, Thomas Otter Adams of Responses to Defendants' Exhibits 38−43 (Inmate File Excerpts) (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
490 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadline Trial Brief by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 75 of 85

03/27/2009 04/08/2009
04/08/2009 04/15/2009
04/16/2009 04/30/2009
05/04/2009 05/05/2009
05/05/2009

Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
491 ORDER granting 490 Motion for an Extension of Time and the dfts shall have until 4/13/2009 to file their post−trial brief, their response to the plfs' motion to exclude certain defense evidence and their reply to the plfs' response to inmate files. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 3/27/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
492 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Defendants' trial brief and Related Documents (Unopposed) by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
493 ORDER granting 492 Motion for an Extension of Time and the dfts shall have until 4/20/2009 to file their post−trial brief and responses to other related documents. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/8/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
494 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Defendants' Trial Brief Unopposed Motion for Extension within which to File Defendants' Trial Brief and Related Documents by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
495 ORDERED that dfts' 494 Motion for an Extension of Time be and is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the dfts shall have until 5/1/2009 to file their post−trial brief and responses to other related documents. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/16/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
496 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Defendants' Trial Brief by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
497 ORDER granting 496 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Deadline; dfts' Trial Brief due by 5/5/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/4/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
498 Objection to re 485 Objection to, Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Objections to Several Defense Exhibits filed by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
499 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 486 Trial Brief Defendants' Trial Brief filed by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Lt. Estes, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen,

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 76 of 85

05/05/2009
05/19/2009 05/20/2009 06/15/2009 06/16/2009 06/30/2009 07/02/2009 07/10/2009 07/10/2009 07/17/2009
06/03/2010 06/06/2010 06/06/2010

Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
TRIAL BRIEF by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (No PDF Attached−See Docket Entry 499 Which Was Incorrectly E−Filed As A Brief In Opposition) (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
500 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Brief by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
501 ORDER granting 500 Motion for Extension of Time and the plaintiffs shall have until June 18, 2009 to file their response to thedefendants brief. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/19/09. (djy, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
502 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Brief by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
503 ORDER granting 502 Motion for an Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 7/2/2009 to file their response to the dfts' brief. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/16/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
504 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Reply by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
505 ORDER granting 504 Motion for Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 7/10/2009 to file their response to the dfts' brief. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 7/2/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
506 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Response Brief by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
507 ORDER granting 506 Motion for an Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 7/17/2009 to file their response to the dfts' brief; The plfs are advised that no further extensions will be granted. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 7/10/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
508 REPLY BRIEF filed by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PEX A, Sullivan Response to Staffing Study; PEX B Additional Stipulations of Plaintiffs, PEX 17)(Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 07/18/2009)
509 MOTION/AFFIDAVIT for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Thomas Otter Adams. (cc, ) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
510 NOTICE by Thomas Otter Adams re 509 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction That Said Motion is Withdrawn (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 06/06/2010)
510 Notice construed as a MOTION to Withdraw 509 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction by Thomas Otter Adams pursuant to the 6/8/2010 Order. (No PDF Attached−See Docket Entry 510 ) (wcl, ) (Entered:

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 77 of 85

06/08/2010
06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/21/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 11/02/2010 11/02/2010 11/02/2010 11/10/2010 12/03/2010
04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011

06/08/2010)
511 ORDER construing the 510 Notice to be a Motion to Withdraw; ORDER directing as follows: 1) The 510 Motion to Withdraw the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED; 2) The 509 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/8/2010. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
512 MOTION to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Michael Moore. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
513 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Michael Moore. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
514 ORDER denying 512 Motion to Intervene; denying 513 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/21/2010. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
515 NOTICE by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith of Developments in U.S. Supreme Court (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
516 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt by Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 10/23/2010)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Mag Judge Coody: 516 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt (No PDF document attached to this notice). (djy, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
517 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Contempt Motion filed October 22, 2010 by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
518 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to why 516 Motion for further relief, compliance and/or contempt should not be granted; Show Cause Response due by 11/16/2010. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 11/2/10. (djy, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
519 ORDER granting 517 Motion for an Extension of Time to the extent that the dfts shall have until 12/3/2010 to notify the court of the resolution of the plf's motion for contempt or to file a response to the plf's motion. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 11/10/2010. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
520 RESPONSE to Motion re 516 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt and Response to the Court's 518 Show Cause Order filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Fictitious Defendant(s), Dewayne Estes, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 12/3/2010 to add link to 518 Order (wcl, ). (Entered: 12/03/2010)
521 NOTICE of Appearance by James Joseph DuBois on behalf of USA (DuBois, James) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
522 NOTICE of Appearance by Deena Fox on behalf of USA (DuBois, James) Modified on 4/8/2011 to correctly reflect an appearance by Deena Fox and not James Dubois (wcl, ). (Entered: 04/08/2011)
523 NOTICE by USA STATEMENT OF INTEREST (DuBois, James) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
***Attorney Deena Fox for USA added pursuant to 522 Notice of Appearance. (No PDF Attached) (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
524 ORDERED that the dfts may file a response to the 523 Statement of Interest on or before 4/22/2011. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/8/2011. (wcl, )

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 78 of 85

04/22/2011 05/02/2011
05/04/2011 05/06/2011
05/07/2011 07/11/2011
07/22/2011 07/22/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 10/19/2011 10/19/2011

(Entered: 04/08/2011)
525 ORDER directing that on or before 5/6/2011, the parties to file briefs addressing the effect, if any, Sossamon, supra has on the issues pending before the court. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/22/11. (djy, ) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
526 MOTION for Leave to File a Response to United States Statement of Interest on or before May 6, 2011 by Alabama Department of Corrections, Dewayne Estes, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
527 ORDER granting 526 Motion for Leave to File a Response on or before 5/6/2011. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/4/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
528 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 523 Notice (Other) Consolidated Brief on Effect of Sossamon and Defendants' Response to United States Statement of Interest filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Dewayne Estes, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
529 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support of Statement Re: Sossaman (Notice of Developments in US Supreme Court), filed by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 5/9/2011 to modify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 05/07/2011)
530 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE is as follows: 1) That the Court find that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policies restricting inmate hair length does not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; 2) That the Court enter judgment in favor of the dfts and against the plfs; and 3) That the Court dismiss this action with prejudice; Objections to RRdue by 7/25/2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/11/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
531 MOTION for Extension of Deadline July 25, 2011 by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
532 ORDER granting 531 MOTION for Extension of time to the extent that the time for filing Objections to RRof the Mag Judge be and is hereby extended from 7/25/2011 until 8/24/2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/22/11. (djy, ) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
533 Second MOTION for Extension of Deadline by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
534 ORDER granting 533 Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objections, to the extent that the time for filing objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby EXTENDED from 8/24/2011 until 10/24/2011; Objections to RRdue by 10/24/2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 8/18/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
535 Third MOTION for Extension of Deadline to SubmitObjections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
536 ORDER granting 535 Unopposed Third MOTION for Extension of Deadline to File Objections and the deadline for filing objections is extended from 10/24/2011, to 12/23/2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/19/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 79 of 85

12/21/2011 12/22/2011 01/13/2012 01/19/2012 01/20/2012 02/02/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012 02/15/2012
02/15/2012

537 MOTION for Extension of Deadline by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
538 ORDER granting 537 MOTION for an Extension of Time to File Objections, as further set out in order; Objections to RRcontinued from 12/23/2011, to 1/13/2012. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/22/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
539 Objection to 530 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge on Hair Length Issue and Case Dismissal filed by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 1/17/2012 to add the link to the 530 Recommendation (wcl, ). (Entered: 01/13/2012)
540 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Dewayne Estes, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
541 ORDER granting 540 Motion for Extension of Time to the extent that the time for a response to the plaintiffs' objections to the recommendation of the Mag Judge be and is hereby EXTENDED from 1/27/2012 until 2/13/2012. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/20/12. (djy, ) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
542 ORDERED that a Status Conference on the 516 MOTION for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt be and is hereby SET on 2/8/2012 at 09:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody; The dfts shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/2/2012. (furn: Calendar, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
543 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Charles Coody for recommendation: 516 MOTION for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 2/8/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
544 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/8/2012 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 8:58 − 9:06.) (ws, ) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
545 ORDERED that an Evidentiary Hearing on the 516 MOTION for Contempt be and is hereby set for 3/27/2012, at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody; ORDERED that the persons having custody of Plf Franklin Running Bear Irvin shall produce him at this proceeding. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/8/2012. (furn: Calendar, ws, ALDOC Transport Agent, USMS)(wcl, ) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
546 RESPONSE re 539 Plfs' Objection to Magistrate's Recommendation filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, William S. Sticker, Ron Sutton, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 2/16/2012 to clarify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 02/15/2012)
547 MOTION to Admit Attached Exhibits as Addtional Evidence to Rebut Assertions in Plaintiffs' Objections by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, William S. Sticker, Ron Sutton, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson,

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 80 of 85

02/16/2012 03/08/2012 03/08/2012 03/16/2012 03/18/2012 03/19/2012 03/19/2012
03/19/2012 03/27/2012
04/06/2012 04/07/2012 04/09/2012

Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Carolyn A Golson, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Glen Casey)(Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 2/16/2012 to clarify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 02/15/2012)
548 ORDER denying 547 Motion to Admit Attached Exhibits. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/16/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
549 ORDERED as follows: 1) Plfs' Objections are OVERRULED; 2) The 530 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3) Final Judgment will be entered in favor of the Dfts and this case DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/8/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
550 FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in favor of the Dfts and against the Plfs, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/8/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
551 ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/19/2012 10:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody; that this telephone conference shall be set up by the defendant. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/16/2012. (cc, ) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
552 Supplemental MOTION for Contempt and Further Relief by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/18/2012)
ORAL MOTION to Withdraw 516 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt by Franklin Irvin. (ws, ) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
553 ORDERED as follows: 1) That the Oral Motion to Withdraw the 516 Motion to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt be and is hereby GRANTED; 2) That the request for relief will proceed on the 552 Supplemental Motion for Contempt and Further Relief; 3) That the hearing on the supplemental motion for contempt and further relief be and is hereby rescheduled from 3/27/2012, to 4/23/2012, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/19/2012. (furn: Calendar, ws) (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
554 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/19/2012 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR:10:01 − 10:30.) (ws) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
555 Answer re 552 Supplemental MOTION for Further Relief, Compliance, and/or Contempt filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, William S. Sticker, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 3/28/2012 to clarify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 03/27/2012)
556 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 4/9/2012 to (Create link to document # 549 , 550 entered on 03/8/2012, and 268 ORDER entered on 11/02/2001 ydw, ). (Entered: 04/06/2012)
558 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 4602022378 re 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction issued this date to advise that 556 Notice of Appeal, was modified on 04/09/12, to create a link to 549 Order Adopting Report

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 81 of 85

04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/13/2012 04/20/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/24/2012
04/25/2012 04/25/2012
04/25/2012

and Recommendations, and a 550 Final Judgment entered on 03/08/2012; also 268 ORDER entered on 11/02/2001. (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
557 Appeal Instructions sent to Mark Sabel counsel for Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith re 556 Notice of Appeal. A copy of the Transcript Information Form must be mailed to each court reporter from whom you are requesting a transcript. (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, 549 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 550 Judgment, 268 Order and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 556 Notice of Appeal.(ydw, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
559 ORDER directing that the persons having custody of plaintiff Franklin Running Bear Irvin, AIS #141535, shall produce him at the evidentiary hearing on 4/23/2012, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/13/12. Furnished electronically to ADOC Transport agent &USM.(djy, ) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
560 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Thomas Otter Adams, Tom Allen, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith for proceedings held on 12/11/07; 5/20/08; 8/22/08; 1/06/09; 8/27/02 before Judge Coody, (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
561 NOTICE of Appearance by William Preston Martin on behalf of Native American Prisoners of Alabama − Turtle/Wind Clan (Martin, William) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/24/2012: # 1 Corrected certificate of service) (scn, ). (Entered: 04/23/2012)
Appeal Remark re 556 Notice of Appeal: The FTR request is assigned to Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner re (TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM doc. # 560 ). (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
569 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/23/2012. (See Final Minute Entry held 4/25/12 for Witness List and Exhibit Lists.) (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 10:00 − 3:47.) (ws, ) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
562 ORDER continuing the Evidentiary Hearing to 4/25/2012 @ 02:00 PM before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody, in Courtroom 4B USCC, Montgomery, AL; further ORDERING that the person having custody of plaintiff Franklin Running Bear Irvin shall produce him at this proceeding. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/24/12. Furnished electronically to calendar group, WS, Transport Agent for ALDOC &USM.(djy, ) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
563 USCA Case Number 12−11926−D for 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones. (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
564 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference and Scheduling Conference Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 8/22/2008, before Judge Charles S. Coody; Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell P. Reisner, Telephone number 334−313−7185; Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction; After that date it may be obtained through PACER; NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS; Redaction Request due 5/16/2012; Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2012; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
565 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status and Scheduling Conference Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 1/6/2009, before Judge Charles S. Coody; Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell P. Reisner, Telephone number 334−313−7185; Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 82 of 85

04/25/2012
04/25/2012 05/02/2012
05/02/2012 05/03/2012
05/24/2012 06/04/2012 06/04/2012 06/06/2012 06/06/2012

Restriction; After that date it may be obtained through PACER; NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS; Redaction Request due 5/16/2012; Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2012; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
566 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status/Scheduling Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 12/11/2007, before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter/Transcriber Reisner, Telephone number 334−313−7185. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 5/16/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2012. (djy, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
570 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/25/2012 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 2:01 − 3:51.) (Attachments: # 1 Witness List, # 2 Plaintiff's Exh. List, # 3 Defendant's Exh. List) (ws, ) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
567 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing − Volume I Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 4/23/2012, before Judge Charles S. Coody; Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia G. Starkie, Telephone number 334−262−1221; Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction; After that date it may be obtained through PACER; NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS; Redaction Request due 5/23/2012; Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/4/2012; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/31/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
568 Objection to Portions of Golson's Deposition Testimony filed by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
571 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing − Volume II Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 4/25/2012, before Judge Charles S. Coody; Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia G. Starkie, Telephone number 334−262−1221; Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction; After that date it may be obtained through PACER; NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS; Redaction Request due 5/24/2012; Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/4/2012; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/1/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
572 Appeal letter re 556 Notice of Appeal, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−D: Court Reporter acknowledgment not filed. Letter issued RE: − (DIGITAL FTR REQUEST − UN−ASSIGNED COURT REPORTER) as to Appellants transcript requests. Transcripts are due to be filed in District Court 30 days from 05/20/2012. Copy furnished to Mitchell Reisner the assigned Court Reporter. (ydw) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
573 NOTICE by USA of Withdrawal of Counsel Jonathan E. Zimmerman (Zimmerman, Jonathan) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/5/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/04/2012)
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Jonathan E. Zimmerman by USA. (No pdf attached − See docket entry 573 ) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
574 ORDER granting 573 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/6/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
***Attorney Jonathan Eli Zimmerman terminated pursuant to 574 Order. (No pdf attached) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 83 of 85

06/18/2012
06/26/2012 06/27/2012 09/17/2012 07/26/2013
11/19/2013
03/05/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 04/08/2014 04/09/2014 04/21/2014

575 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TRANSCRIPT (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) re 556 Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia G. Starkie, Telephone number 334−262−1221. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 7/9/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/19/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/17/2012. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
576 Transcript Acknowledgment/and NOTIFICATION THAT TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN FILED IN DISTRICT COURT received from Court Reporter Patricia Starkie on 12−11926−D 2. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 11(c), the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama certifies that the record is complete for purposes of this appeal re: 556 Notice of Appeal, Appeal No. 12−11926−D. The entire record on appeal is available electronically.(ydw, ) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
577 Appeal Letter Re Moot Motion re 556 Notice of Appeal, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; Motion for leave to file amicus brief is MOOT in light of the August 28, 2012, letter from Dawinder Sidhu, Esquire advising the court that the Amicus motion is unopposed. (ydw, ) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
578 Per Curiam Opinion received from USCA Eleventh Circuit of Opinion Entered on 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy Two Feathers Jones, Ricky Knight and Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Signed. (ydw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
579 JUDGMENT issued as MANDATE 11/19/13 of USCA as to 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 578 USCA Per Curiam Opinion entered 07/26/2013. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
580 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE that the plaintiff's supplemental motion for further relief, compliance and/or contempt (doc. # 552 ) be DENIED; further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before March 19, 2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/5/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
581 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 580) by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
582 TEXT ORDER GRANTING 581 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objections to the 580 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge from 3/19/2014 to 4/9/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/18/14. (NO PDF document attached to this notice).(djy, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
583 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/1/2014: # 1 Corrected certificate of service) (scn, ). (Entered: 04/08/2014)
584 TEXT ORDER granting 583 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge; the time for filing objections is extended from April 11, 2014 until April 21, 2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/9/14. (No PDF document attached to this entry.) (scn, ) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
585 Objection to 580 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge filed by Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sabel, Mark) Modified on 4/23/2014 to clarify text as objection to 580 (qc/djy, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/1/2014: # 2 Corrected certificate of service) (scn, ). (Entered: 04/21/2014)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 84 of 85

04/22/2014 04/28/2014
04/28/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/30/2014
06/27/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 07/02/2014 07/18/2014 07/18/2014 08/21/2014 10/08/2014
08/05/2015

586 NOTICE of Deficiency re 583 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge. (scn, ) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
587 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 585 Objection to by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Morris L. Thigpen, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
588 ORDER denying 587 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/28/14. (djy, ) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
589 NOTICE of PDF Correction re 583 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge to reflect addition of corrected certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected certificate of service of 583 Docket Entry)(scn, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
590 NOTICE of PDF Correction re 585 Objection to reflect addition of corrected certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected certificate of service of 585 Docket Entry)(scn, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
591 ORDER directing as follows: (1) Plaintiffs 585 Objections are OVERRULED; (2) The 580 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) The Supplemental Motion for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt (Doc. # 552 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/30/14. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, ) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
592 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Franklin Irvin as to 591 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations entered on 05/30/2014 (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
593 Transmission of Notice of AppeaL, 552 Supplemental MOTION for Contempt, 580 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 585 Objections, AND 591 ORDER re 592 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 APPEAL PACKAGE)(ydw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
594 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Franklin Irvin (Attachments: # 1 Pro Se Notice of Appeal)(Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
595 USCA Case Number 14−12915−E for 592 Notice of Appeal filed by Franklin Irvin. (ydw, ) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
596 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Franklin Irvin (ydw, ) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
597 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Franklin Irvin. (ydw, ) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
598 ORDER denying 597 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, and that the appeal in this cause is hereby certified, pursuant to 28U.S.C. ' 1915(a), as not taken in good faith. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 08/21/2014. (ydw, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
599 Entry of Dismissal of USCA issued as the MANDATE as to 592 Notice of Appeal filed by Franklin Irvin, 594 Notice of Appeal filed by Franklin Irvin, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 14−12915−E;Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42−1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the Appellant Franklin Irvin failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court, or file a consent form within the time fixed by the rules, effective October 08, 2014. FOR THE COURT − BY DIRECTION (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
600 Per Curiam Opinion received from USCA Eleventh Circuit of Opinion Entered on 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; Supreme Court remand opinion issued by court. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. (ydw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2015)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 04/10/2016 02:21 PM CDT 85 of 85

08/05/2015 10/22/2015 11/12/2015

601 Opinion received from USCA Eleventh Circuit of Opinion Entered on 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy Two Feathers Jones, Ricky Knight and Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Signed. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. (ydw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
602 ORDER of USCA as to 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−D; ORDER: Motion for leave to file amicus brief in support of rehearing is GRANTED.(ydw, ) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
603 JUDGMENT ISSUED AS MANDATE 11/12/2015 of USCA as to 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 601 Opinion received from USCA on 08/05/2015. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2015)

 
 Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 1 of 83
CLOSED,CSC_ClerkC,LEAD,MAG+
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:93−cv−01404−WHA−CSC

Knight, et al v. Thompson, et al (LEAD CASE) Assigned to: Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III Referred to: Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody Demand: $0 Case in other court: USCA, 06−15587−B
USCA, 12−11926−D
USDC, 14−12915−E Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/24/1993 Date Terminated: 03/08/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Matthew Latham TERMINATED: 12/09/1994

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1081 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: cburkhalter@maynardcooper.com TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC 1901 6th Avenue North; Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1068 Fax: 205−714−6368 Email: pfruin@maynardcooper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Thomas Hogan TERMINATED: 01/27/1994

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Richard Robinson TERMINATED: 01/25/1994

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ricky Knight

represented by James Arnold Tucker Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program P. O. Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 205−348−4928 Fax: 205−348−3909

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 2 of 83

Email: jtucker@adap.ua.edu TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. Sabel Law Firm, L.L.C. P.O. Box 231348 Montgomery, AL 36123 334−546−2161 Fax: 334−819−7051 Email: mksabel@mindspring.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy S. Haber Attorney at Law 570 E 40th Ave Eugene, OR 97405 541−485−6418 Email: haberpc@cyber−dyne.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Lynn Holliday Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, PA PO Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101−0347 334−834−1180 Fax: 334−834−3172 Email: holliday@copelandfranco.com TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Franklin Irvin

represented by Franklin Irvin AIS 141535 ADOC BIBB Bibb Correctional Facility 565 Bibb Lane Brent, AL 35034 PRO SE

James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 3 of 83

Plaintiff James Limbaugh
Plaintiff Timothy Gray Wolf Smith

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy S. Haber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy S. Haber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy S. Haber (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 4 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Native American Prisoners Organization of America

represented by James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy S. Haber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Consol Plaintiff
Native American Prisoners of Alabama − Turtle/Wind Clan

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Quincey Somerville Galloway & Somerville, LLC 11 Oak Street Birmingham, AL 35213 205−871−2183 Fax: 205−871−2184 Email: jqs@gallowaysomerville.com

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 5 of 83

TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Preston Martin Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC 1901 6th Ave N − 2500 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203−2618 205−254−1000 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: pmartin@maynardcooper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Thomas Otter Adams sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Billy "Two Feath Jones sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Andrew Hosp Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North; Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1077 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: thosp@maynardcooper.com TERMINATED: 10/20/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 6 of 83

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Thomas "Raven&quo Chenoweth sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Billy "Three Fea Isbell sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Mark "Blackhawk Patterson sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
John "Wind Hors Wambles sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 7 of 83

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Autry "Little Ra Daughtry sue individually and on behalf of a class of perons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Roger "Light Foo Manning sue individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Quincey Somerville (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff Michael Clem

represented by Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff USA

represented by James Joseph DuBois U. S. Attorney's Office

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 8 of 83
PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101 334−223−7280 Fax: 334−223−7418 Email: james.dubois2@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Eli Zimmerman US Department of Justice −− DC Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 7111 Washington, DC 20530 202−353−0441 Fax: 202−318−7610 Email: jonathan.zimmerman@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Annelli Rivera U. S. Department of Justice−Civil Division Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Room 7114 Washington, DC 20001 202−514−4020 Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: karen.a.rivera@usdoj.gov (Inactive) TERMINATED: 04/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth E. Vines U.S. Attorney's Office PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101−0197 334−223−7280 Fax: 223−7560 TERMINATED: 02/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert D. McCallum , Jr. U. S. Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−3338 Fax: 616−8202 TERMINATED: 08/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Sara W. Clash−Drexler U. S. Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division P. O. Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 514−3146 Fax: 616−8202 TERMINATED: 02/18/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Theodore Charles Hirt U. S. Department of Justice−Civil Division Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusets Avenue NW

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 9 of 83
Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4785 Fax: 212−616−8470 Email: theodore.hirt@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deena S Fox United States Department of Justice 601 D St NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−1361 Email: deena.fox@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Michael Doyle United States Attorney's Office − ALM Middle District of Alabama 131 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−223−7280 Fax: 334−223−7418 Email: stephen.doyle@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Leslie Thompson in his individual capacity

represented by Charles A. Graddick Sims, Graddick & Dodson, PC PO Box 1908 Mobile, AL 36633−1908 251−690−9300 Fax: 690−9311 Email: cag@simsgraddick.com TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
David E Belser Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz 614 Hull Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−223−3012 Fax: 334−263−0960 Email: dbelser@bakerdonelson.com TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fred Frank Bell Fred Bell, Attorney at Law 1015 South McDonough Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−265−7395 Fax: 334−265−8177 Email: ffbell@netzero.com TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy Dennis Nabors Nabors Belser & Debray, LLC 614 South Hull Street

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 10 of 83

Montgomery, AL 36104 334−262−2000 Fax: 334−263−0960 Email: dnabors@nbdlegal.com TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman Dodson & Steadman, PC 4087−B Cottage Hill Road Mobile, AL 36609 251−661−0702 Fax: 251−661−0712 Email: jds@dodsonsteadman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division PO Box 301501 Montgomery, AL 36130 334−353−3870 Fax: 334−353−3891 Email: kim.thomas@doc.alabama.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Donald Parker

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 11 of 83

Kenneth Patrick Chaplin

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Willie Johnson

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 12 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dewayne Estes

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
J. McClure Officer

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 13 of 83

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Alabama Department of Corrections

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

David E Belser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fred Frank Bell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Dennis Nabors (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jeff Sessions Attorney General, officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James D. White Deputy Commissioner of Department of Corrections, officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 14 of 83

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ronald E. Jones Commissioner of Department of Corrections, officially TERMINATED: 02/13/1998

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Michael Shaver officially

represented by Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004

Defendant
Tom Allen officially TERMINATED: 02/13/1998

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
E. L. Harrelson officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James Bowen officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 15 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ralph Hooks Warden, officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bill Lindsey officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Steve Walker officially

represented by Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 16 of 83

Willie Whiting officially

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Fictitious Defendant(s) A−Z; individually and officially; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS AA−ZZ, individually and officially

V.
Consol Defendant
William S. Sticker individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne Alabama State Personnel Dept. Legal division 64 N. Union Street; Suite 316 Montgomery, AL 36130−4100 334−242−3450 Fax: 334−353−4481 Email: aliceann.byrne@personnel.alabama.gov TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Andrew Weldon Redd Alabama Department of Corrections 301 S Ripley St Montgomery, AL 36110 334−353−3879 Fax: 334−353−3891 Email: andy.redd@doc.alabama.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
John McGavock Porter Alabama Attorney General's Office P O Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130 334−242−7420 Fax: 334−242−2848 Email: jporter@ago.state.al.us TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 17 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Ellen Ruth Leonard individually and in her official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Billy Mitchem individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 18 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Lt. Estes individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Neal W. Russell individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 19 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Tommy Herring individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Morris L. Thigpen individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 20 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Thomas Gilkerson individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Roy Hightower individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 21 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Andrew Redd individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Eddie Carter individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 22 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Roy Dunaway individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
J. C. Giles individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 23 of 83

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Officer Wynn individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Steven Dees Warden, individually and in his official capacity

represented by Alice Ann Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John McGavock Porter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 24 of 83

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interpleader USA

represented by Jonathan Eli Zimmerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Z. Rabinovitz U. S. Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−4652 Fax: 616−8470 TERMINATED: 04/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen Annelli Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth E. Vines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia A. Watson U.S. Attorney's Office PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101−0197 334−223−7280 Fax: 223−7418 Email: Patricia.Snyder@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter D. Keisler U.S. Attorney's Office PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101−0197 334−223−7280 Fax: 223−7560 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert D. McCallum , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Sara W. Clash−Drexler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Theodore Charles Hirt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 25 of 83

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas E. Caballero U. S. Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−3338 Fax: 616−8202 TERMINATED: 02/18/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Stephen Michael Doyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Roy Dickey TERMINATED: 04/06/2007

Movant
Daniel Malone TERMINATED: 04/06/2007

Movant
Richard Mingos TERMINATED: 06/16/2008

Movant
Royce Privett TERMINATED: 06/16/2008

Movant
Elmer Taylor TERMINATED: 06/16/2008

Movant
Malcolm S. Driskill TERMINATED: 10/05/2007

Movant
Michael Moore TERMINATED: 06/21/2010

Plaintiff Jimmy Lee Bowen

represented by James Arnold Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 26 of 83

Plaintiff Douglass Dark Horns Bailey

Roy S. Haber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Lynn Holliday (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Andrew Hosp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Wayne Sabel , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Sean Fruin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carl Stanley Burkhalter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Michael Haley Commissioner of Department of Corrections
Defendant Ron Sutton
Defendant

represented by Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004
represented by Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A. Graddick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2004

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 27 of 83

Gwendolyn Mosley in her official capacity as Warden of Easterling

represented by Joseph David Steadman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Gerald Ward TERMINATED: 10/31/2000

Date Filed 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 11/24/1993 12/02/1993
12/09/1993
12/10/1993 12/14/1993 12/27/1993 12/28/1993

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/19/2001 (ydw, ). (Entered: 11/29/1993)
1 MOTION by Matthew Latham, James Limbaugh, Thomas Hogan, Richard Robinson, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for temporary restraining order , for Appointment of Counsel Referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
2 Affidavit by Matthew Latham to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
3 Affidavit by James Limbaugh to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
4 Affidavit by Thomas Hogan to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
5 Affidavit by Richard Robinson to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
6 Affidavit by Ricky Knight to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
7 Affidavit by Franklin Irvin to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
Case reassigned to Staff Attorney Anderson effective 11/10/97 (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
8 ORDER denying [1−1] motion for temporary restraining order; Referring Case to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to plaintiff. (djy) Modified on 12/27/1993 (Entered: 12/02/1993)
9 ORDER directing plaintiff Robinson that on or before 12/22/93, to return the copy of the complaint supplied to him by the court, and it should contain his signature; pending plaintiff Robinson's compliance with order, it is ORDERED staying further proceedings; ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs; with copy of complaint mailed to plaintiff Robinson, as directed. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 12/09/1993)
Plaintiff Hogan's copy of 12−2−93 order returned in mail with the following notation, "return to sender− addressee unknown". Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) Modified on 12/13/1993 (Entered: 12/13/1993)
10 ORDER directing that on or before 12−28−93, plaintiff Hogan notify the court of his present address, as further set out in order ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs. (djy) (Entered: 12/14/1993)
11 MOTION by Matthew Latham for Appointment of Counsel referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 12/27/1993)
12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that plaintiff Robinson be dismissed as a party to the present complaint; that this case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. Objections to R and R due by 1/17/94. Copies mailed to plaintiffs and defendants. (djy) (Entered: 12/28/1993)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 28 of 83

12/28/1993 12/28/1993
01/03/1994 01/06/1994
01/06/1994
01/10/1994
01/10/1994
01/12/1994 01/13/1994 01/18/1994 01/18/1994 01/18/1994 01/19/1994 01/25/1994
01/25/1994 01/26/1994 01/27/1994

13 ORDER denying [11−1] motion for Appointment of Counsel ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs. (djy) (Entered: 12/28/1993)
14 ORDER directing that plaintiff Irvin forward to the Clerk of this court the sum of $3.00 as a partial filing fee; setting filing fee deadline for 1/11/94 for Franklin Irvin ; granting [7−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis, except to the extent payment is required by this order ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs. (djy) (Entered: 12/28/1993)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $ 3.00 RECEIPT # 50120. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that plaintiff Hogan be dismissed as a party to the complaint for his failure to prosecute the case and his failure to keep the court informed as to his current address. Objections to R and R due by 1/24/94. Copies mailed to plaintiffs and defendants. (djy) (Entered: 01/06/1994)
17 ORDER granting [2−1], [3−1] and [6−1] motions to proceed in forma pauperis filed by plaintiffs Latham, Limbaugh and Knight; setting Answer deadline to 2/16/94 for Leslie Thompson, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs; mailed w/copies of complaint to Jimmy Evans & General Counsel for DOC; mailed CMRRR w/copies of complaint to named defendants. (djy) (Entered: 01/06/1994)
Stamped ORDER denying [15−1] motion for Reconsideration of [13−1] order, which denied motion for appointment of counsel ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiff and defendants. (djy) Modified on 02/17/1994 (Entered: 01/10/1994)
18 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of complaint on Ed Murray on 1/7/94 for Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick . Answer due on 2/17/94 for Dewayne Estes, for J. McClure, for Donald Parker, for Kenneth Patrick (djy) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
19 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of complaint on Kay P. Hope on 1/10/94 for Willie Johnson; on Bette Schild for Dept. of Corrections . Answer due on 2/22/94 for Willie Johnson, for Dept. of Corrections (djy) (Entered: 01/13/1994)
20 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of complaint on no signature on 1/12/94 for Leslie Thompson . Answer due on 2/22/94 for Leslie Thompson (djy) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
File referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
Plaintiff Hogan's copy of 1−10−94 order returned in mail with the following notatition, "returned to sender−addressee unknown". (djy) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
File w/proposed order referred to Judge De Ment. (djy) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
Plaintiff Hogan's copy of recommendation of 1−6−94 returned in mail with the following notation, "returned to sender − addressee unknown". (djy) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
21 ORDER (rendered 1−24−94) adopting [12−1] report and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge filed 12−28−93; ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that Richard Robinson be and is hereby dismissed as a plaintiff in this case; referring Case back to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to plaintiff and defendants. (djy) Modified on 01/25/1994 (Entered: 01/25/1994)
File referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
File w/proposed order referred to Judge De Ment. (djy) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
22 ORDER adopting [16−1] report and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge filed 1−6−94; ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that Thomas Hogan be and is hereby dismissed as a plaintiff for his failure to prosecute the case and his failure to

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 29 of 83

02/03/1994 02/16/1994 02/18/1994
02/23/1994 02/23/1994 02/23/1994 03/02/1994
03/09/1994 03/09/1994 03/10/1994 03/14/1994 05/17/1994
05/19/1994 06/08/1994 06/09/1994

keep the court informed as to his current address ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and defendants. (djy) (Entered: 01/27/1994)
Plaintiff Hogan's copy of 1−25−94 order returned in mail with the following notation, "returned to sender−addressee unknown". (djy) (Entered: 02/04/1994)
23 MOTION (Exhibits A thru E attached) by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Extend Time in which to file their special report referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) Modified on 02/17/1994 (Entered: 02/17/1994)
Stamped ORDER granting [23−1] motion to Extend Time in which to file their special report; resetting Answer deadline to 2/28/94 for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and counsel. (djy) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
24 MOTION by Matthew Latham, James Limbaugh to Compel referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) Modified on 03/02/1994 (Entered: 02/23/1994)
24 Motion to compel filed 2−23−94 also contstrued as a discovery request per order of 3−2−94. (djy) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
25 BRIEF by Matthew Latham in support of [24−1] motion to Compel referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
26 ORDER also construing the motion to compel discovery as a discovery request; denying [24−1] motion to Compel, as not discovery requests have heretofore been filed in this matter prior to the plaintiffs filing the motion to compel; directing that (1) all further discovery requests shall be filed with the court and served on the proper party on or before 3−15−94; (2) responses to requests for discovery shall be filed within 30 days of service of such request; (3) all discovery shall be completed on or before 4/14/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and counsel. (djy) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
27 SPECIAL REPORT (Exhibits A thru E attached) by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections (Attorney Fred Bell), Answer via special report referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
27 Special report treated as a MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections for Summary Judgment per order of 3−14−94. (djy) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
AO FORM 85 mailed to counsel for defendant. (djy) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
28 ORDER treating the special report filed 3−9−94 as a motion for summary judgment; [27−1] motion for Summary Judgment by defendants be set for submission on 4/12/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and counsel. (djy) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
29 ORDER setting ORAL ARGUMENT for 2:00 6/8/94 for [27−1] motion for Summary Judgment by telephone conference arranged by counsel for the defendants; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to make them available for the telephone conference as hereinabove decsribed ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel and Cecil Atchison; furnished to Marie & Ace. (djy) (Entered: 05/17/1994)
Plaintiff Limbaugh's copy of 5−17−94 order returned in mail with the following notation, "returned to sender−not here". Per Dept of Corrections now at J.O. Davis Correctional Facility. Re−mailed to new address this date. (djy) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
Motion hearing held by telephone conference re: [27−1] motion for Summary Judgment by defendants. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
30 ORDER staying all further proceeding except settlement negotiations; directing defendants to negotiate with the plaintiffs toward reaching a settlement of the issues raised in this case; directing defendants to report to the court whether this case has been settled, on or before 7/8/94. Signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody. Copies

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 30 of 83

07/11/1994
07/15/1994 07/18/1994 07/19/1994 07/20/1994 07/25/1994 07/26/1994
08/24/1994 08/24/1994 08/25/1994 08/31/1994
09/06/1994 09/22/1994
09/26/1994
10/04/1994 10/04/1994 10/05/1994

mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
31 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Extend Time in which to comply with the court's order of 6/9/94 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
32 MOTION by Matthew Latham for denial of extension of time requested by defendants per motion filed 7/11/94 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 07/15/1994)
Stamped ORDER granting until 8/8/94 [31−1] motion to Extend Time in which to comply with the court's order of 6/9/94 ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 07/18/1994)
33 MOTION by Matthew Latham for inmate assistance at the meeting scheduled for 7/20/94 with the Attorney General's office referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) Modified on 07/26/1994 (Entered: 07/20/1994)
Stamped ORDER denying [32−1] motion for denial of extension of time ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 07/20/1994)
34 Objection to extension of time construed as a MOTION by Matthew Latham to Strike [31−1] motion to Extend Time per order of 7/26/94 (cc) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
35 ORDER denying as moot [34−1] motion to Strike [31−1] motion to Extend Time; denying as moot [33−1] motion for inmate assistance at the meeting scheduled for 7/20/94 with the Attorney General's office ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
36 MOTION by James Limbaugh to Show Cause for defendants' failure to comply with order of 6/9/94 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
37 MOTION by James Limbaugh for Judgment on the Pleadings (attachments) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
38 Defendants' RESPONSE to order of 6/9/94 (attachments) referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
39 ORDER setting Status Conference 9:00 9/20/94 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody , at the Kilby Correctional Facility; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at the status conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel & Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie & Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order of 8/31/94 returned with following notation "Not Here, Returned to Sender". Per the DOC was paroled 8/29/94. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
40 ORDER resetting Status Conference for 9:00 10/4/94 at the Kilby Correctional Facility before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at the status conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel & Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie & Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
Plaintiff Latham, Irvin & Knight's copies of order of 9/22/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here, Easterling Correctional Facility". Remailed Irvin & Kinght's copies to Kilby same date. No current address on Latham. (cc) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
Status Conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
41 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
42 Motion to compel construed as a MOTION by James Limbaugh for free copies per order of 10/7/94 (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 31 of 83

10/07/1994 10/07/1994
10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/11/1994
10/11/1994 10/12/1994 10/13/1994 10/14/1994
10/14/1994 10/18/1994 10/19/1994
10/20/1994 10/21/1994 10/25/1994 10/27/1994 11/04/1994

44 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for temporary restraining order referred to Judge Ira De Ment (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
45 ORDER setting Evidentiary Hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for 9:00 12/6/94 , at the Kilby Correctional Facility; set Witness List deadline to at least 10 days before trial , as further set out; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at said evidentiary hearing (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel & Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie & Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
46 ORDER denying [42−1] motion for free copies ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
Stamped ORDER denying [43−1] motion for Reconsideration of [13−1] order denying appointment of counsel ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
47 ORDER denying [44−1] motion for temporary restraining order filed 10−7−94; referring case back to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to plaintiffs and counsel. (djy) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
File referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copies of orders of 10/7/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order of 10/11/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/13/1994)
49 ORDER granting [48−1] motion for Reconsideration with respect to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaintiffs' 10/13/94 motion and denying [48−1] motion for Reconsideration with respect to paragraphs 1−4 and 7; directing the clerk to mail to the plaintiffs a copy of the case action summary sheet and a copy of the defendants' 3/9/94 special report ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs w/documents as directed and to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/14/1994)
50 ORDER directing plaintiff Latham that on or before 10/24/94 to notify the court of his present address ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/14/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copies of orders of 10/14/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/18/1994)
52 ORDER denying [51−1] motion for Reconsideration of [47−1] order denying their motion for TRO; referring this case to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate (signed by Judge Ira De Ment), copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
53 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin to Compel defendant Johnson to comply with the courts order of 1/6/94 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order of 10/19/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
Stamped ORDER denying [53−1] motion to Compel ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 10/25/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of stamped order of 10/25/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
54 ORDER resetting Evidentiary Hearing for 9:30 12/6/94 in instead of 9:00; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce the plaintiffs at 9:30 at the Kilby Correctional Facility at the evidentiary hearing ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel & Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie & Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 11/04/1994)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 32 of 83

11/08/1994 11/17/1994 11/21/1994
11/21/1994
11/28/1994 12/06/1994 12/06/1994 12/06/1994 12/08/1994
12/09/1994
12/14/1994 12/20/1994 12/21/1994 12/27/1994 01/19/1995 02/07/1995 02/24/1995
02/24/1995

Plaintiff Latham's copy of order of 11/4/94 returned with the following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here". (cc) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
55 Witness list by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
56 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that plaintiff Latham be dismissed from this action with prejudice for his failure to prosecute the case and his failure to keep the court imformed of his current address. Objections to R and R due by 12/9/94 , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 11/21/1994)
57 ORDER directing the State of Alabama to produce inmates William J. Heup, AIS #Unknown, Floyd Foster, AIS #Unknown, Shirley McCall, AIS # Unknown, Samuel Weaver, Jr., AIS #146467 and Arron Lesperance, AIS #172694 for the evidentiary hearing set for 12/6/94 at 9:30 a.m. at the Kilby Correctional Facility ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs, counsel & Cecil Atchison. (cc) (Entered: 11/21/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copy of order & recommendation of 11/21/94 returned with following notation "Returned to Sender, not Here". (cc) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
Evidentiary Hearing held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
58 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings; Exhibit List; Witness List; EXHIBITS UNDER SEPARATE COVER W/FILE (cc) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
59 BRIEF by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin in support of [1−1] complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
60 ORDER directing the parties to file a joint status report indicating (1) whether a policy has been promulgated, (2) whether appropriate officials of the department have met with the plaintiffs concerning these policies, (3) whether the plaintiffs agree to the policies; set Status Report deadline to 12/27/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
61 ORDER adopting [56−1] report and recommendations; dismissing Matthew Latham as a plaintiff because of his failure to prosecute and his failure to keep the court informed of his current address; Referring Case to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ) , copies mailed to plaintiffs & counsel. (cc) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
Plaintiff Latham's copies of orders of 12/8/94 and 12/9/94 returned with the following notation "Returned to Sender, Not Here, Easterling Correctional Facility". (cc) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
62 STATUS REPORT (w/attachment) by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
63 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for Summary Judgment referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
64 Defendants' response to order of 12/8/94 referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
65 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for Final Judgment on the Case referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
66 MOTION by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin for Summary Judgment referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 02/07/1995)
67 MOTION to Intervene as a plaintiff in this action by Jimmy Lee Bowen, AIS #141620 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody [Construed as Motion to Amend the Complaint to Add Jimmy Lee Bowen as a Plaintiff pursuant to Court's Order of 3/25/99] (cc) Modified on 03/26/1999 (Entered: 02/24/1995)
68 STATUS REPORT (w/Exhibits A−C attached) by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) Modified on 03/26/1999 (Entered:

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 33 of 83

03/03/1995 03/08/1995
06/12/1995 06/19/1995 07/21/1995 07/21/1995 07/24/1995
08/16/1995 08/21/1995
08/21/1995 08/22/1995
08/22/1995 08/22/1995 08/23/1995 08/24/1995

02/24/1995)
69 SUPPLEMENT TO STATUS REPORT (document #62) by James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 03/03/1995)
70 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Supplement the Status Report filed 2/24/95 ; attachment referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 03/09/1995)
71 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for James Limbaugh, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen by Mark W. Sabel Jr. (dmk) (Entered: 06/13/1995)
72 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh by James A. Tucker (cc) (Entered: 06/19/1995)
73 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, James Limbaugh for Leave to File a first amended and substituted complaint ; proposed amended complaint attached referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
74 MEMORANDUM by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, James Limbaugh in support of [73−1] motion for Leave to File a first amended and substituted complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
75 ORDER setting argument for 9:00 8/21/95 in the third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Fed. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, Montg., Ala. before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on [73−1] motion for Leave to File a first amended and substituted complaint ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
76 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh for Leave to File the second amended complaint ; proposed amendment attached referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/18/1995)
Motion hearing held re: [76−1] motion for Leave to File the second amended complaint and [73−1] motion for Leave to File a first amended and substituted complaint by James Limbaugh, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight (cc) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
77 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings (cc) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
78 ORDER stating that the court believes that settlement of the issues raised in this case is appropriate and desirable for all parties; affording the parites a reasonable period of time to reach settlement; Staying all further proceedings in this case ; setting Status Conference 10:00 10/4/95, in chambers before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished Marie & Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
79 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
80 BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh in support of [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief (w/Exhibits 1−2 attached) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
81 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh for Partial Summary Judgment ; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/24/1995)
82 ORDER setting hearing and argument for 9:00 10/4/95 on [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief , before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Fed. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, Montg., Ala.; set Witness List deadline to at least 20 days before trial, as further set out ; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at said hearing ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel & Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie & Clayton. RESCHEDULED PER ORDER OF 9/6/95 (cc) Modified on 10/04/1995 (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 34 of 83

09/01/1995 09/06/1995
09/20/1995 09/20/1995 10/03/1995 10/03/1995 10/03/1995 10/04/1995 10/05/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995
10/13/1995 10/13/1995

83 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh to reschedule hearing referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 09/05/1995)
84 ORDER granting [83−1] motion to reschedule hearing; reset Status Conference for 9:30 10/10/95 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody , in third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Fed. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, Montg., Ala.; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs to produce them at said status conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel & Cecil Atchison; furnished Marie & Clayton. (cc) (Entered: 09/06/1995)
85 Witness list by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
86 Witness list by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
87 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Consolidate w/Case 94−U−186−NE in the Northern District of Alabama referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
88 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh for Preliminary Injunction / for temporary restraining order referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
89 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh to Produce Witnesses referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
90 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections by David E. Belser, G. Dennis Nabors, Charles A. Graddick referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
91 RESPONSE by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh in opposition to delay of the hearing for a preliminary injunction referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/05/1995)
Motion hearing held [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief [88−1] & supplement by James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight. (djy) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
92 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings; ORAL ORDER resetting hearing for 10−13−95 @ 9:00 a.m. (continued to allow further settlement negotiations). [Tape 1765 (1−1084)]. (djy) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
93 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh to Produce witnesses referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
94 ORDER setting hearing and oral argument for 9:00 a.m. on 10/13/95 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on plaintiff's [79−1] [88−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief, as supplemented , in the third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson Jr. Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, Montgomery, Alabama; directing the State of Alabama produce the following inmates at the hearing and oral argument: Timothy Gray Wolf Smith AIS#178396 & Douglas Tuskahens Bailey AIS # 122609; directing the persons having custody of the plaintiffs produce the plaintiffs at the hearing and oral argument described above ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to counsel and Cecil Atchison; furnished to Marie, Ace & USM. (djy) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
Motion hearing held re: [88−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight (cc) (Entered: 10/16/1995)
95 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings; Exhibit Lists; Witness Lists; Exhibits under SEPARATE COVER w/file (cc) (Entered: 10/16/1995)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 35 of 83

10/16/1995 10/17/1995 10/18/1995 10/19/1995 10/20/1995 10/20/1995 10/20/1995 10/20/1995 11/28/1995
11/28/1995
11/28/1995 11/28/1995 11/30/1995 12/01/1995 12/04/1995

AO FORM 85 mailed to counsel for defendant. (cc) (Entered: 10/16/1995)
96 Post−Hearing BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh in support of [88−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction, and [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/18/1995)
97 JOINT STIPULATION of parties; proposed order attached referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 10/19/1995)
98 SUPPLEMENTAL POST−HEARING BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh in support of [88−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction, and [79−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Relief referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/19/1995)
99 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW with respect to the preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
100 NOTICE of Filing of proposed order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh; proposed order attached. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
101 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
102 BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections in support of [101−1] motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
103 ORDER granting [76−1] motion for Leave to File the second amended complaint; granting [73−1] motion for Leave to File a first amended complaint; set Answer deadline to 12/18/95 for defendants ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; mailed by CMRRR w/copy of both amended complaints to added defendants. (cc) Modified on 11/28/1995 (Entered: 11/28/1995)
104 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (w/attachments) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Smith, the Native American Prisoners Organization of America (NAPOA) against Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Fictitious Defendant(s) (cc) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
105 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA (cc) Modified on 11/28/1995 (Entered: 11/28/1995)
106 SUMMONS issued; summons, amended complaint, the amendment thereto & order of 11/28/95 mailed by CMRRR to Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting (cc) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
107 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons & amended complaint on Brian Green on 11/29/95 for James Bowen, E. L. Harrelson; on H. Dilly on 11/29/95 for Willie Whiting. Answer due on 12/19/95 for Willie Whiting, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
108 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons & amended complaint on Preston E. Herbert on 11/30/95 for Steve Walker ; on Mike Ellis on 11/29/95 for Bill Lindsey. Answer due on 12/20/95 for Steve Walker, 12/19/95 for Bill Lindsey (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
109 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons, & amended complaint on K. Senn on 11/30/95 for Ronald E. Jones; on (illegible) McDaniel on 11/29/95 for Ralph Hooks. Answer due on 12/19/95 for Ralph Hooks, 12/20/95 for Ronald E. Jones (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1995)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 36 of 83

12/05/1995 12/18/1995 12/22/1995 01/03/1996 01/04/1996
01/17/1996 01/18/1996 01/24/1996 02/13/1996 02/15/1996 05/14/1996
05/14/1996
05/14/1996
05/14/1996
05/14/1996

110 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons & amended complaint on D. Sutherland on 12/4/95 for Tom Allen; on M.A. Thornton (undated) for James D. White. Answer due on 12/24/95 for Tom Allen, for James D. White (cc) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
111 MOTION by defendants to Dismiss Amendment to Amended Complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/19/1995)
112 MOTION (attachment 1 attached) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA to Compel defendants' to permit an inspection of DOC facilities on January 17−19, 1996 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 12/22/1995)
Tele−conference − HELD − before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/3/96 (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
113 ORDER denying [112−1] motion to Compel defendants' to permit an inspection of DOC facilities on January 17−19, 1996; further ORDERED that counsel shall confer and determine a date on which the plaintiffs' expert may conduct a tour of the facilities in the presence of counsel; ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
114 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA for Roy S. Haber to Appear Pro Hac Vice referred to Judge Ira De Ment (djy) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
115 AMENDMENT TO JOINT STIPULATION of parties filed 10−18−95. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/19/1996)
116 Plaintiff's statement regarding remaining issues raised by the joint stipulation of the parties. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
117 NOTICE of filing certificate of good standing for Roy Haber by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA (djy) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
Stamped ORDER granting plaintiff's 1−17−96 [114−1] motion for Roy S. Haber to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( by Judge Ira De Ment ). Copies mailed to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
118 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to plaintiff Limbaugh. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
119 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to James Limbaugh. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) Modified on 05/14/1996 (Entered: 05/14/1996)
120 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to plaintiff Irvin. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
121 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to Franklin Irvin. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) Modified on 05/14/1996 (Entered: 05/14/1996)
122 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 37 of 83

05/14/1996 05/14/1996 05/14/1996 07/01/1996
07/01/1996
11/21/1996 12/18/1996 12/18/1996 04/16/1997 08/18/1997 09/02/1997 09/02/1997 09/02/1997

Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to plaintiff Knight. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
123 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to Ricky Knight. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
124 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to plaintiff Timothy Smith. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
125 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting to Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. Referred to Magistrate Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
126 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
127 BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting in support of [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
128 ORDER setting Scheduling Conference for 1:30 p.m. on 12/18/96 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody , in the third floor courtroom, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Federal Bldg., & U. S. Courthouse, Montgomery, Alabama, as further set out in order ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to counsel; furnished to Marie, Ace & USM. (djy) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Scheduling conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 12/19/1996)
129 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings of Scheduling Conference (cc) (Entered: 12/19/1996)
130 ORDER staying this action pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, ____U.S.____, 117 S.Ct.293(1996), where the Court has granted certiorari on the issue of the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ). Copies mailed to counsel. (djy) Modified on 04/16/1997 (Entered: 04/16/1997)
131 ORDER, setting Scheduling Conference for 1:30 9/2/97 , third floor courtroom, before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, CA. (dmk) (Entered: 08/18/1997)
132 ORDER, setting Scheduling Conference by telephone conference for 4:00 9/18/97 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; that counsel for plaintiff set up conference call ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, CA. (dmk) (Entered: 09/02/1997)
Scheduling conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/2/97 (dmk) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
133 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: 9/2/97 − Scheduling conference held before Mag. Judge Coody (dmk) (Entered: 09/03/1997)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 38 of 83

09/18/1997 09/19/1997 09/19/1997 09/19/1997
09/19/1997
09/19/1997 10/06/1997
10/16/1997 10/17/1997 10/30/1997
11/10/1997 11/10/1997

Telephone conference held on September 18,1997 between counsel and Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
134 ORDER that on or before 10/6/97, counsel in each case who moved for class certification shall notify the court whether they intend to go forward with a class action ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
135 ORDER that these cases (93−D−1404−N and 96−D−554−N) be and are hereby consolidated for all future proceedings; Civil Action No. 93−D−1404 shall be the lead case ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
136 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Rule 16 Pretrial Conference for 1/6/98, in Montgomery, AL, at 9:00 a.m., before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody; evidentiary hearing commencing on 2/9/98, in Montgomery, AL; Discovery cutoff 1/26/98 prior to Evidentiary Hearing; Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/9/98, in Montgomery, AL; plaintiff's pretrial brief on all issues shall be filed on 1/26/98; defendants' responsive briefs due on 2/2/98; and as further setout ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, RL. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
Deadline updated as per scheduling order 9/19/97; setting Evidentiary Hearing for 2/9/98 in Montgomery, AL, before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; setting reply brief deadline for 2/2/98 for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for Tom Allen, for John Michael Shaver, for Ronald E. Jones, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections ; setting reply brief deadline for 2/2/98 for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
Consolidated Lead Case − as per order 9/19/97 signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
137 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees to Withdraw [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action by defendants ; referred to Judge Coody (dmk) Modified on 10/09/1997 (Entered: 10/06/1997)
138 ORDER denying as moot [89−1] motion to Produce Witnesses ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel . (dmk) (Entered: 10/16/1997)
139 ORDER that plaintiffs file pleading indicating any objections to actions on behalf of named plaintiffs; , Response to Motion set to 10/30/97 for [137−1] motion to Withdraw [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action by defendants ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
140 RESPONSE by Matthew Latham, Thomas Hogan, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning to [137−1] motion to Withdraw [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action by defendants by consolidated defendant ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 10/31/1997)
141 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached); referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/10/1997)
142 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoners (Notice of Taking Deposition attached) ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 39 of 83

11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/18/1997
11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 12/02/1997 12/02/1997
12/30/1997 12/31/1997 01/07/1998

143 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
144 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached) ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
145 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
146 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached) ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
147 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached) ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
148 ORDER granting [141−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached);, granting [147−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached), granting [146−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached), granting [145−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner, granting [144−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached), granting [143−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner (Notice of Taking Deposition attached, granting [142−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoners (Notice of Taking Deposition attached), granting [137−1] motion to Withdraw [126−1] motion for determination that action be maintained as a Class Action by defendants ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 11/18/1997)
149 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Roger Manning ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
150 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections For Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Aughtry Daughtry ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
151 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections For Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Michael Clem ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
152 ORDER, setting Pretrial Conference for 9:00 1/7/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, CA. (dmk) (Entered: 12/02/1997)
153 ORDER granting [151−1] motion For Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Michael Clem, granting [150−1] motion For Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Aughtry Daughtry, granting [149−1] motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Roger Manning ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 12/02/1997)
154 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA for James A. Tucker to Withdraw as Attorney ; to Substitute Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
155 Witness list by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Willie Whiting; referred to Mag. Judge McPherson (dkt clerk) Modified on 12/31/1997 (Entered: 12/31/1997)
Stamped ORDER granting [154−1] motion for James A. Tucker to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney James A. Tucker for NAPOA, attorney James A. Tucker for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, attorney James A. Tucker for James Limbaugh, attorney James A. Tucker for Jimmy Lee Bowen, attorney James A. Tucker for Franklin Irvin, attorney James A. Tucker for Ricky Knight, granting [154−2] motion to Substitute Attorney terminated attorney James A. Tucker for NAPOA, attorney James A. Tucker for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, attorney James A. Tucker for James

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 40 of 83

01/08/1998 01/14/1998 01/16/1998
01/20/1998 01/21/1998
01/23/1998 01/26/1998 01/26/1998 01/30/1998

Limbaugh, attorney James A. Tucker for Jimmy Lee Bowen, attorney James A. Tucker for Franklin Irvin, attorney James A. Tucker for Ricky Knight Added ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel (STAMPED ORDER RENDERED ON 1/8/98) (dkt clerk) Modified on 01/08/1998 (Entered: 01/08/1998)
156 ORDER that on or before 1/15/98, counsel for the plaintiffs shall file a list of the plaintiffs, including AIS numbers, to be produced at the evidentiary hearing set on 2/9/98 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
157 (Notice) MOTION by Matthew Latham, Thomas Hogan, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning for production of inmates for evidentiary hearing referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dmk) Modified on 01/15/1998 (Entered: 01/14/1998)
158 ORDER granting [157−1] motion for production of inmates for evidentiary hearing; directing the persons having custody of the following plaintiffs to produce them at the 2/9/98 evidentiary hearing: Douglas Bailey, AIS #122609, Franklin Irvin, AIS #141535, James F. Limbaugh, Jr., AIS #148178, Autry Daughtry, AIS #124105, Jimmy L. Bowen, AIS #141620, Timothy G. Smith, AIS #178396, Billy Jones, AIS #131471, Michael Clem, AIS #130522, Ricky Knight, AIS #171382 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished Cecil Atchison. (cc) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
159 MOTION for John Q. Somerville to Withdraw as Attorney of record for plaintiffs Native American Prisoners of Alabama−Turtle Wind Clan referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
Stamped ORDER granting [159−1] motion for John Q. Somerville to Withdraw as Attorney of record for plaintiffs Native American Prisoners of Alabama−Turtle Wind Clan (Terminated attorney John Q. Somerville for Roger "Light Foot" Manning, attorney John Q. Somerville for Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, attorney John Q. Somerville for John "Wind Horse" Wambles, attorney John Q. Somerville for Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, attorney John Q. Somerville for Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, attorney John Q. Somerville for Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, attorney John Q. Somerville for Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, attorney John Q. Somerville for Thomas "Otter" Adams, attorney John Q. Somerville for Native American ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
160 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning to photograph & inspect the grounds and premises at Staton CF, Elmore, CF, J.O. Davis CF, Fountain CF & Kilby CF (w/attachment 1) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
161 ORDER granting [160−1] motion to photograph & inspect the grounds and premises at Staton CF, Elmore, CF, J.O. Davis CF, Fountain CF & Kilby CF on the schedule that is set out in the order; directing the officials of the DOC facilities named to make every effort to permit photographing and inspecting as set out in this schedule ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; faxed to attorneys Sabel and Graddick as directed. (cc) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
162 PRETRIAL BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning; referred to Judge Coody. (dmk) (Entered: 01/27/1998)
163 ORDER, setting Evidentiary Hearing for 9:00 2/9/98, in third floor courtroom, before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to MT, CA. (dmk) (Entered: 01/30/1998)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 41 of 83

01/30/1998
01/30/1998
02/02/1998 02/02/1998
02/06/1998 02/06/1998 02/09/1998
02/09/1998 02/13/1998 02/13/1998 02/13/1998

164 SUPPLEMENTAL Witness list by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees; referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dmk) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
165 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees to Produce Witnesses ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) Modified on 02/02/1998 (Entered: 01/30/1998)
166 ORDER granting [165−1] motion to Produce Witnesses; that persons having custody of witnesses Michael Moore, Charles Sellers, Robert McCain and Ronnie Phillips, produce them at evidentiary hearing 2/9/98 at 9:00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel and Cecil Atchison. (dmk) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
167 PRETRIAL BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees; referred to Mag. Judge Coody . (dmk) Modified on 02/03/1998 (Entered: 02/02/1998)
Stamped ORDER denying [168−1] motion to Strike Witnesses from [164−1] witness list by defendants, denying [168−2] motion to Vacate [166−1] order producing such witnesses for trial ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
170 Defendants' Exhibit list (w/proposed Exhibits 1−6F & 8−11) FILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER; referred to Mag. Judge Coody. (cc) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
171 OBJECTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning to [170−1] exhibits list and identification of depositions by consolidated defendants; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
Evidentiary Hearing held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on February 9−13 (cc) (Entered: 03/02/1998)
172 ORDER granting [169−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint; directing the parties that on or before 2/27/98 to file a joint stipulation concerning the issues on which they have reached agreement or shall notify the court that they have been unable to agree; advising that if the parties are unable to agree, the hearing will reconvene on 3/2/98 at 9:00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies furnished to counsel at hearing. (cc) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
173 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT by plaintiffs amending [104−1] amended complaint to add defendants Joe Hopper, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, and plaintiff Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. Amendment also removes defendants Ron Jones & Tom Allen. (cc) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
174 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings; 2/9/98 oral motion by plaintiff's to Amend Complaint , granted same date; 2/12/98 oral motion to Seal ; granted same date; witness list; exhibit lists; Exhibits under SEPARATE COVER w/file; Exhibits I, H, V and 4 of plaintiffs' 12−B FILED UNDER SEAL (cc) (Entered: 03/02/1998)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 42 of 83

03/04/1998 03/04/1998 03/05/1998 03/11/1998
03/20/1998 03/23/1998
03/25/1998 04/27/1998
04/27/1998
04/27/1998
04/27/1998

175 ORDER advising that the parties have informed the court that they have resolved all issues in the lawsuit with the exception of the sweat lodge and hair length issues; directing the parties that on or before 3/11/98 to submit to the court their stipulation for resolution of all but these two issues ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
176 ORDER directing that the deposition of the expert witness be taken and the deposition transcript be filed with the court on or before 3/25/98 , at which time the sweat lodge and hair length issues will be taken under submission; setting Brief deadline to 3/25/98 for any further briefs on these two issues to be filed ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
177 Parties' Stipulation of facts; referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dmk) (Entered: 03/06/1998)
178 MOTION (Request) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Be Released From A "Court Hold" at Kilby Prison ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
179 ORDER denying [178−1] motion to Be Released From A "Court Hold" at Kilby Prison ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 03/20/1998)
180 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Joe Hopper, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley to Extend Time for filing post evidentiary briefs ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dmk) (Entered: 03/24/1998)
Stamped ORDER granting [180−1] motion to Extend Time for filing post evidentiary briefs ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies mailed to counsel. (dmk) (Entered: 03/25/1998)
181 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to file post−hearing brief ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
182 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for an order on all matters agreed upon by the parties as reflected in the joint stipulation filed 3/5/98 ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
183 NOTICE by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey OF FILING expert telephonic testimony of George Sullivan (Expert Testimony maintained in separate binder); referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
182 Motion for Order construed as MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth,

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 43 of 83

05/04/1998
06/04/1998 06/19/1998 06/26/1998 01/08/1999 01/08/1999 03/25/1999
09/10/1999 09/10/1999

Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for a Rule 54(a) Judgment [PER RECOMMENDATION OF 09/10/99] h(hc) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
184 POST−HEARING BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [1−1] complaint; (w/attachments) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (vmc) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
185 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order and Injunction by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey; referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dkt clerk) Modified on 06/05/1998 (Entered: 06/05/1998)
186 ORDER denying [1−2] motion for Appointment of Counsel ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ); copies mailed to counsel (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
187 MOTION for G. Dennis Nabors to Withdraw as Attorney , referred to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody (war) Modified on 06/29/1998 (Entered: 06/29/1998)
188 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Leave to Amend Complaint Without Reproducing the Entire Pleading , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/11/1999)
190 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Status Conference , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/11/1999)
191 ORDER denying as moot [36−1] Motion to Show Cause; denying [37−1] Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying [65−1] Motion for Final Judgment on the Case; granting [67−1] Motion to Amend [1−1] Complaint; granting [70−1] Motion to Supplement the Status Report filed 2/24/95; denying as moot [87−1] Motion to Consolidate w/Case 94−U−186−NE in the Northern District of Alabama; granting [181−1] Motion to Extend Time to file post−hearing brief; granting [187−1] Motion for G. Dennis Nabors to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Attorney G. Dennis Nabors for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to counsel, Gwendolyn Mosley, Joe Hopper. h(hc) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
192 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that on the Sweat Lodge Ceremony and Hair Length Issues, Judgement be entered in favor of the Defendants. Objections to R and R due by 9/23/99, copies mailed to Counsel and Defendants John Shaver, Gwendolyn Mosley, Ron Sutton and Joe Hopper. h(hc) (Entered: 09/10/1999)
193 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody that 1) Final Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs in accordance with the findings and conclusions contained in this recommendation; 2) based on the Stipulation, the testimony in the consolidated cases, and the entire record, the Commissioner of the Alabama DOC, his officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order, be enjoined to comply with the injunctive relief set forth in this recommendation; 3) nothing herein shall be construed to limit the rights that the defendants may accord to Native Americans, as the defendants are free to exceed the constitutional requirements set out herein; 4) the Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for a period of one year to allow the defendants to modify their policies and practices in accordance with the Court's injunction and to demonstrate their compliance with federal law and the orders, decrees, and injunction of this court; 5) the costs of this proceeding be taxed against the defendants; 6) if the Plaintiffs seek to recover fees, costs, and expenses, they ge directed to file a petition within 30 days of the date of a final order adopting this recommendation. Objections to R and R due by 9/23/99,

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 44 of 83

09/22/1999
09/24/1999
09/28/1999 11/18/1999 11/19/1999
11/23/1999
11/23/1999 11/29/1999 12/16/1999 12/16/1999 12/16/1999 01/06/2000 01/06/2000

copies mailed to Counsel and Defendants John Shaver, Gwendolyn Mosley, Joe Hopper and Ron Sutton. h(hc) (wcl, ). (Entered: 09/10/1999)
194 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to file objections to the recommendation of the Mag. Judge that is addressed to the sweat lodge and hair length issues referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (vmc) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
195 ORDER granting [194−1] motion to Extend Time to file objections to the recommendation of the Mag. Judge that is addressed to the sweat lodge and hair length issues; Objections reset to 11/23/99 for [192−1] report and recommendations (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody). Copies mailed to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 09/24/1999)
196 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey by Attorney Peter S. Fruin h(hc) (Entered: 09/29/1999)
197 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Transcription of Trial Testimony without payment , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
198 SECOND MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that is addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 11/22/1999)
Stamped ORDER granting [198−1] Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that is addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, Objections reset to 1/24/00 for [192−1] Report and Recommendations (by Judge Ira De Ment), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
Stamped ORDER granting [197−1] Motion for Transcription of Trial Testimony without payment (by Judge Ira De Ment), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
File referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody re: No Objections to [193−1] Recommendation h(hc) (Entered: 11/29/1999)
199 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for A Rule 54(B) Judgment (Proposed Order attached), referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
Court Reporter Lewis Wimberley's TRANSCRIPT filed for Evidentiary Hearing (Morning Session Only) for 2/9/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in Montg., AL from record of proceeding from audio tape, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
Court Reporter Lewis Wimberley's TRANSCRIPT filed for Evidentiary Hearing (Testimony) for 2/12/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in Montg., AL from record of proceeding, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
Court Reporter Julia A. Duncan's TRANSCRIPT filed for Testimony and Proceedings for 2/9/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in Montgomery, AL from record of proceedings, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
Court Reporter Jaymie Pappanastos's TRANSCRIPT filed for Testimony and Proceedings for 2/10/98 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in Montgomery, AL from record of proceedings, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 45 of 83

01/07/2000
01/18/2000 01/21/2000 01/24/2000 01/27/2000 01/28/2000 01/28/2000 01/31/2000 02/02/2000

200 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Plas' Motion for rule 54(B) Judgment should not be granted: 1) Response to Order to Show Cause due on 1/21/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Joe Hopper, for Steven Dees, for Officer Wynn, for J. C. Giles, for Roy Dunaway, for Eddie Carter, for Andrew Redd, for Roy Hightower, for Thomas Gilkerson, for Morris L. Thigpen, for Tommy Herring, for Neal W. Russell, for Lt. Estes, for Mitchem, for Ellen Ruth Leonard, for William S. Sticker, Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson; 2) Pla file Reply, set Reply Brief deadline for 1/28/00 for Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, for Roger "Light Foot" Manning, for Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, for John "Wind Horse" Wambles, for Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, for Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, for Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, for Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, for Thomas "Otter" Adams, for Native American, for NAPOA, for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, for James Limbaugh, for Jimmy Lee Bowen, for Franklin Irvin, for Knight (signed by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Dfts and Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
201 Response by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Joe Hopper, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley to [200−1] Order to Show Cause, referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 01/18/2000)
202 FINAL MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Extension of Time to File Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge that is addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [202−1] Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge that is addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, Objections reset to 1/31/00 for [192−1] Report and Recommendations (by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Pla and Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
203 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections, J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, Willie Johnson, Kenneth Patrick, Donald Parker, Leslie Thompson for David E. Belser to Withdraw as Attorney , referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [203−1] motion for David E. Belser to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Atty David E. Belser for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker and for Leslie Thompson (by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 01/28/2000)
204 REPLY by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [201−1] Response to [200−1] Order to Show Cause, referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 01/28/2000)
205 OBJECTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [192−1] Report and Recommendations of the Mag. Judge that is Addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 02/01/2000)
206 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Plas' Objections should be overruled: Response to Order to Show Cause due on 2/15/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Joe Hopper, for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson; Plas my file Reply thereto, set deadline for Reply to Response to Order to Show Cause for 2/22/00 for Dark Horns Bailey, for NAPOA, for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, for James Limbaugh, for Jimmy Lee Bowen, for Franklin for Ricky Knight (signed by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 02/02/2000)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 46 of 83

02/14/2000
02/18/2000
03/14/2000 03/17/2000 03/17/2000 03/21/2000 03/22/2000 03/24/2000
03/31/2000 04/03/2000 04/04/2000 04/05/2000

207 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Joe Hopper, Ron Sutton for Extension of Time with which to File Brief in Opposition to Plas' Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 02/15/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [207−1] Motion for Extension of Time with which to File Brief in Opposition to Plas' Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge, Brief in opposition due by 3/13/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Joe Hopper, for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for Thomas "Otter" Adams, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson ; terminated deadlines (by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 02/18/2000)
208 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for Leave to File Brief in opposition to Plas' Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Out of Time Beyond 3/13/00 Deadline (Brief in Opposition attached), referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [208−1] Motion for Leave to File Brief in opposition to Plas' Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Out of Time Beyond 3/13/00 Deadline (by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel and Dfts. h(hc) (Entered: 03/17/2000)
209 BRIEF by Dept. of Corrections in opposition to [205−1] Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate regading Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 03/17/2000)
210 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Set 3/31 as Date to File Reply Brf to Dfts' Brf regarding Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
Order of 3/14/00 mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 03/23/2000)
211 ORDER granting [210−1] Motion to Set 3/31 as Date to File Reply Brf to Dfts' Brf regarding Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues; set Reply Brief deadline for 3/31/00 for Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, for NAPOA, for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, for James Limbaugh, for Jimmy Lee Bowen, for Franklin Irvin, for Ricky Knight (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
212 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to set 4/3 as Date to File Reply Brf to Dfts' Brf regarding the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 04/03/2000)
213 REPLY BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [209−1] Brief in opposition to [205−1] Objections to Recommendation of Mag. Judge that Addressed to the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues by Dept of Corrections, referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 04/04/2000)
Order of 3/24/00 mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Return to Sender − Not Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 04/04/2000)
Stamped ORDER granting [212−1] Motion to Extend Time to set 4/3 as Date to File Reply Brf to Dfts' Brf regarding Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues, reset Reply Brief deadline for 4/3/00 for Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, for NAPOA, for Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, for James Limbaugh, for Jimmy Lee Bowen, for Franklin Irvin, for Ricky Knight (by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 04/05/2000)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 47 of 83

04/10/2000 06/12/2000
06/12/2000 06/16/2000 06/26/2000 07/07/2000 07/12/2000
07/12/2000 07/12/2000
07/14/2000 07/14/2000
07/17/2000

Stamped Order of 4/5/00 returned w/notation "Return to Sender − Not Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 04/10/2000)
214 ORDER overruling [205−1] Objection; adopting [192−1] Report and Recommendations; considered, order and adjudged that Jgmt be entered in favor of Dfts on the Sweat Lodge and Hair Length Issues; adopting [193−1] Report and Recommendations; considered, ordered and adjudged that Jgmt be entered in favor of Plas in accordance with Findings and Conclusions contained in Recommendation of Mag. Judge concerning Issues agreed upon by Parties in Stipulation filed on 03/05/98; denying [188−1] Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Without Reproducing the Entire Pleading and [189−1] Motion to Amend [1−1] Complaint to Add a Claim Based on the Newly Enacted Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment (signed by Judge Ira DeMent), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/12/2000)
Case closed h(hc) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
Order of 06/12/00 mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 06/19/2000)
215 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses , referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 06/27/2000)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody: [215−1] Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 07/07/2000)
216 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Opposing Party why Pla's Preliminary Motion for Attys' Fees, Cost & Expenses should not be granted: Rsp to Order to Show Cause due on 8/1/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Michael Haley, for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
217 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time and/or Set Date Certain to File A Cost Bill; a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attyorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses and supporting Brf and Evidentiary Materials , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 07/13/2000)
218 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Douglas Bailey, Franklin Irvin, James F. Limbaugh, Jr., Autry Daughtry, Jimmy L. Bowen, Billy Jones, Michael Clem and Ricky Knight from the final order entered on June 12, 2000, to the extent such Order and Judgment enters judgment in favor of the Defendants on the sweat lodge and hair length issues. Copies mailed to Attorney's Mark Sabel and Peter Fruin with an appeal information sheet and civil docketing statement, Counsel and to USCA, Eleventh Circuit along with certified copies of orders appealed from and docket entries. FILING FEE 82788 RECEIPT # 105.00 (kcg) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
Notice of Appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith (kcg) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
219 ORDER granting [217−1] Motion to Extend Time and/or [217−2] Motion Set Date Certain to File A Cost Bill; a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attys' Fees, Costs, Expenses and supporting Brf and Evidentiary Materials; 1) on or before 08/02/00 Plas shall file Bill of Costs; 2) on or before 08/23/00 Dfts shall file Brf and Evidentiary Materials; 3) on or before 09/06/00 Counsel for Parties shall Conduct Conf, reporting Result of Conf to Court on or before 09/08/00; vacating [216−1] Order (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies mailed to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
07/12/00 Order mailed to John M. Porter returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − Forward Time expired" New Address 2865 Zelda Rd Montg AL 36106; remailed to

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 48 of 83

07/19/2000 07/21/2000 07/21/2000 07/24/2000 07/28/2000 08/02/2000
08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/10/2000 08/16/2000 08/18/2000
08/18/2000
08/21/2000
08/21/2000

new address h(hc) (Entered: 07/18/2000)
07/14/00 Order mailed to John M. Porter returned w/notation "Return to Sender − Forward Time Expired"; remailed to new address h(hc) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
07/14/00 Order mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Return to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
USCA Case Number Re: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith USCA NUMBER: 00−13699−B (kcg) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
Received transcript order information sheet from Attorney Mark Sabel with the notation "I am ordering a transcript of the following proceedings": 12/6/94 Pre−Trial Testimony of Defendant Leslie Thompson held before Judge Coody. (kcg) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
220 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Transcription of One Witness's Testimony (Dft Leslie Thompson) without Payment , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
221 SECOND MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to File Costs Bill, a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attyorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses and supporting Brf and Evidientiary Materials , referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 08/03/2000)
222 Stamped ORDER granting [221−1] Motion to Ext Time to File Costs Bill, a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attyorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses and supporting Brf and Evidientiary Materials until 08/18/00 (by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
Received transcript order form from Lewis Wimberley with the notation "Satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript have not been made". (kcg) (Entered: 08/10/2000)
08/02/00 Order mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC", referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody h(hc) (Entered: 08/10/2000)
223 ORDER denying [220−1] Motion for Transcription of One Witness's Testimony (Dft Leslie Thompson) without Payment (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 08/16/2000)
224 Bill of costs (w/attachments) received on 8/18/2000 in the amount of $26,815.14 entered by James Morning R. Limbaugh, et al, to be taxed against Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
225 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to File a Costs Bill; a More Detailed and Specific Petition/Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; and a Supporting Brief and Evidentiary Materials; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
226 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time to File a Brief and Evidentiary Materials Supporting their Claims for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; etc; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
Costs in the amount of $ 26,851.14 taxed for Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, against defendants per Bill of Cost Received on 8/18/2000; copies mailed to

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 49 of 83

08/21/2000
08/21/2000
08/21/2000
08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/23/2000
08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/31/2000 09/12/2000
10/24/2000 10/24/2000 10/31/2000 11/14/2000

counsel (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
227 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [226−1] motion to Extend Time to File a Brief and Evidentiary Materials Supporting their Claims for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; etc; by plaintiffs referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) Modified on 08/22/2000 (Entered: 08/22/2000)
227 EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSIONS by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [226−1] motion to Extend Time to File a Brief and Evidentiary Materials Supporting their Claims for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; etc; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
228 NOTICE OF SUSBMISSION OF EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS (w/Exhibits 1−7 attached) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [227−1] support memorandum, [226−1] motion to Extend Time to File a Brief and Evidentiary Materials Supporting their Claims for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses; etc; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
Court reporter's [Lewis Wimberley] TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of December 6, 1994 Testimony Of Leslie Thompson. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of record on appeal mailed to USCA, 11th Circuit and counsel: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith (kcg) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
229 ORDER granting [226−1] motion to Extend Time ; granting [225−1] motion to Extend Time; directing defendants to show cause; set response to Order to Show Cause due on 9/11/00 for Gwendolyn Mosley, for Ron Sutton, for Michael Haley, for Willie Whiting, for Steve Walker, for Bill Lindsey, for Ralph Hooks, for James Bowen, for E. L. Harrelson, for John Michael Shaver, for James D. White, for Jeff Sessions, for Dept. of Corrections, for J. McClure, for Dewayne Estes, for Willie Johnson, for Kenneth Patrick, for Donald Parker, for Leslie Thompson as to why [215−1] motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses should not be granted ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
Doc #227 and #228 referred to Mag. Judge Coody (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/24/2000)
Bill of Costs mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − No Longer Employed by DOC" h(hc) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
Mail returned from Postal Service for Ron Sutton with the notation "Return to Sender − Not Employed by DOC". (kcg) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
230 BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees in opposition to [215−1] Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
231 MOTION by Gerald Ward for Writ of Mandamus (w/attachments) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (kcg) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
231 Writ of Mandamus treated as a MOTION by Gerald Ward to Intervene by Gerald Ward [PER COURT'S ORDER OF 10/31/00] h(hc) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
232 ORDER denying [231−1] Motion to Intervene by Gerald Ward; terminating [231−1] Motion for Writ of Mandamus (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to Counsel. h(hc) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
Order of 10/31/00 mailed to Ron Sutton returned w/notation "Returned to Sender − Not Employed by DOC" h(hc) (Entered: 11/17/2000)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 50 of 83

11/29/2000 02/09/2001 02/12/2001 02/16/2001 05/09/2001
06/12/2001
06/12/2001 06/13/2001 06/28/2001 06/28/2001 06/28/2001 06/28/2001 07/09/2001 07/11/2001

233 MOTION (REQUEST) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Mediation for Resolution of Outstanding Attys Fees , referred to Judge Ira DeMent h(hc) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
REQUEST for Record On Appeal from USCA re: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
Certified and transmitted Record on Appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of RECEIPT of RECORD ON APPEAL from USCA Re: [218−1] appeal by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith USCA Number: 00−13699−BB @ 2 Boxes (dkt clerk) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
234 NOTICE of filing discovery related to compliance with court ordered injunctive relief (first consolidated set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding implementation of the court ordered relief) by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. Referred to Mag Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 05/11/2001)
235 ORDER (rendered June 11, 2001, is issued as the mandate) of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, that since the district court issued its judgment in this case, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. section 2000cc, et seq., that the plantiffs have filed a motion to remand the case for further consideration in light of that new statute, and a motions panel ordered that motion carried with the case for decision by this panel, as further set out in order, Remanding this case to the District Court , that this is not a limited remand, and we do not mean to restrict the district court's scope of authortiy to consider or reconsider any issues it deems appropriate. ( Before: CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and PROPST*, District Judge. ) , copies provided. [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
Record on Appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals: [218−1] appeal [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
File w/copy of USCA ORDER ON REMAND forwarded to Judge De Ment. [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
Case reopened per 6/12/01 remand by Eleventh Circuit. (djy) Modified on 11/08/2001 (Entered: 11/08/2001)
236 ORDER referring this case to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
CASE REFERRED to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for all pretrial matters. (mfm) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
File referred to Mag. Judge Coody (mfm) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
Ron Sutton's order filed 6/28/01 returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted not known; no longer employed by DOC. (sl) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
237 ORDER directing parties to file briefs specifically addressing the issues raised by the remand by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals setting Brief deadline on or before 8/13/01 ; parties shall file reply briefs setting reply brief deadline on or before 8/28/01 for Gerald Ward, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Gwendolyn Mosley, Ron Sutton, Michael Haley, Steven Dees, Officer Wynn, J. C. Giles, Roy Dunaway, Eddie Carter, Andrew Redd, Roy Hightower, Thomas Gilkerson, Morris L. Thigpen, Tommy Herring, Neal W. Russell, Lt. Estes, Billy Mitchem, Ellen Ruth Leonard, William S. Sticker, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Native

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 51 of 83

07/17/2001 07/18/2001 07/19/2001 07/20/2001 07/27/2001
08/06/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001
08/13/2001
08/15/2001
08/28/2001
08/30/2001

American, NAPOA, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Fictitious Defendant(s), Willie Whiting, Steve Walker, Bill Lindsey, Ralph Hooks, James Bowen, E. L. Harrelson,r Tom Allen, John Michael Shaver, Ronald E. Jones, James D. White, Jeff Sessions, James Limbaugh,r Jimmy Lee Bowen, Dept. of Corrections, J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, Willie Johnson, Kenneth Patrick, Donald Parker, Leslie Thompson, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight, Richard Robinson, Thomas Hogan, Matthew Latham , and setting Oral Argument for 10:00 on 9/13/01 in the Third Floor Courtroom in the FMJFB & USC, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Susan R. Walker ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. Furnished to YG, HC, CA (sl) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
238 NOTICE of change of address for Peter Fruin, counsel for plaintiffs. (sl) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
239 MOTION for leave for Alice Ann Byrne to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Judge Coody (sl) Modified on 07/19/2001 (Entered: 07/19/2001)
Deadline updated; updating Oral Argument for 10:00 9/13/01 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 7/11/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted not known. (sl) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
240 Stamped ORDER granting [239−1] motion for Alice Ann Byrne to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Alice Ann Byrne for Steven Dees, Officer Wynn, Roy Dunaway, Eddie Carter, Andrew Redd, Roy Hightower, Thomas Gilkerson, Morris L. Thigpen, Tommy Herring, Neal W. Russell, Lt. Estes, Billy Mitchem, Ellen Ruth Leonard, William S. Sticker ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 7/18/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: "Return to Sender−−no longer employed by DOC." (sl) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
241 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Leave to File amended complaint without reproducing the entire pleading referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
243 BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in support of [242−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint to add claims based on the RLUIPA and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment and brief addressing the remand order. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
245 ORDER (rendered August 10, 2001) of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, GRANTING Appellants' motion to remand the issue of appellate attorneys' fees to district court for disposition when and if Appellants prevail on the merits of their claims, DENYING AS MOOT Appellants' alternative motion for an extension of time to file their motion for appellate attorneys' fees. (BEFORE: CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and PROPST*, District Judge.) , copies provided. [00−13699−BB] (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
244 REPLY BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley on Post−remand issues in light of passage of RLUIPA. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
246 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to notify the U. S. Attorney General of claim by defendant of unconstitutionality of federal statute , and to Stay briefing schedule pending notification referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
247 ORDER granting [246−1] motion to notify the U. S. Attorney General of claim by defendant of unconstitutionality of federal statute; granting [246−2] motion to Stay briefing schedule pending notification. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 52 of 83

08/30/2001
09/04/2001
09/05/2001 09/05/2001 09/06/2001 09/07/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/11/2001 09/14/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001 10/01/2001

copy of this order and the defendants' brief on post−remand issues in light of passage of RLUIPA on the Attorney General for the United States and the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. The Attorney General for the United States is hereby directed to notify the court in writing within 30 days of service whether the United States intends to intervene in this matter. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
248 REPLY BRIEF by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley in opposition to [243−1] plaintiffs' brief addressing the remand order and supporting plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint to add claims on the RLUIPA and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment .Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
249 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley for Leave to File Corrected affidavit of Rachel Lee (Exhibit B attached) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
250 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of order & pleading on (illegible) for Charles Niven, U. S. Attorney on 9/4/01 . (sl) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
251 Stamped ORDER granting [249−1] motion for Leave to File Corrected affidavit of Rachel Lee ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 8/30/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−−no longer employed by the DOC. (sl) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 8/30/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender; unknown; not at this address. (sl) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
252 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of 8/30/01 order & pleading on Ernest Parker on 9/5/01 for John Ashcroft.. (sl) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
Roy S. Haber's copy of 8/30/01 order returned in mail with the following notation:Return to sender: attempted, not known. (sl) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 9/4/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted not known (sl) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
253 ORDER setting telephone Status Conference at 4:00 on 9/26/01 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody The plaintiffs shall set up the conference call. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 9/14/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to Sender, Unknown, Not at this address. (sl) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
Roy S. Haber's copy of 9/14/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted, not known. (sl) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
256 MOTION by USA to Intervene referred to Judge Ira De Ment (sl) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
257 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by USA in support of [256−1] motion to Intervene by USA. Referred to Judge Ira De Ment (sl) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
254 [DOCKETING ERROR−PLAINTIFF DIRECTED TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDER (ORDER DOCKET #255)−DISREGARD THIS DOCKET ENTRY−EDIT 11/1/01 DJY] Fourth

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 53 of 83

10/01/2001
10/03/2001 10/04/2001 10/05/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001
10/12/2001

AMENDED COMPLAINT by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey asserting claims pursuant to the RLUIPAA and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment. (sl) Modified on 11/01/2001 (Entered: 10/01/2001)
255 ORDER granting [242−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint to add claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA); denying that part of motion [242−1] to add claims under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment. Plaintiffs shall filed an amended complaint consistent with this order on or before October 10, 2001. It is further ORDERED that the defendants shall file an answer to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 claims on or before 10/30/01. On or before 11/16/01, the parties shall file with the court a joint notification about whether any discovery is necessary on issues raised in the amendment to the complaint. Unless discovery is allowed based on the parties' joint notification, dispositive motions and any supporting evidentiary materials shall be filed on or before 12/3/01. The movant shall file a brief in support of the motion. This brief may incorporate briefs previously filed. Responsive briefs and any opposing evidentiary materials shall be filed on or before 12/17/01, at which time the court will take the motions under advisement without oral argument. setting Amended Pleadings deadline to 10/10/01 , setting Answer deadline to 10/30/01 for Gwendolyn Mosley, Ron Sutton, Michael Haley, Steven Dees, Officer Wynn, J. C. Giles, Roy Dunaway, Eddie Carter, Andrew Redd, Roy Hightower, Thomas Gilkerson, Morris L. Thigpen, Tommy Herring, Neal W. Russell, Lt. Estes, Billy Mitchem, Ellen Ruth Leonard, f William S. Sticker, Willie Whiting, Steve Walker, Bill Lindsey, Ralph Hooks, James Bowen, E. L. Harrelson, Tom Allen, John Michael Shaver, Ronald E. Jones, James D. White, Jeff Sessions, Dept. of Corrections, J. McClure, Dewayne Estes, Willie Johnson, Kenneth Patrick, Donald Parker, Leslie Thompson , setting Motion Filing deadline to 12/3/01 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
258 ORDER granting [256−1] motion to Intervene unless within seven (7) days from the date of this order an opposing party files objections. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
John M. Porter's copy of 10/1/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Not at this address. (sl) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 10/1/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to Sender−no longer employed by DOC. (sl) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
259 ORDER denying as moot [241−1] motion for Leave to File amended complaint without reproducing the entire pleading ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
261 OBJECTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [255−4] order of the Magistrate Judge to the extent denied leave to amend to add an ARFA claim; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (mfm) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
262 MOTION by James Limbaugh for Shannon Holliday to Withdraw as Attorney ; referred to Judge Ira De Ment (mfm) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
265 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, asserting claims pursuant to the RLUIPA by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey amending [1−1] complaint filed pursuant to court's order entered 10/1/01 (Doc #255). Referred to Mag Judge Coody (djy) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 10/3/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−no longer employed by DOC. (sl) (Entered: 10/17/2001)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 54 of 83

10/15/2001 10/17/2001 10/22/2001
10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/30/2001
11/02/2001 11/02/2001 11/02/2001
11/08/2001 11/16/2001 11/19/2001 11/21/2001 11/26/2001 11/27/2001 11/27/2001 11/28/2001 11/29/2001

File referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
Roy Haber's copy of 10/03/01 order returned in mailed with the following notation: Attempted, not known. (sl) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
263 RESPONSE by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley in opposition to [261−1] objection by plaintiffs. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
264 MOTION by Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey for Edward A. Hosp to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
Roy S. Haber's copy of 10/11/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−attempted not known. (sl) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
266 ANSWER by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley to fourth amended complaint referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
267 ORDER overruling [261−1] objection, as further set out ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ), copies provided to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
268 ORDER overruling [261−1] objection as further set out in order ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
269 ORDER denying as MOOT [260−1] motion to File Fourth [254−1] amended complaint. Previously, the court by order allowed the fourth amended complaint based on claims asserted on the basis of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 11−2−01 order returned in mail with the following notation, "returned to sender−no longer employed by DOC" (djy) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
Roy S. Haber's copies of orders dated 11/2/01 (docs. 267, 268, 269) returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender − attempted unknown. (sl) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
270 Notice of the parties, filed by counsel for plaintiffs, to the Court order [255−4] regarding RLUIPA Discovery. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 11/02/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender − no longer employed by DOC. (sl) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
Ron Sutton's copy of 11/2/01 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender−unclaimed (sl) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
271 Statement by USA on its position with respect to discovery. (sl) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
272 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for USA by Sara W. Clash−Drexler (sl) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
273 Stamped ORDER granting [262−1] motion for Shannon Holliday to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Attorney Holliday) ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 11/29/2001)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 55 of 83

11/29/2001 11/30/2001 12/12/2001 12/21/2001 12/21/2001
02/08/2002 02/14/2002 03/11/2002
06/11/2002
06/11/2002 06/19/2002 06/25/2002 06/25/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/02/2002

274 Stamped ORDER granting [264−1] motion for Edward A. Hosp to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Attorney Hosp) ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
275 RESPONSE by parties to proposed scheduling order. Referred to Judge Ira De Ment (sl) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
276 ORDER setting Status Conference for 2:00 on 12/19/01 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody This proceeding shall be conducted by telephone conference and plaintiff shall set up conference as further set out in order. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. Furnished to YG, HC, CA (sl) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
Scheduling and Status Conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/19/01 (sl) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
277 ORDER setting Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery cutoff set to 5/10/02; Dispositive Motion Filing set to 6/10/02 as further set out in order; , setting Oral Argument for 10:00 on 8/27/02n in the Third Floor Courtroom, FMJFB & USC, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. Furnished to YG, HC, CA (sl) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
278 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA for Shannon Holliday to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
279 Stamped ORDER granting [278−1] motion for Shannon Holliday to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Holliday) ( by Judge Ira De Ment , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
280 ORDER denying, without prejudice [233−1] motion for Mediation for Resolution of Outstanding Attys Fees and [215−1] motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses; the plaintiff may seek such attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to which they may be entitled after resolution of all pending issues in this case. ( signed by Judge Ira De Ment ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
281 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims with respect to hair length and sweat lodge policies ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
282 BRIEF by defendants in support of [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims with respect to hair length and sweat lodge policies; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
283 ORDER directing the defendants that on or before 7/3/02 to file an appendix in accordance with the previous orders of this court ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
284 MOTION by Franklin Irvin for the issuing of non−hostile and hostile subpoenas referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
285 MOTION by Franklin Irvin to withdraw Mark Sabel as Attorney ; and for Evidentiary Hearing referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
286 MOTION by NAPOA for Coercive Sanctions and for Civil Contempt Proceedings referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
Roy S. Haber's copy of 6/19/02 order returned in mail with the following notation: Return to sender − attempted, not known (sl) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
287 BRIEF (w/Appendix Vol 1−3 maintained in separate binders) by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson,

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 56 of 83

07/08/2002 07/09/2002
07/25/2002 07/25/2002 07/25/2002
07/30/2002
07/30/2002
08/05/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002

James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley in support of [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims with respect to hair length and sweat lodge policies referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody. (dkt clerk) Modified on 07/03/2002 (Entered: 07/03/2002)
288 ORDER denying [284−1] motion for subpoenas; that on or before 8/1/02, counsel for the plaintiff shall confer with Irvin and report to the court counsel's position with regard to the motion ( signed by Mag Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson ) , copies provided to plaintiff and counsel; copy of motion furnished to counsel. (dkt clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
289 ORDER denying [286−1] motion for Coercive Sanctions; denying [286−2] motion for Civil Contempt Proceedings; the plaintiffs in this case are represented by counsel, and the court otherwise will not consider motions filed pro se on behalf of prisoners who may be affected by the prior orders entered in this case who have not intervened; the Clerk of the Court is Directed to send to counsel for the plaintiff a copy of the motion filed by the prisoners. ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
290 MOTION by USA to Substitute Attorney Joshua Z. Rabinovitz for Sara W. Clash−Drexler and Thomas E. Caballero referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
291 MEMORANDUM by Intervenor USA in support of the Constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. (Appendix Vol. 1 & 2 maintained in separate binders) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
292 BRIEF by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey in opposition to [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims with respect to hair length and sweat lodge policies referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
293 MOTION by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to Extend Time until 8/16/02 to respond to the court's order of 7/8/02 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 07/31/2002)
294 NOTICE of filing three volume appendix to plaintiff's brief in response to defendant's motion for summary judgment on RLUIPA claims pursuant to the court's 6/19/02 order by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Native American, Thomas "Otter" Adams, Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, Thomas "Raven" Chenoweth, Billy "Three Feathers Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk" Patterson, John "Wind Horse" Wambles, Autry "Little Rabbit" Daughtry, Roger "Light Foot" Manning, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. (Appendix maintained in separate binders) Referred to Judge Coody (sl) Modified on 07/31/2002 (Entered: 07/31/2002)
CASE reassigned to Judge W. H. Albritton III (mfm) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
295 REPLY to Plaintiff's Brief and Brief of Intervenor United States by defendants. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (Appendix VOL. IV maintained in separate binder) (sl) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
296 RESPONSE by Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, NAPOA, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey to [288−2] order regarding plaintiff Irvin. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered:

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 57 of 83

08/23/2002 08/27/2002
08/27/2002 08/27/2002 09/16/2002 09/17/2002 09/27/2002 10/01/2002 10/09/2002 01/01/2003
01/02/2003 02/03/2003 02/18/2003
03/12/2003

08/19/2002)
297 OBJECTION by defendants to Response of Plaintiff's Counsel to "Plaintiff Irvin's Motion to Withdraw Plaintiffs Attorney Mark Sabel and Notice of Appearance" to referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
298 Upon consideration of the arguments presents at the 8/27/02 hearing on the defendants [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment on RLUIPA claims, it is ORDERED that (1) on or before twenty−one days from the entry of this order, the plaintiffs shall file a brief addressing the issue of whether they have satisfied their burden of establishing that the defendants' prohibition on inmate hair length and participation in sweat lodge ceremonies imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion as further set out in order setting Brief deadline to 9/17/02 for plaintiffs ; (2) that within fourteen days after the receipt of the plaintiffs' brief, the defendants may file a reply addressing the issues raised in the plaintiffs' brief setting reply brief deadline for 10/1/02 for defendants ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
ORAL ARGUMENT held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 8/27/02 (sl) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
299 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Oral argument on pending motions; Tape # 3714S (sl) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
300 NOTICE of Recent Authority by USA. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 09/17/2002)
301 Plaintiffs' Brief Demonstrating that Defendants' Total Ban on Sweat Lodge Ceremonies and Wearing Long Hair Constitutes a Substantial Burden Within the Meaning of RLUIPA. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
302 MOTION by defendants to Extend Time to file response brief to plaintiffs' brief on "substantial burden" issues referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
303 Stamped ORDER granting [302−1] motion to Extend Time to file response brief to plaintiffs' brief on "substantial burden" issues resetting reply brief deadline for 10/8/02 for defendants ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
304 REPLY BRIEF by defendants regarding plaintiffs' failure to show a substantial burden on the free exercise of their religion as required by RLUIPA. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
318 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting for John M. Porter to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody [DOCUMENT #318 WAS DOCKETED TWICE, ONE HAVING AN INCORRECT DATE OF 01/01/03 sb] (sl) Modified on 10/03/2003 (Entered: 10/03/2003)
305 NOTICE of Recent Authority (with attachments) by USA. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
306 NOTICE of Recent Authority by defendants. Referred to Judge Coody. (sl) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
307 ORDER denying [285−1] motion to withdraw Mark Sabel as Attorney; denying [285−2] motion for Evidentiary Hearing; granting [290−1] motion to Substitute Attorney Joshua Z. Rabinovitz for Sara W. Clash−Drexler and Thomas E. Caballero (terminated attorney Sara W. Clash−Drexler for USA, attorney Thomas E. Caballero for USA); denying as moot [293−1] motion to Extend Time ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (cc) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
308 NOTICE of Recent Authority by defendants (Decision and order attached) Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 03/13/2003)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 58 of 83

03/14/2003
03/17/2003 03/25/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 04/08/2003 08/08/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003
10/01/2003
10/02/2003 10/02/2003

309 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (1) that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted on the plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy restricting inmate hair length violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; (2) that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied on the plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy prohibiting inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; (3) that the court reserve ruling on the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 until after a determination of RLUIPA's applicability. Objections to R and R due by 4/1/03 , copies provided to plaintiffs and defendants. (sl) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
310 RESPONSE by USA to [308−1] and [306−1] notices of recent authority by defendants; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (cc) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
311 [DOCKETED IN ERROR−SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR FILING−RETURNED TO JAMES DRAUGHON sl] MOTION by NAPOA (James A Draughon) to hold defendants in contempt of court for violating federal magistrate judge's order (with attachemnts) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) Modified on 04/07/2003 (Entered: 03/26/2003)
312 OBJECTION by defendants to [309−1] report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
313 OBJECTION by plaintiffs to [309−1] report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
314 RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to [313−1] objection of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation by plaintiffs. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
315 NOTICE of Recent Authority by USA (Opinion attached) (sl) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
316 ORDER setting Status Conference, by telephone, at 2:30 p.m. on 10/14/03 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; the defendant shall set up the telephone conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. Furnished to YG, HC, WS (sl) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
317 ORDER (1) adopting [309−1] report and recommendations of the magistrate judge;(2) the defendant's [281−1] motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on the plaintiffs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy restricting inmate hair length violates the Religious Land Use and institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; (3) the defendants' [281−1] motion for summary judgment is DENIED on the plaintifs' claim that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policy prohibiting inmate participation in sweat lodge ceremonies violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; (3) the court reserves ruling on the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 until after a determination of the RLUIPA's applicability; (4) this case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings ( signed by Judge W. H. Albritton III ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
318 MOTION by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley for John M. Porter to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) Modified on 10/03/2003 (Entered: 10/02/2003)
319 Stamped ORDER granting [318−1] motion for John M. Porter to Withdraw as Attorney ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/02/2003)
320 NOTICE of Recent Authority by USA. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/03/2003)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 59 of 83

10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/15/2003
10/16/2003 10/20/2003 10/31/2003 11/13/2003 12/10/2003 01/14/2004
02/09/2004 02/12/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/18/2004

Status Conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/14/03 (sl) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
322 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Telephone Status Conferenced held on 10/14/03 before Judge Charles S. Coody; Courtroom Deputy: Wanda Stinson; Digital Recorded 2:36 to 2:47. (sl) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
321 ORDERED that the parties shall have until 2/16/04 to complete discovery and/or settlement negotiations in this case with regard to the remaining issues; it is further ORDERED that a scheduling and status conference is set setting Scheduling and Status Conference for 9:00 a.m. on 2/17/04 in Courtroom 4B, U. S. Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
323 MOTION by Billy "Two Feathers" Jones, and Douglass Bailey for Edward A. Hosp to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
324 Stamped ORDER granting [323−1] motion for Edward A. Hosp to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (sl) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
325 NOTICE of recent authority by USA (w/attachment). Referred to Judge Albritton. (djy) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
326 NOTICE of Recent Authority by defendants. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
327 NOTICE of Recent Authority by USA (with attachments). Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
328 INTERROGATORIES by Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Dept. of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley. Referred to Judge Coody (sl) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
329 MOTION by parties to enlarge discovery period (Exhibit A attached) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
330 MOTION for Kenneth E. Vines to Withdraw as Attorney and to Substitute Attorney Patricia A. Snyder for Attorney Vines referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (sl) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
331 Stamped ORDER granting [330−1] motion for Kenneth E. Vines to Withdraw as Attorney; granting [330−2] motion to Substitute Attorney Patricia A. Snyder for Attorney Vines Added Patricia A. Snyder ( by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
Scheduling/Status conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 02/17/04 (mfm) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
332 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Scheduling/Status Conference held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 02/17/04; FTR: 9:00 − 9:10 (mfm) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
333 ORDER granting [329−1] motion to enlarge discovery period; the parties shall disclose to each other the identity of ANY person who may be used at the evidentiary hearing and provide reports of retained experts or witnesses on or before 04/19/04 from the plaintiff(s) and 03/26/04 from the defendant(s); reset Discovery cutoff to 5/17/04 ; set Scheduling Conference for 10:00 6/18/04 by telephone before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; set Status Conference for 10:00 6/18/04 by telephone before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; counsel for defendants shall set up the telephone conference; set Evidentiary Hearing for 9:00 7/14/04 in Courtroom 4B, USC, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody);

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 60 of 83

04/26/2004 05/17/2004 05/19/2004 05/31/2004 06/07/2004
06/18/2004 06/18/2004 07/06/2004 07/13/2004
07/15/2004 07/20/2004 07/21/2004
07/21/2004

copies provided to counsel; furnished to YG, HC, WS. (dmn) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
334 NOTIFICATION that this circuit has found RLUIPA to be constitutional filed by plaintiffs. (sl, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
335 JOINT MOTION to enlarge Discovery period by plaintiffs and defendants(djy, ) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
336 ORDER grantaing the 335 JOINT MOTION to enlarge the discovery period.Discovery period is extended from 5/17/04 to 6/18/2004.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 05/19/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
337 MOTION to Strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial and for a determination of the factual issues to be re−tried by Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Franklin Irvin, Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith (with Exhibits A−F attached). (sl, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
338 RESPONSE to 337 MOTION to Strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (sl, ) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
339 ORDER extending Discovery deadline to 8/19/2004. Evidentiary Hearing reset from 7/14/04 to 9/2/2004 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 06/18/04. (Furnished to YG, HC, WS)(sl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
340 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telphone Status Conference held on 6/18/2004. Courtroom Deputy: Wanda Stinson; Law Clerk: Wynn D. Allen (Tape #Digital Recorded.) (sl, ) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
341 ORDER denying 337 Motion to Strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial and for a determination of the factual issues to be retried . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/6/04. (cc, ) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
342 MOTION for Extension of Time to Report on Settlement by Alabama Department of Corrections, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, William S. Sticker, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (sl, ) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
343 ORDER granting 342 Motion for Extension of Time to Report on Settlement Responses due by 7/21/2004. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 07/15/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
344 MOTION to Reconsider plaintiffs' 337 Motion to strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial.. (sl, ) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
***Attorney Kim Tobias Thomas for Eddie Carter; Steven Dees; Roy Dunaway; Dewayne Estes; Lt. Estes; J. C. Giles; Thomas Gilkerson; E. L. Harrelson; Tommy Herring; Roy Hightower; Ralph Hooks; Willie Johnson; Ellen Ruth Leonard; Bill Lindsey; J. McClure; Billy Mitchem; Donald Parker; Kenneth Patrick; Andrew Redd; Neal W. Russell; Jeff Sessions; William S. Sticker; Morris L. Thigpen; Leslie Thompson; Steve Walker; James D. White; Willie Whiting; Alabama Department of Corrections and James Bowen added. (sl, ) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
345 Notice of Mediation and Settlement Conference by Alabama Department of Corrections, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, Billy

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 61 of 83

07/23/2004
07/30/2004 07/30/2004 08/17/2004 08/19/2004 08/19/2004 08/20/2004 08/23/2004 08/26/2004 08/26/2004 08/30/2004
09/02/2004
09/07/2004

Mitchem, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, William S. Sticker, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn (sl, ) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
346 ORDEED that the 344 MOTION to Reconsider plaintiffs' motion to strike redundant and cumulative testimony that was or could have been presented at trial is set for Oral Argument on 7/30/2004 at 9:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody. The plaintiff shall set up the telephone conference.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 07/23/04. (Furnished to YG, HC, WS)(sl, ) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
347 RESPONSE to Motion re 344 MOTION for Reconsideration re 338 Response to Motion,, filed by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
348 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone/State Conference Conference held on 7/30/2004. (Ditigal Recorded 9:06 to 9:18) (sl, ) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
349 MOTION for Charles A. Graddick to Withdraw as Attorney for defendants. (sl, ) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
350 ORDER granting 349 Motion for Charles Graddick to Withdraw as Attorney. . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 08/19/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
*** Attorney Charles A. Graddick terminated per order entered on 8/19/04 (sl, ) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
351 NOTICE by Alabama Department of Corrections DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING OF DRAFT SWEAT LODGE POLICY INCLUDING ATTACHEMENT (Steadman, Joseph) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/26/2004 (sl, ). (Entered: 08/20/2004)
352 NOTICE of Deficiency re electronic signatures for 351 Notice of Filing of Draft Sweat Lodge Policy (mfm, ) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
353 NOTICE of Correction re: 351 Notice of filing of Draft Sweat Lodge Policy. This notice is filed to enter the signature page with the electronic signatures. (Attachments: # 1)(sl, ) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
354 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Status Conference held on 8/26/2004. (Tape #Digital Recorded − 2:05 to 2:23) (sl, ) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
355 MOTION to Continue Hearing presently set for 9/2/04 by Alabama Department of Corrections, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, James Bowen, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Franklin Irvin, Willie Johnson, Ricky Knight, Ellen Ruth Leonard, James Limbaugh, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, William S. Sticker, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (sl, ) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
356 ORDERED that the 355 MOTION to Continue the evidentiary hearing for the purpose of negotiations seeking an amicable resolution of this case is GRANTED and the hearing is continued from 9/2/04 to 12/9/04 at 9:00 in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL. It is further ordered that a telephone status conference is set for 9/16/2004 at 11:00 AM. The defendants shall set up the conference call. counsel for parties are advised that if their respective clients wish to consent they should complete the attached form and have it available for delivery to the clerk of court on 9/16/04.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 09/02/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
357 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Continue Tele−Conference presently set for 9/16/04 filed by plaintiffs (w/attachment). (sl, ) (Entered: 09/07/2004)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 62 of 83

09/09/2004
09/24/2004 09/28/2004 10/01/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 11/08/2004 11/24/2004 11/24/2004 11/29/2004 12/01/2004 12/03/2004 12/06/2004
12/07/2004 12/07/2004 12/09/2004

358 ORDER granting 357 MOTION to Continue and the Status Conference is CONTINUED from 9/16/04 to 9/28/04 at 1:00 p.m. The defendant shall set up the conference call. All deadlines are adjusted accordingly.Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 09/09/09. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
***Attorney Joseph David Steadman for Ron Sutton; Gwendolyn Mosley and John Michael Shaver added. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
359 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Status Conference held on 9/28/2004. (Digital Recorded 1:00 p.m. to 1:08.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
360 ORDER setting Status Conference for 10/28/2004 09:00 AM in by telephone call to be set up by plaintiffs before Honorable Charles S. Coody. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/1/04. (cc, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
362 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status Conference, by telephone, held on 10/28/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded 8:59 − 9:03.) (sl, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
361 ORDER setting Status Conference, by telephone, on 11/8/2004 at 4:30 PM. Plaintiff shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/29/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
363 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone/Status Conference held on 11/8/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 4:27 p.m. to 4:32 p.m..) (sl, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
364 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Status Conference held on 11/24/2004. (Recording Time 9:33 a.m. − 9:46.) (sl, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/3/2004 04:30 PM before Honorable Charles S. Coody. (sl, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
365 ORDER setting Status Conference for 12/3/2004 at 4:30 PM by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody. Plaintiff shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/29/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
366 MOTION to Produce Specified Plaintiff/Inmates for December 9th Hearing by James Limbaugh. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
369 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone/Status Conference held on 12/3/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 4:33 p.m. to 4:47 p.m..) (sl, ) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
367 ORDER granting 366 Motion to Produce specified plaintiffs/inmates; the persons having custody of the inmates shall produce Billy Jones AIS# 131471; Michael Clem, AIS# 130522; Franklin E. Irvin, AIS# 141535; James F. Limbaugh, Jr., AIS# 148178; and Ricky Knight, AIS# 171382 for the evidentiaqry hearing set on 12/9/04 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL (Copy of order furnished to Transfer Agent, DOC and U.S. Marshal's Service). Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/6/04. (sl, ) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
368 ORDER directing the defendants to make John Jacobs available for deposition on or before 12/8/04. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/7/04. (cc, ) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
370 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone/Status Conference held on 12/7/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 8:31 a.m. to 8:41 a.m..) (sl, ) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
372 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/9/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 9:12 a.m. to 10:18 a.m. & 1:02 p.m. to 3:53 p.m..) (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 #(2) Defendant's Exhibit 2# 3 Defendant's Exhibit 3# 4 Defendant's Exhibit 4# 5 Defendant's Exhibit 5# 6 Defendant's Exhibit 6# 7 Defendant's Exhibit 7# 8 Defendant's Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit List/Plaintiff & Defendants# 10 Witness List) (sl, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 63 of 83

12/10/2004
12/10/2004
12/21/2004 01/17/2005 01/18/2005 01/20/2005
01/25/2005 01/25/2005 01/26/2005 01/26/2005 01/27/2005
02/01/2005 02/10/2005 03/03/2005 03/04/2005 03/04/2005 03/11/2005 03/21/2005

371 ORDER that on or before December 24, 2004, the defendants shall file anotice concerning whether the Alabama Department of Corrections' regulations havebeen modified to permit the conduct of Native American Sweat Lodge ceremonies & file a copy of the final policy. Briefs due by 1/17/2005 on parties' positions about what further action this court should take to bring these cases to final resolution. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/10/04. (cc, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
373 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/10/2004. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 9:04 a.m. to 10:56 a.m..) (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1A# 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2# 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3# 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4# 5 Defendant's & Plaintiff's Exhibit List# 6 Witness List) (sl, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
374 NOTICE by Alabama Department of Corrections of Promulgation of Revised Administrative Regulation 333 (Attachments: # 1)(Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
375 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 371 Order,, Set Deadlines, Concerning the Final Resolution of this Case filed by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 01/17/2005)
376 BRIEF on Resolution of this Case in compliance with 371 Order filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2# 3 Attachment 3# 4 Attachment 4)(sl, ) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
377 ORDER setting a status conference and oral argument for 2/7/05 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL re 375 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support and 376 Reply Brief. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/20/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
378 MOTION to Continue Status Conference by Alabama Department of Corrections defendants. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
***Attorney Theodore Charles Hirt for USA added. (sl, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
379 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen Annelli Rivera on behalf of USA (Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
380 MOTION Excuse Appearance at Conference and Oral Argument re 377 Order,, Set Hearings, by USA, USA. (Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
381 ORDERED that the status conference and oral argument set for 2/7/05 is reset to 2/10/2005 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/27/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
382 ORDER granting 380 Motion to excuse appearance of Karen A. Rivera at status conference and oral argument set for 2/10/05 . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/1/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
383 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status Conference held on 2/10/2005. (Recording Time Digital Recorded − 1:27 p.m. − 2:01 p.m..) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John R. Jacobs) (sl, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
384 ORDER denying as moot 344 Motion to strike redundant and cumulative testimony . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/3/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
385 NOTICE by Alabama Department of Corrections of Filing Of Proposed Order (Attachments: # 1)(Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
386 NOTICE of Submission of Proposed Order pursuant to argument held on 2/10/05 filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Recommendation)(sl, ) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
387 REPLY BRIEF In Opposition to Proposed Order Submitted by Plaintiffs filed by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
388 MOTION Further Relief on Behalf of Plaintiff Irvin by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/21/2005)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 64 of 83

03/28/2005 03/29/2005 03/29/2005 04/07/2005 04/14/2005 04/14/2005 04/26/2005
05/09/2005 09/06/2005
09/06/2005 09/19/2005 09/19/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/23/2005 09/26/2005

389 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
390 ORDER granting 389 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Joseph D. Steadman is substituted for attorney Fred Frank Bell as counsel for the Alabama Department of Corrections . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/29/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
*** Attorney Fred Frank Bell terminated per order entered 3/29/05 (sl, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
391 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Jonathan E. Zimmerman by USA. (Zimmerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
392 ORDER granting 391 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Jonathan Eli Zimmerman for USA. . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/14/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
*** Attorney Joshua Z. Rabinovitz and Karen Annelli Rivera terminated per order entered on 4/14/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
393 ORDER that a status conference regarding the implementation of the sweat lodge policy on the Spring Equinox celebration in March 2005 is set on 5/9/2005 at 3:30 PM. This proceeding shall be conducted by telephone conference. Plaintiffs' counsel shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 04/26/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
394 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status Conference held on 5/9/2005. (Recording Time 3:34 p.m. to 3:50.) (sl, ) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
395 RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: (1) to the extent the plaintiffs request injunctive and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs' claim that the ADOC's absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies is a violation of RLUIPA be dismissed as moot; (2) to the extent the plaintiffs request damages, the plaintiffs' claim that the ADOC's absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies is a violation of RLUIPA be dismissed. Objections to R&R due by 9/19/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/6/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
396 RECOMMEDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Irvin's 388 MOTION for Further Relief be denied. Objections to R&R due by 9/19/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/6/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
397 OBJECTION to 395 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on the Sweat Lodge Issue filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1−Religious Program Services# 2 Attachment 3−Declaration of Michael Clem# 3 Attachment 4−Declaration of Billy Jones# 4 Attachment 5−Proposed Order) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
398 NOTICE of Filing Attachments in Support of plaintiff's 397 Objection to Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on the Sweat Lodge Issue. (These attachmets are filed with 397 Objection.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
399 ORDERED that defendants are given until 9/28/05 to respond to the plaintiffs' 397 Objection to Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 9/21/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
400 ORDER ADOPTING 396 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and Ordered that plaintiff Irvin's Motion for Further Relief is DENIED. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 9/21/05. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing held on December 9 & 10, 2004 before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter: Risa L. Entrekin. (PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY DIGITAL SOUND RECORDING; TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY STENOGRAPHY AND COMPUTER.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 2/10/05 before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter: Risa L. Entrekin. (PROCEEDNGS RECORDED BY DIGITAL SOUND RECORDING. TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY STENOGRAPHY AND COMPUTER.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 65 of 83

09/26/2005 09/28/2005 09/14/2006
09/14/2006 09/28/2006 09/28/2006 10/02/2006 10/11/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/17/2006
10/20/2006
10/27/2006 11/02/2006

TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on 5/9/05 before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter: Risa L. Entrekin. (PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY DIGITAL SOUND RECORDING. TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY STENOGRAPHY AND COMPUTER.) (sl, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
401 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate's Recommendation of September 6, 2005 filed by defendants (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
402 ORDER objections are overruled; ADOPTING 395 Report and Recommendations; 1)To the extent that the Plaintiff's request injunctive and declaratroy relief, the Plaintiffs' claim that the ADOC's absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies is a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 200)(RLUIPA), 42 USC 2000cc, et seq., is dismissed as moot; 2) To the extent that the Plaintiff's request damages, the Plaintiff's claims that the ADOC's absolute prohibition of sweat lodge ceremonies was a violation of RLUIPA is dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity and soverign immunity as further set out. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 9/14/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
403 FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in favor of all defendants and against all plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 9/14/06. (vma, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
404 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs by Native American Prisoners of Alabama − Turtle/Wind Clan. (Fruin, Peter) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
405 MOTION for Attorney Fees by James Limbaugh, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Ricky Knight, Franklin Irvin. (sl, ) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
406 ORDERED that on or before 10/17/06, the opposing party shall show cause why the 404 and 405 Motions for Attorney Fees should not be granted. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/2/06. (sl, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
408 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Plaintiffs' to the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit from the 402 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 403 Judgment, entered on September 14, 2006. Copies mailed (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
407 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by John Michael Shaver. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 111761 re 408 Notice of Appeal filed by Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified copy of Docket Sheet and Order to US Court of Appeals re 408 Notice of Appeal (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
409 ORDERED as follows: (1) the 407 motion to establish a briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion and renewed motion for fees and costs is granted; (2) the plaintiffs shall file detailed billing records on or before 10/30/06; (3) the defendants shall be granted an extension to file a response to this court's 406 show cause order on or before 11/20/06; (4) the plaintiffs may file a reply to the defendants' response on or before 12/4/06. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/17/06. (sl, ) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
410 RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 408 Notice of Appeal from Attorney Mark Sabel counsel for Plaintiffs with following notation: "I Am Ordering A Transcript Of The Following Proceeding" Other− −Evidentiary Hearing proceedings held on 12/09−10/04 before Judge Charles S. Coody. [TRANSCRIPT FILED 09/23/2005, BY RISA L. ENTREKIN](ydw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
USCA Case Number 06−15587−B for 408 Notice of Appeal filed by Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
411 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Time to File Detailed Billing Records (pursuant to 409 Order), filed by plaintiffs. . (sl, ) (Entered: 11/03/2006)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 66 of 83

11/06/2006 11/06/2006 11/08/2006 11/09/2006 11/13/2006
11/20/2006
12/01/2006 12/04/2006 12/15/2006 12/20/2006 01/09/2007 01/23/2007 01/31/2007
02/05/2007

412 ORDER granting 411 Motion for Extension of time to file detailed billing records. The plaintiffs' time for filing detailed billing records is extended from 10/30/06 until 11/8/06. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/6/06. (sl, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
413 NOTICE of Filing Billing Records filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Itemized Time Logs/Records)(sl, ) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
414 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Support of 413 Billing Records filed by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Implementation of Hourly Rate Increase for CJA Panel Attorneys# 2 Affidavit of Mark Sabel)(sl, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
415 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen Michael Doyle on behalf of USA, USA (Doyle, Stephen) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
416 RECEIVED AMENDED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 06−15587−B, 408 Notice of Appeal by Attorney Mark Sabel counsel for appellant with following notation: Telephone Status Cnf. proceedings held on 2/13/98 before Judge Mag. Judge Charles Coody (ydw, ) Modified on 12/4/2006 to reflect that the 2/13/08 were court proceeding. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
417 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition To the Petition for Attorney Fees and Expenses of Sabel & Sabel filed by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
418 TRANSCRIPT re 408 Notice of Appeal (PDF available for court use only) COURT proceedings held on 2/13/98 before Judge Charles S. Coody, Court Reporter: Shannon M. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Second of Three Parts Continue # 2 Third Part of Three)(ydw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
419 Brief in Response to defendants' submission of 11/20/06, pursuant to 409 Order filed by plaintiffs.. (sl, ) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
420 TRANSCRIPT re 408 Notice of Appeal (PDF available for court use only) of Telephone Status Conference held 7/30/04 before Judge Charles S. Coody, Court Reporter: Risa Entrekin. (ydw, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
421 ORDERED that the 405 MOTION for Attorney Fees is STAYED pending resolution of settlement negotiations. Ordered that on or before 1/31/07, the defendants shall file a report informing the court of the results of their settlement negotiations. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/20/06. (sl, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
422 MOTION for Contempt Order and Injunction by Roy Dickey, Daniel Malone, Richard Mingos, Royce Privett, Elmer Taylor. (sl, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
Certificate of Readiness to US Court of Appeals re re 06−15587−B, 408 Notice of Appeal by Attorney Mark Sabel (ydw, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
423 STATUS REPORT DEFENDANTS REPORT ON STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Lt. Estes, Thomas Gilkerson, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
424 ORDER that the request for an extension of time contained within doc. 423 be and is hereby granted; Ordered that on or before 2/26/07, the defendants shall file a report informing the court of the results of their settlement negotiations. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/5/07. (vma, ) (Entered: 02/05/2007)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 67 of 83

02/05/2007 02/07/2007 02/21/2007 03/08/2007
03/09/2007
03/19/2007 04/06/2007
04/06/2007 04/12/2007 05/04/2007
05/07/2007 10/04/2007 10/04/2007

Request for Record on Appeal By USCA Eleventh Circuit re 06−15587−B, 408 Notice of Appeal by Attorney Mark Sabel (ydw, ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 06−15587−BB, 408 Notice of Appeal (ydw, ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Acknowledgement of Receipt of Record on Appeal from USCA re 06−15587−BB, 408 Notice of Appeal (ydw, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
425 STATUS REPORT Defendants' Report on the Status of Settlement Negotiations on Plaintiffs' Petitions for Attorneys Fees by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
426 ORDER directing as follows: 1) That the stay on the motions for attorneys' fees, previously entered in this case on 12/20/2006 be and is hereby LIFTED; 2) That Fruin's 404 Motion for Attorney's Fees be and is hereby DENIED as moot; 3) That on or before 5/9/2007, the dfts shall execute and complete all necessary documentation to resolve Sabel and Sabel's 405 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and that on or before that date, the parties shall file a joint report informing the court of the execution and conclusion of the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/9/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
427 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that pursuant to 28 USC 1404 the 422 MOTION for Injuctive Relief and for Contempt be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; Objections to R&R due by 4/2/2007. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/19/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
428 ORDER adopting the 427 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; ORDERED that the 422 Motion for Contempt and Injunction is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, pursuant to 28 USC 1404(a); DIRECTING the Clerk to take appropriate steps to effect the transfer. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 4/6/2007. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(wcl, ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
422 Motion for Contempt and Injunction transferred to the Western District of Louisiana; Certified copies of 422 Motion, 427 Recommendation, 428 Order, and Docket Sheet mailed by CMRRR to Clerk. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
429 Return Receipt Card showing service of Transfer of 422 Motion signed by Tori Luce for Robert H. Shemwell. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
430 Response to Order Defendants' Report on the Status of Settlement Issues on Plaintiffs' Petitions for Attorneys Fees by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
431 ORDER denying as moot 405 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 5/7/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
432 MOTION to Intervene by Malcolm S. Driskill. (djy, ) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
433 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Malcolm S. Driskill. (Attachments: # 1 copy of motion to intervene)(djy, ) (Entered: 10/04/2007)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 68 of 83

10/05/2007
10/19/2007 11/19/2007
11/20/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/28/2007 12/11/2007 12/12/2007
12/17/2007 04/14/2008
04/14/2008

434 ORDER directing as follows: (1) denying 432 Motion to Intervene by Malcolm S. Driskill, Jr.; (2) directing the Clerk to set up a separate lawsuit and file for the 433 Motion for Emergency Restraining Order, which will then be transferred to the appropriate district by separate Order of this court. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 10/5/07. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist) (djy, ) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
435 MOTION to Hold Defendants in Contempt by Richard Mingos, Royce Privett, Elmer Taylor. (wcl, ) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
436 MANDATE of USCA ISSUED 11/19/07 as to 408 Notice of Appeal filed by Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 06−15587−BB; In summary, we affirm the district court's September 14, 2006 order dismissing plaintiffs' sweat−lodge claims. We vacate the district court's September 29, 2003 order entering summary judgment on plaintiffs' hair−length−restriction claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
Appeal Record Returned: RE: USCA Case Number 06−15587−B for 408 Notice of Appeal filed by Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Jimmy Lee Bowen, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey and 436 USCA Mandate (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
Case reopened. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
437 ORDERED that this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody for report and recommendation on the hair−length issue. Signed by Judge W. Harold Albritton III on 11/27/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
438 ORDER directing that a Status and Scheduling Conference be and is hereby set for 1:30 p.m. on 12/11/2007, in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/28/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
439 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status/Scheduling Conference held on 12/11/2007 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 1:30 − 1:50.) (ws, ) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
440 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Preliminary Pretrial Conference for 5/20/2008, in Montgomery, Alabama, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody, as further set out in order; setting Final Pretrial Conference for 9/29/2008, in Montgomery, Alabama, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody, as further set out in order; The parties are DIRECTED to jointly prepare a proposed pretrial order, as further set out in order; Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/22/2008; setting Evidentiary Hearing for 10/27/2008, commencing at 10:00 AM, in Montgomery, Alabama before Honorable Charles S. Coody.; setting Discovery due by 8/29/2008, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/12/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. {440] Order sent to Peter D. Keisler returned by the US Attorney's Office with the following notation, "No Longer Employed." (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
441 MOTION to Compel by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
442 ORDERED that the 441 Motion to Compel be DENIED pursuant to FRCP 26(c) and 37(a)(1), as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/14/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 69 of 83

05/16/2008 05/20/2008 05/20/2008 05/20/2008
05/21/2008 06/16/2008 06/19/2008
06/19/2008 06/27/2008
06/30/2008
06/30/2008 07/28/2008

443 ORDERED that the Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 5/20/2008 at 10:00 AM before Honorable Charles S. Coody be and is hereby RESET to be conducted by teleconference. The plf shall set up the teleconference. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/16/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
444 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Pretrial Conference held on 5/20/2008 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 10:02 − 10:15.) (ws, ) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
445 ORDERED that with respect to the issues as discussed in open court during the preliminary pretrial conference, the dfts shall file their brief on or before 6/20/2008 and the plf shall file their reply brief on or before 7/21/2008. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/20/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
446 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Opinion/Expert Testimony Disclosure by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Eddie Carter, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 5/21/2008 to reflect as filed on behalf of all dfts (wcl, ). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
447 ORDER granting 446 Motion for Extension of Time, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/21/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
448 ORDER denying 435 Motion to Hold the Defendants in Contempt. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/16/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
449 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Defendants' Briefing Deadline re 445 Order, by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
450 ORDER granting 449 Motion for an Extension of Time and the dfts' deadline for filing their brief be and is hereby EXTENDED from 6/20/2008 until 6/27/2008; The plf's deadline is adjusted accordingly. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/19/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
451 REPLY BRIEF re 445 Order, Defendants' Brief on the Scope of the Issues before the Court on Remand filed by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
452 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Extension of Time to Provide Report of Retained Expert re 447 Order on Motion for Extension of Deadline by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
453 ORDER granting 452 Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Expert Reports. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/30/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
454 REPLY BRIEF re 451 Reply Brief (Brief on the Scope of the Issues before the Court on Remand) filed by Ricky Knight. (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 7/29/2008 to add link to 451 Reply Brief (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/29/2008 to attach a corrected PDF to include the electronic signature on the certificate of service page: # 1

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 70 of 83

07/29/2008 07/29/2008 08/15/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008
08/19/2008 08/22/2008 08/25/2008
12/01/2008 12/03/2008 12/10/2008

main document) (wcl, ). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction re 454 Reply Brief to add link to 451 Reply Brief. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
455 NOTICE of Correction re 454 Reply Brief, to attach a corrected PDF to include the electronic signature on the certificate of service page. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Main Document to Docket Entry 454 )(wcl, ) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
456 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Exchange Expert Reports by Ricky Knight. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
457 ORDER granting 456 Motion for Extension of Deadline to exchange expert reports. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 8/18/2008. (cc, ) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
458 Joint MOTION to Continue Discovery Cutoff and Evidentiary Hearing by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
459 ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby set for a Status and Scheduling Conference on 8/22/2008, at 09:30 AM by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody; The dfts shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 8/19/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
460 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/22/2008 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 9:33 − 9:48.) (ws, ) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
461 ORDER granting 458 Joint MOTION to Continue Discovery Cutoff and Evidentiary Hearing, and the scheduling order entered on 12/12/2007 (doc. # 440 ) be and is hereby AMENDED, as follows: Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/6/2009,in Montgomery, AL, at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody; The parties are DIRECTED to jointly prepare a proposed pretrial order, as further set out in order; Proposed Pretrial Order due by 12/29/2008; Evidentiary Hearing set for 1/21/2009, commencing at 09:00 AM, in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Charles S. Coody; setting Discovery due by 11/28/2008. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 8/25/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ws, eb) (wcl, ) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
462 (STRICKEN AND RETURNED TO PLF ADAMS PURSUANT TO 466 ORDER) MOTION for Contempt of Court Against Defendant Pursuant to FRCP − Rule 70(e) by Thomas Otter Adams. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(wcl, ) Modified on 12/30/2008 (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/30/2008: # 2 main document) (wcl, ). (Entered: 12/01/2008)
463 (STRICKEN AND RETURNED TO PLF ADAMS PURSUANT TO 466 ORDER) AMENDED DOCUMENT (Addendum to Plf's 462 MOTION for Contempt of Court Against Defendant Pursuant to FRCP − Rule 70(e)) by Thomas Otter Adams.(wcl, ) Modified on 12/30/2008 (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/30/2008: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Entered: 12/04/2008)
464 MOTION for Protective Order Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Protective Order by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Protective Order)(Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 12/10/2008)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 71 of 83

12/11/2008 12/30/2008
01/06/2009 01/07/2009 01/07/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009
01/08/2009
01/21/2009 01/22/2009 01/23/2009 02/06/2009

465 ORDER granting 464 Motion for a Protective Order re Confidential documents, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 12/11/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
466 ORDERED that Documents # 462 & 463 , docketed as a pro se motion for contempt of court and amended motion for contempt of court, be and are hereby STRICKEN from the record; DIRECTING the Clerk as follows: 1) Attach a copy of the pro se documents to this order and forward a copy of the documents to the plf's counsel; 2) Return the original documents to the plf; 3) Do not accept for filing in this case any pro se pleadings or documents, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 12/30/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Motion for Contempt (Doc. 462 ), # 2 Attachment Amended Motion for Contempt (Doc. 463 )) (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
467 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Pretrial Conference held on 1/6/2009 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time 3:00 − 3:23.) (jct, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
468 MOTION for Order to Transport Inmates to Trial by Michael Clem, Thomas Otter Adams, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 1/8/2009 to reflect as also filed on behalf of Thomas Otter Adams and Franklin Irvin (wcl, ). (Entered: 01/07/2009)
***Attorney Mark Wayne Sabel, Jr, Peter Sean Fruin for Thomas Otter Adams added pursuant to 468 Motion. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction re 468 MOTION for Order to Transport Inmates to Trial to reflect as also filed on behalf of Thomas Otter Adams and Franklin Irvin. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
469 ORDER granting 468 Motion to Produce Witnesses; further ORDERED that the persons having custody of Michael Clem, AIS # 130522, Thomas Otter Adams, AIS # 100621, and Franklin Irvin, AIS # 141535, state inmates in custody of the AL DOC, shall produce these individuals for trial, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 1/8/2009. (furn: ALDOC TRANSPORT AGENT, USM ) (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
470 PRETRIAL ORDER directing as follows: (A) that all of the allowances and agreements contained in this order be, and the same are hereby, binding upon all parties in this case unless this order is hereafter modified by the Court; (B) that at the beginning of trial, the parties shall inform the court whether and to what extent they have reached agreement on the stipulation of facts which the dfts contend should not be in dispute. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 1/8/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/21/2009 (NO PDF attached see final minute entry dated 1/23/09). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ws ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/22/2009 (NO PDF Attached see final entry dated 1/23/09. (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ws, ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
471 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/23/2009 (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (Attachments: # 1 Witness List, # 2 Joint Exhibit, # 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit List, # 4 Defendant's Exhibit List) (ws, ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
472 MOTION For Transcription of Trial Testimony Without Payment by Jimmy Lee Bowen, James Limbaugh, Matthew Latham, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Native American Prisoners of Alabama − Turtle/Wind Clan, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Thomas "Raven&quo Chenoweth, Billy "Three Fea Isbell, Mark "Blackhawk Patterson, John "Wind Hors Wambles, Autry "Little Ra Daughtry, Roger "Light Foo Manning, Thomas Hogan, Richard Robinson, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Invoice for Transcript)(Fruin, Peter) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 72 of 83

02/09/2009 02/09/2009
02/09/2009
02/09/2009
02/09/2009 02/10/2009 02/11/2009 02/12/2009 02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/18/2009

473 ORDER granting 472 Motion For Transcription of Trial Testimony Without Payment. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/9/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
474 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing/Bench Trial Proceedings, Volume 1, (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 1/21/2009, before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell Reisner, Telephone number 334−235−8218. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 3/2/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/12/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2009. (wcl, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/13/2009 to attach the correct PDF document: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2009: # 2 2nd corrected main document) (djy, ). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
475 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing Proceedings, Volume 2, (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 1/22/2009, before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell Reisner, Telephone number 334−235−8218. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 3/2/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/12/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2009. (wcl, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/13/2009 to attach the correct PDF document: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2009: # 2 2nd corrected main document) (djy, ). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
476 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing Proceedings, Volume 3, (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 1/23/2009, before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell Reisner, Telephone number 334−235−8218. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 3/2/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/12/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2009. (wcl, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/13/2009 to attach the correct PDF document: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2009: # 2 2nd corrected main document) (djy, ). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
477 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Certain Evidentiary Submissions by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
478 ORDERED that the 477 Motion for Extension of Time be and is hereby GRANTED and the plfs shall have until 2/23/2009 to file their objections and rebuttal. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/10/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
479 ORDERED that the pfls shall file their post−trial brief on or before 3/9/2009 and the dfts shall file their post−trial brief on or before 3/30/2009. The plfs may file a reply brief on or before 4/14/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/11/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
480 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Carl S. Burkhalter by Jimmy Lee Bowen, Matthew Latham, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Native American Prisoners Organization of America, Thomas Hogan, Richard Robinson, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey. (Burkhalter, Carl) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
481 ORDER granting 480 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/13/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
***Attorney Carl Stanley Burkhalter terminated as counsel for plfs pursuant to 481 Order. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
482 NOTICE of Intent to Request Redaction by Mark Wayne Sabel, Jr re 475 Transcript,,, 476 Transcript,,, 474 Transcript,,, (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 3/5/2009: Attorney Sabel informs that Redaction will not be requested. (yg, ). (Entered: 02/18/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 73 of 83

02/20/2009 02/25/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/10/2009 03/12/2009 03/23/2009 03/26/2009
03/27/2009 04/08/2009
04/08/2009 04/15/2009

483 Second MOTION for Extension of Deadline of Objections and Response to Exhibits by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
484 ORDER granting 483 Second Motion for an Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 3/9/2009 to file their objections and rebuttal. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/25/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
485 Objection to Several Defense Exhibits filed by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Expert's Response to DEX 52, Staffing Study)(Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
486 TRIAL BRIEF by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
487 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responses to Inmate File Excerpts by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
488 ORDER granting 487 Motion for an Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 3/23/2009 to file their responses. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 3/12/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
489 NOTICE by Michael Clem, Thomas Otter Adams of Responses to Defendants' Exhibits 38−43 (Inmate File Excerpts) (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
490 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadline Trial Brief by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
491 ORDER granting 490 Motion for an Extension of Time and the dfts shall have until 4/13/2009 to file their post−trial brief, their response to the plfs' motion to exclude certain defense evidence and their reply to the plfs' response to inmate files. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 3/27/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
492 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Defendants' trial brief and Related Documents (Unopposed) by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
493 ORDER granting 492 Motion for an Extension of Time and the dfts shall have until 4/20/2009 to file their post−trial brief and responses to other related documents. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/8/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
494 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Defendants' Trial Brief Unopposed Motion for Extension within which to File Defendants' Trial Brief and Related Documents by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 74 of 83

04/16/2009 04/30/2009
05/04/2009 05/05/2009
05/05/2009
05/05/2009
05/19/2009 05/20/2009 06/15/2009 06/16/2009

495 ORDERED that dfts' 494 Motion for an Extension of Time be and is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the dfts shall have until 5/1/2009 to file their post−trial brief and responses to other related documents. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/16/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
496 MOTION for Extension of Deadline Defendants' Trial Brief by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, Ronald E. Jones, John Michael Shaver, Tom Allen, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
497 ORDER granting 496 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Deadline; dfts' Trial Brief due by 5/5/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/4/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
498 Objection to re 485 Objection to, Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Objections to Several Defense Exhibits filed by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
499 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 486 Trial Brief Defendants' Trial Brief filed by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Lt. Estes, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
TRIAL BRIEF by Willie Johnson, Dewayne Estes, J. McClure, Alabama Department of Corrections, Jeff Sessions, James D. White, John Michael Shaver, E. L. Harrelson, James Bowen, Ralph Hooks, Bill Lindsey, Steve Walker, Willie Whiting, William S. Sticker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Billy Mitchem, Lt. Estes, Neal W. Russell, Tommy Herring, Morris L. Thigpen, Thomas Gilkerson, Roy Hightower, Andrew Redd, Eddie Carter, Roy Dunaway, J. C. Giles, Officer Wynn, Steven Dees, Michael Haley, Ron Sutton, Gwendolyn Mosley, Leslie Thompson, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick. (No PDF Attached−See Docket Entry 499 Which Was Incorrectly E−Filed As A Brief In Opposition) (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
500 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Brief by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
501 ORDER granting 500 Motion for Extension of Time and the plaintiffs shall have until June 18, 2009 to file their response to thedefendants brief. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/19/09. (djy, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
502 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Brief by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
503 ORDER granting 502 Motion for an Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 7/2/2009 to file their response to the dfts' brief. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/16/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 75 of 83

06/30/2009
07/02/2009 07/10/2009
07/10/2009
07/17/2009
06/03/2010 06/06/2010 06/06/2010
06/08/2010
06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/21/2010 10/22/2010
10/22/2010 11/02/2010 11/02/2010 11/02/2010

504 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Reply by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
505 ORDER granting 504 Motion for Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 7/10/2009 to file their response to the dfts' brief. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 7/2/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
506 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Response Brief by Michael Clem, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
507 ORDER granting 506 Motion for an Extension of Time and the plfs shall have until 7/17/2009 to file their response to the dfts' brief; The plfs are advised that no further extensions will be granted. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 7/10/2009. (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
508 REPLY BRIEF filed by Michael Clem, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Thomas Otter Adams, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PEX A, Sullivan Response to Staffing Study; PEX B Additional Stipulations of Plaintiffs, PEX 17)(Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 07/18/2009)
509 MOTION/AFFIDAVIT for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Thomas Otter Adams. (cc, ) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
510 NOTICE by Thomas Otter Adams re 509 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction That Said Motion is Withdrawn (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 06/06/2010)
510 Notice construed as a MOTION to Withdraw 509 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction by Thomas Otter Adams pursuant to the 6/8/2010 Order. (No PDF Attached−See Docket Entry 510 ) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
511 ORDER construing the 510 Notice to be a Motion to Withdraw; ORDER directing as follows: 1) The 510 Motion to Withdraw the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED; 2) The 509 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/8/2010. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
512 MOTION to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Michael Moore. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
513 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Michael Moore. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
514 ORDER denying 512 Motion to Intervene; denying 513 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/21/2010. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
515 NOTICE by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith of Developments in U.S. Supreme Court (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
516 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt by Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 10/23/2010)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Mag Judge Coody: 516 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt (No PDF document attached to this notice). (djy, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
517 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Contempt Motion filed October 22, 2010 by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
518 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to why 516 Motion for further relief, compliance and/or contempt should not be granted; Show Cause Response due by 11/16/2010.

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 76 of 83

11/10/2010 12/03/2010
04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/22/2011 05/02/2011
05/04/2011 05/06/2011
05/07/2011
07/11/2011

Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 11/2/10. (djy, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
519 ORDER granting 517 Motion for an Extension of Time to the extent that the dfts shall have until 12/3/2010 to notify the court of the resolution of the plf's motion for contempt or to file a response to the plf's motion. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 11/10/2010. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
520 RESPONSE to Motion re 516 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt and Response to the Court's 518 Show Cause Order filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Fictitious Defendant(s), Dewayne Estes, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 12/3/2010 to add link to 518 Order (wcl, ). (Entered: 12/03/2010)
521 NOTICE of Appearance by James Joseph DuBois on behalf of USA (DuBois, James) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
522 NOTICE of Appearance by Deena Fox on behalf of USA (DuBois, James) Modified on 4/8/2011 to correctly reflect an appearance by Deena Fox and not James Dubois (wcl, ). (Entered: 04/08/2011)
523 NOTICE by USA STATEMENT OF INTEREST (DuBois, James) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
***Attorney Deena Fox for USA added pursuant to 522 Notice of Appearance. (No PDF Attached) (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
524 ORDERED that the dfts may file a response to the 523 Statement of Interest on or before 4/22/2011. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/8/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
525 ORDER directing that on or before 5/6/2011, the parties to file briefs addressing the effect, if any, Sossamon, supra has on the issues pending before the court. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/22/11. (djy, ) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
526 MOTION for Leave to File a Response to United States Statement of Interest on or before May 6, 2011 by Alabama Department of Corrections, Dewayne Estes, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
527 ORDER granting 526 Motion for Leave to File a Response on or before 5/6/2011. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/4/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
528 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 523 Notice (Other) Consolidated Brief on Effect of Sossamon and Defendants' Response to United States Statement of Interest filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Dewayne Estes, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
529 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support of Statement Re: Sossaman (Notice of Developments in US Supreme Court), filed by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 5/9/2011 to modify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 05/07/2011)
530 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE is as follows: 1) That the Court find that the Alabama Department of Corrections' policies restricting inmate hair length does not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; 2) That the Court enter judgment in favor of the dfts and against the plfs; and 3) That the Court dismiss this action with prejudice; Objections to R&R due by 7/25/2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/11/2011. (wcl, )

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 77 of 83

07/22/2011 07/22/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 10/19/2011 10/19/2011 12/21/2011 12/22/2011 01/13/2012 01/19/2012
01/20/2012 02/02/2012 02/08/2012

(Entered: 07/11/2011)
531 MOTION for Extension of Deadline July 25, 2011 by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
532 ORDER granting 531 MOTION for Extension of time to the extent that the time for filing Objections to R&R of the Mag Judge be and is hereby extended from 7/25/2011 until 8/24/2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/22/11. (djy, ) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
533 Second MOTION for Extension of Deadline by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
534 ORDER granting 533 Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objections, to the extent that the time for filing objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby EXTENDED from 8/24/2011 until 10/24/2011; Objections to R&R due by 10/24/2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 8/18/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
535 Third MOTION for Extension of Deadline to SubmitObjections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, James Limbaugh, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
536 ORDER granting 535 Unopposed Third MOTION for Extension of Deadline to File Objections and the deadline for filing objections is extended from 10/24/2011, to 12/23/2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/19/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
537 MOTION for Extension of Deadline by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
538 ORDER granting 537 MOTION for an Extension of Time to File Objections, as further set out in order; Objections to R&R continued from 12/23/2011, to 1/13/2012. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/22/2011. (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
539 Objection to 530 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge on Hair Length Issue and Case Dismissal filed by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 1/17/2012 to add the link to the 530 Recommendation (wcl, ). (Entered: 01/13/2012)
540 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Dewayne Estes, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
541 ORDER granting 540 Motion for Extension of Time to the extent that the time for a response to the plaintiffs' objections to the recommendation of the Mag Judge be and is hereby EXTENDED from 1/27/2012 until 2/13/2012. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/20/12. (djy, ) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
542 ORDERED that a Status Conference on the 516 MOTION for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt be and is hereby SET on 2/8/2012 at 09:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody; The dfts shall set up the telephone conference. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/2/2012. (furn: Calendar, ws)(wcl, ) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
543 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Charles Coody for recommendation: 516 MOTION for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 2/8/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered:

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 78 of 83

02/08/2012 02/08/2012
02/15/2012
02/15/2012
02/16/2012 03/08/2012 03/08/2012 03/16/2012 03/18/2012 03/19/2012 03/19/2012

02/08/2012)
544 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/8/2012 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 8:58 − 9:06.) (ws, ) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
545 ORDERED that an Evidentiary Hearing on the 516 MOTION for Contempt be and is hereby set for 3/27/2012, at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody; ORDERED that the persons having custody of Plf Franklin Running Bear Irvin shall produce him at this proceeding. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/8/2012. (furn: Calendar, ws, ALDOC Transport Agent, USMS)(wcl, ) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
546 RESPONSE re 539 Plfs' Objection to Magistrate's Recommendation filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, William S. Sticker, Ron Sutton, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 2/16/2012 to clarify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 02/15/2012)
547 MOTION to Admit Attached Exhibits as Addtional Evidence to Rebut Assertions in Plaintiffs' Objections by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, William S. Sticker, Ron Sutton, Morris L. Thigpen, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Carolyn A Golson, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Glen Casey)(Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 2/16/2012 to clarify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 02/15/2012)
548 ORDER denying 547 Motion to Admit Attached Exhibits. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/16/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
549 ORDERED as follows: 1) Plfs' Objections are OVERRULED; 2) The 530 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3) Final Judgment will be entered in favor of the Dfts and this case DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/8/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
550 FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in favor of the Dfts and against the Plfs, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/8/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
551 ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/19/2012 10:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody; that this telephone conference shall be set up by the defendant. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/16/2012. (cc, ) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
552 Supplemental MOTION for Contempt and Further Relief by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/18/2012)
ORAL MOTION to Withdraw 516 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt by Franklin Irvin. (ws, ) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
553 ORDERED as follows: 1) That the Oral Motion to Withdraw the 516 Motion to Enforce Judgment and for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt be and is hereby GRANTED; 2) That the request for relief will proceed on the 552 Supplemental Motion for Contempt and Further Relief; 3) That the hearing on the supplemental motion for contempt and further relief be and is hereby rescheduled from 3/27/2012, to 4/23/2012, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/19/2012. (furn:

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 79 of 83

03/19/2012 03/27/2012
04/06/2012 04/07/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/13/2012 04/20/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012

Calendar, ws) (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
554 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/19/2012 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR:10:01 − 10:30.) (ws) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
555 Answer re 552 Supplemental MOTION for Further Relief, Compliance, and/or Contempt filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Eddie Carter, Steven Dees, Roy Dunaway, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Billy Mitchem, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Andrew Redd, Neal W. Russell, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, William S. Sticker, Ron Sutton, Leslie Thompson, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (Steadman, Joseph) Modified on 3/28/2012 to clarify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 03/27/2012)
556 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith (Sabel, Mark) Modified on 4/9/2012 to (Create link to document # 549 , 550 entered on 03/8/2012, and 268 ORDER entered on 11/02/2001 ydw, ). (Entered: 04/06/2012)
558 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 4602022378 re 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction issued this date to advise that 556 Notice of Appeal, was modified on 04/09/12, to create a link to 549 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, and a 550 Final Judgment entered on 03/08/2012; also 268 ORDER entered on 11/02/2001. (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
557 Appeal Instructions sent to Mark Sabel counsel for Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith re 556 Notice of Appeal. A copy of the Transcript Information Form must be mailed to each court reporter from whom you are requesting a transcript. (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, 549 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 550 Judgment, 268 Order and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 556 Notice of Appeal.(ydw, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
559 ORDER directing that the persons having custody of plaintiff Franklin Running Bear Irvin, AIS #141535, shall produce him at the evidentiary hearing on 4/23/2012, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/13/12. Furnished electronically to ADOC Transport agent & USM.(djy, ) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
560 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Thomas Otter Adams, Tom Allen, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, Ricky Knight, Timothy Gray Wolf Smith for proceedings held on 12/11/07; 5/20/08; 8/22/08; 1/06/09; 8/27/02 before Judge Coody, (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
561 NOTICE of Appearance by William Preston Martin on behalf of Native American Prisoners of Alabama − Turtle/Wind Clan (Martin, William) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/24/2012: # 1 Corrected certificate of service) (scn, ). (Entered: 04/23/2012)
Appeal Remark re 556 Notice of Appeal: The FTR request is assigned to Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner re (TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM doc. # 560 ). (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
569 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/23/2012. (See Final Minute Entry held 4/25/12 for Witness List and Exhibit Lists.) (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 10:00 − 3:47.) (ws, ) (Entered: 05/03/2012)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 80 of 83

04/24/2012 04/25/2012 04/25/2012
04/25/2012
04/25/2012
04/25/2012 05/02/2012
05/02/2012 05/03/2012

562 ORDER continuing the Evidentiary Hearing to 4/25/2012 @ 02:00 PM before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody, in Courtroom 4B USCC, Montgomery, AL; further ORDERING that the person having custody of plaintiff Franklin Running Bear Irvin shall produce him at this proceeding. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/24/12. Furnished electronically to calendar group, WS, Transport Agent for ALDOC & USM.(djy, ) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
563 USCA Case Number 12−11926−D for 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones. (ydw, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
564 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference and Scheduling Conference Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 8/22/2008, before Judge Charles S. Coody; Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell P. Reisner, Telephone number 334−313−7185; Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction; After that date it may be obtained through PACER; NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS; Redaction Request due 5/16/2012; Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2012; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
565 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status and Scheduling Conference Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 1/6/2009, before Judge Charles S. Coody; Court Reporter/Transcriber Mitchell P. Reisner, Telephone number 334−313−7185; Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction; After that date it may be obtained through PACER; NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS; Redaction Request due 5/16/2012; Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2012; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
566 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status/Scheduling Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 12/11/2007, before Judge Charles S. Coody. Court Reporter/Transcriber Reisner, Telephone number 334−313−7185. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 5/16/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2012. (djy, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
570 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/25/2012 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 2:01 − 3:51.) (Attachments: # 1 Witness List, # 2 Plaintiff's Exh. List, # 3 Defendant's Exh. List) (ws, ) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
567 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing − Volume I Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 4/23/2012, before Judge Charles S. Coody; Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia G. Starkie, Telephone number 334−262−1221; Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction; After that date it may be obtained through PACER; NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS; Redaction Request due 5/23/2012; Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/4/2012; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/31/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
568 Objection to Portions of Golson's Deposition Testimony filed by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
571 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing − Volume II Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 4/25/2012, before Judge Charles S. Coody; Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia G. Starkie, Telephone number 334−262−1221; Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 81 of 83

05/24/2012
06/04/2012 06/04/2012 06/06/2012 06/06/2012 06/18/2012
06/26/2012 06/27/2012 09/17/2012 07/26/2013
11/19/2013
03/05/2014

deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction; After that date it may be obtained through PACER; NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS; Redaction Request due 5/24/2012; Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/4/2012; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/1/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
572 Appeal letter re 556 Notice of Appeal, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−D: Court Reporter acknowledgment not filed. Letter issued RE: − (DIGITAL FTR REQUEST − UN−ASSIGNED COURT REPORTER) as to Appellants transcript requests. Transcripts are due to be filed in District Court 30 days from 05/20/2012. Copy furnished to Mitchell Reisner the assigned Court Reporter. (ydw) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
573 NOTICE by USA of Withdrawal of Counsel Jonathan E. Zimmerman (Zimmerman, Jonathan) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/5/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/04/2012)
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Jonathan E. Zimmerman by USA. (No pdf attached − See docket entry 573 ) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
574 ORDER granting 573 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/6/2012. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
***Attorney Jonathan Eli Zimmerman terminated pursuant to 574 Order. (No pdf attached) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
575 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TRANSCRIPT (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) re 556 Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia G. Starkie, Telephone number 334−262−1221. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 7/9/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/19/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/17/2012. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
576 Transcript Acknowledgment/and NOTIFICATION THAT TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN FILED IN DISTRICT COURT received from Court Reporter Patricia Starkie on 12−11926−D 2. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 11(c), the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama certifies that the record is complete for purposes of this appeal re: 556 Notice of Appeal, Appeal No. 12−11926−D. The entire record on appeal is available electronically.(ydw, ) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
577 Appeal Letter Re Moot Motion re 556 Notice of Appeal, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; Motion for leave to file amicus brief is MOOT in light of the August 28, 2012, letter from Dawinder Sidhu, Esquire advising the court that the Amicus motion is unopposed. (ydw, ) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
578 Per Curiam Opinion received from USCA Eleventh Circuit of Opinion Entered on 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy Two Feathers Jones, Ricky Knight and Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Signed. (ydw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
579 JUDGMENT issued as MANDATE 11/19/13 of USCA as to 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 578 USCA Per Curiam Opinion entered 07/26/2013. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
580 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE that the plaintiff's supplemental motion for further relief, compliance and/or contempt (doc. # 552 ) be DENIED; further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 82 of 83

03/18/2014 03/18/2014 04/08/2014 04/09/2014 04/21/2014 04/22/2014 04/28/2014
04/28/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/30/2014
06/27/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 07/02/2014

Recommendation on or before March 19, 2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/5/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
581 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 580) by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
582 TEXT ORDER GRANTING 581 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objections to the 580 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge from 3/19/2014 to 4/9/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/18/14. (NO PDF document attached to this notice).(djy, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
583 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge by Franklin Irvin. (Sabel, Mark) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/1/2014: # 1 Corrected certificate of service) (scn, ). (Entered: 04/08/2014)
584 TEXT ORDER granting 583 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge; the time for filing objections is extended from April 11, 2014 until April 21, 2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/9/14. (No PDF document attached to this entry.) (scn, ) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
585 Objection to 580 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge filed by Franklin Irvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sabel, Mark) Modified on 4/23/2014 to clarify text as objection to 580 (qc/djy, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/1/2014: # 2 Corrected certificate of service) (scn, ). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
586 NOTICE of Deficiency re 583 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge. (scn, ) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
587 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 585 Objection to by Alabama Department of Corrections, Tom Allen, James Bowen, Dewayne Estes, Lt. Estes, J. C. Giles, Thomas Gilkerson, Michael Haley, E. L. Harrelson, Tommy Herring, Roy Hightower, Ralph Hooks, Willie Johnson, Ronald E. Jones, Bill Lindsey, J. McClure, Gwendolyn Mosley, Donald Parker, Kenneth Patrick, Jeff Sessions, John Michael Shaver, Ron Sutton, Morris L. Thigpen, Steve Walker, James D. White, Willie Whiting, Officer Wynn. (Steadman, Joseph) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
588 ORDER denying 587 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/28/14. (djy, ) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
589 NOTICE of PDF Correction re 583 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge to reflect addition of corrected certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected certificate of service of 583 Docket Entry)(scn, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
590 NOTICE of PDF Correction re 585 Objection to reflect addition of corrected certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected certificate of service of 585 Docket Entry)(scn, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
591 ORDER directing as follows: (1) Plaintiffs 585 Objections are OVERRULED; (2) The 580 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) The Supplemental Motion for Further Relief, Compliance and/or Contempt (Doc. # 552 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/30/14. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, ) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
592 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Franklin Irvin as to 591 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations entered on 05/30/2014 (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
593 Transmission of Notice of AppeaL, 552 Supplemental MOTION for Contempt, 580 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 585 Objections, AND 591 ORDER re 592 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 APPEAL PACKAGE)(ydw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
594 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Franklin Irvin (Attachments: # 1 Pro Se Notice of Appeal)(Sabel, Mark) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
595 USCA Case Number 14−12915−E for 592 Notice of Appeal filed by Franklin Irvin. (ydw, ) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

Case: 2:93-cv-1404 As of: 11/09/2017 01:44 PM CST 83 of 83

07/18/2014 07/18/2014 08/21/2014 10/08/2014
08/05/2015 08/05/2015
10/22/2015 11/12/2015
05/03/2016

596 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Franklin Irvin (ydw, ) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
597 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Franklin Irvin. (ydw, ) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
598 ORDER denying 597 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, and that the appeal in this cause is hereby certified, pursuant to 28U.S.C. ' 1915(a), as not taken in good faith. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 08/21/2014. (ydw, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
599 Entry of Dismissal of USCA issued as the MANDATE as to 592 Notice of Appeal filed by Franklin Irvin, 594 Notice of Appeal filed by Franklin Irvin, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 14−12915−E;Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42−1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the Appellant Franklin Irvin failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court, or file a consent form within the time fixed by the rules, effective October 08, 2014. FOR THE COURT − BY DIRECTION (ydw, ) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
600 Per Curiam Opinion received from USCA Eleventh Circuit of Opinion Entered on 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; Supreme Court remand opinion issued by court. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. (ydw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
601 Opinion received from USCA Eleventh Circuit of Opinion Entered on 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Thomas Otter Adams, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy Two Feathers Jones, Ricky Knight and Timothy Gray Wolf Smith. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Signed. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. (ydw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
602 ORDER of USCA as to 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−D; ORDER: Motion for leave to file amicus brief in support of rehearing is GRANTED.(ydw, ) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
603 JUDGMENT ISSUED AS MANDATE 11/12/2015 of USCA as to 556 Notice of Appeal, filed by Timothy Gray Wolf Smith, Ricky Knight, Douglass Dark Horns Bailey, Thomas Otter Adams, Michael Clem, Franklin Irvin, Billy "Two Feath Jones, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD; For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 601 Opinion received from USCA on 08/05/2015. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
604 USCA Notice of Certiorari Denial to DC re 556 Notice of Appeal, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 12−11926−DD: Writ of Certiorari filed as to Appellant Ricky Knight is DENIED. Supreme Court# 15−999. (ydw, ) (Entered: 05/03/2016)