Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 1 of 98

IN ""l'~. .J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

~.

:..AWF.JmCE CARTY, et ale , Plaintiffs,
V.
ALEXMroER A. FARRELLY, et ale , Defendants.

} } } }
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
) ) ) )

94-78

SETIl,gMENT AGREEMENT

INTROpucTI 0li

l.".

The parties, having negotiated and reached agreement for the

settlement of this class action, do hereby submit this ..Settlement

Agreement to the Court for its review and approval, in full

settlement of all claima and without admission of fault., binding>

upon the parties and"their successors according to the terms ~et

forth therein, unless further modified by' the Court. This

Settlement Agreement is intended by the parties to be enforceable

" by, the Court to the same extent as a court order. In entering into this Settlement Agreement, the parties

acknowledge that the safety and security of prisoners and staff are

a matter of mutual concern. The parties further acknowledge that
.'-
certain conditions and eventualities are within the contemplation

of the parties. These include the possibility that the St, Thomas

Criminal Justice Complex, ~d the Virgin Islands jail and prison

- system may experience a substantial increase or decre;:l.se in its

population; thac·the rate of crime or conviction within the U.S.

Virgin IslandB may continue at its current rate of increase or

decrease substarlciallYi that the incidence of parole may increase

EXHIBIT A

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 2 of 98
2
or decrease substantially; that the cost of construction of new facilities or renovation of existing facilities may increase or decrease substantially; that substantial difficulty mayor may not be encountered by the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections in attracting and employing security and non-security staff; and that substantial construction delays mayor may not occur with respect to the renovation of existing units or the construction of new facilities, units or additions thereto. A condition or eventuality within the contemplation of the parties shall not be ground~ for seeking an equitable modification under F.R.C.P. 60(b) (5) or for contesting a motion to enforce this agreement.
Unless other dates are specified herein, the date for implementation of the following provisions is January 1, 19~6. DEFINITIONS
"Defendants" shall mean the Governor and the Attorney General of the U. S • Virgin Islands I the Director of the Bureau of Corrections (BOC), and the Warden and Assistant Warden of the St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex '( CJC) .
"Defendants' Counsel- shall mean the Attorney General for the U.S. Virgin Islands or her designee.
"Double-celling- shall mean the placement of two (2) prisoners in a cell.
n Plaintiffs - shall mean pretrial detainees and sentenced prisoners housed at the St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex (CJC).
"Plaintiffs' Counsel- shall mean Benjamin CUrrence, Mark Lopez, Marjorie Rifkin, and other lawyers and their assistants

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 3 of 98
3
employed by the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste. 410, Washington, D.C. 20009.
"Substantial Compliance" shall mean that the defendants have generally fulfilled the provisions of this Agreement governing the delivery of medical, dental and mental heal th services i environmental health, fire safety conditions and practices; and addressing overcrowding, management, security and inmate activity issues.
I. POPULATION
The defendants agree to the following limitations on the population at CJC:
1. The population.limit at CJC shall be 97. 2. No sentenced prisoners serving a sentence in excess of
one (1) year shall be confin,d at CJC. 3. -No cell shall confine more than two (2) inmates. 4. Five (5) cells shall be established as single cells for
special management inmates i.e., medical, mental health, segregation. If all special management prisoners are transferred out of CJC, then the population cap shall be 100. 5. New admissions shall be confined in a separate housing clu.ter until they are medically evaluated. 6. Inmates sllall not be housed in dayrooms, offices, or other space. not specifically designed for housing. 7 . Female inmates shall be housed separately from male

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 4 of 98
4
prisoners in their own cluster at CJC. 8. The population limits set forth in paragraphs (1)
through (7) above shall become fully effective on April 1, 1995. In the interim, the defendants agree to open the Halfway House by January 1, 1995 and transfer a minimum of 30 inmates from CJC at that time. From January 1, 1995 forward, . the CJC population will be permanently reduced by those 30 beds. Additionally, defendants agree to seek. pretrial detention alternatives, reduce bails and to offer sentences of time served for prisoners charged with misdemeanors and nonviolent offenses. It is the parties' expectations that by January 1, 1995, the CJC population will be reduced by a total of 50-60 prisoners through these efforts.
I I. . SHELTER , PHYSICAL PLANT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
The defendants agree to the following: 1. Repair the leaking roof by June 15, 1995 .. 2. Repair all sink unit. in the cells by April 15, 1995. 3. Repair all light fixture. in the facility by June 1S,
1995. 4. Repair or replace all hot water heaters for inmate
showers by April 15, 1995. 5 . Provide water coolers in the clusters by December 1,
1994.
6. Replace all damaged or soiled mattresses by April 1S,

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 5 of 98
5
1995.
7. Establish a mattress exchange program for new admissions by December 1, 1994.
8. Provide a storage area in each cell for inmates' personal belongings by May 15, 1995.
9. Establish a comprehensive institutional housekeeping plan by April 15, 1995. See Appendix A.
10. Establish a comprehensive kitchen maintenance and sanitation plan by January 1, 1995. Kitchen facil!ties will be inspected twice each year by the Virgin Islands Health Department.
11. Establish a comprehensive preventive maintenance plan for all mechanical systems and the physical plant by January.
1, 1995.
12. Clean the drinking water system (cistern system). It will be cleaned by institutional staff with outside consultant staff supervision by April 15, 1995. In addition, an automatic chlorinating device will be installed and utilized at the point trom which the water leaves the cistern and is distributed throughout the facility. The defendants also agree to comply with the conditione set out in the September 27, 1994 Department of Natural Resources letter trom Ben Nazario to Alcedos Lettsome. See Appendix B.
13. Assign two (2) PTE maintenance staff qualitied to perform plumbing, electrical, mechanical, ventilation and air

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 6 of 98
6
conditioning work by April 15, 1995. 14. Provide at a minimum the following food items:
fruits and vegetables three times per week; milk daily, meat substitutes for religious and vegetarian diets and evening snacks by December 1, 1994. 15. Lighting in inmate rooms/cells shall be at least 20 footcandles at desk level and in personal grooming areas, as documented by an independent, qualified source. 16. Noise levels in inmate housing units shall not exceed 70 dBA (A Scale) in daytime and 45 dBA (A Scale) at night. 17. Circulation shall be at least 15 cubic feet of outside or recirculated filtered a.ir per minute.per occupant for cells/rooms, officer stationa, and dining area., as documented by an independent, qualified source. 18. Temperatures in indoor living and work areas shall be appropriate in the swmner and winter comfort zone•• 19. Food service operations shall be supervised by a full-time staff member who is experienced in food service management. 20. Policie. and procedures shall be written, and practice instituted to specify the food service budgeting, purchasing, and accounting practices,

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 7 of 98
7
including but not limited to the following' systems:
food expenditure cost accounting designed to determine cost per meal per inmate estimation of food service requirements purchase of supplies at wholesale and other favorable prices and conditions, when possible, and in accordance with the Virgin Islands Code determination of and responsiveness to inmate eating preferences refrigeration of food, with specific storage perioda 21. Policies and procedures shall be written, and practice instituted to require that accurate records are maintained of all meals served. 22 . Documentation ahall be maintained that the institution'. dietary allowances are reviewed at least annually by a qualified nutritionist or dietician to ensure that they meet the nationally' recommended allowances for basic nutrition. Menu evaluations shall be conducted at leaat quarterly by institution food service supervisory staff to verify adherence to the established baaic paily servinga. 23. Dietary allowances, as adjusted for age, sex,

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 8 of 98
a and activity, shall meet or exceed the recommended dietary allowances published by the National Academy of Sciences. A qualified nutritionist or dietician is a person registered or eligible for registration by the American Dietetic Association or who has the documented equivalent in education, training, or experience, with evidence of relevant continuing education. 24. Policies and procedures shall be written, and practice instituted to require that food service staff plan menus in advance and substantially:. follow the plan and that the planning and preparation of all meals take into consideration food flavor, texture, temperature, appearance, and palatability. 25. Policy and procedure shall be written, and practice instituted to provide for adequate health protection for all inmates and staff in the institution, and inmates and other persona working in the food service, including the
follow~9':
26. AlL persona involved in the preparation of food shall receive a preassignment medical examination and periodic reexaminations to ensure freedom from diarrhea, skin infections,

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 9 of 98
9
and other illnesses transmissible by food or utensils; all examinations shall be conducted in accordance with local requirements. 27. When the institution's food services are provided by an outside agency or individual, the institution shall have written verification that the outside provider complies with the state and local regulations regarding food service. 28. All food handlers shall be instructed to wash their hands upon reporting to duty and after using toilet facilities. 29. Inmates and other persona working in food service shall be monitored each day for health and clean.linesa by the supervisor of food services (or designee). 30 • When required by statute, .food products that are grown or produced within the system ~re inspected and approved by the appropriate government agency1 there shall be a distribution system that ensures prompt delivery of foodstuffs to the institutional kitchen. 31. Policy and procedure shall be written, and practice instituted to require weekly inspections of all food service areas,

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Docume1n0t #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 10 of 98
including dining and food preparation areas and equipment, by administrative, medical, or dietary personnel; these may include the person supervising food service operations or his/her designee. Refrigerator and water temperatures shall be checked daily by administrative, medical, or dietary personnel. 32. Meals shall be served at appropriate temperatures. 33. Policy and procedure shall be written, and practice instituted to provide for the issue of suitable clothing to all inmates. Clothing shall be properly fitted,' climactically suitable, durable, and presentable. 34. A standard wardrobe shall be provided at the time of admission and should include as appropriate: shirt., blouses, dresses, trousers, skirts, undergarments, slips, socks and shoes. 35. Policy and procedures shall be written, and practice instituted to require that articles necessary for maintaining proper personal hygiene are provided to all inmates. 36. ~ach inmate shall be given at a minimum the following linens: two sheets, one towel, one pillow,one blanket and a mattress that shall be placed on a bed and not on the floor.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Docume1n1t #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 11 of 98
There shall be procedures for linen and towei exchange and personal laundry on a weekly basis, at a minimum. 37. As part of the admissions process, each inmate should be given soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste or powder, a comb, and toilet paper. Shaving equipment should be made
available -upon request, and the special'
hygiene needs of females shall be met. An adequate floor stock of these hygiene items shall be maintained at all times to ensure that these items are reissued as needed. 38. There shall be a written plan for the control of vermin and pests that includes, at a minimum, monthly treatments and inspections by qualified persons. 39. Water for showers shall be thermostatically controlled to temperatures ranging from 1000 Fahrenheit to 120 0 Fahrenheit to ensure the safety of inmates and to promote hygienic practices. III. FIRE SAFETY For the purposes of this section, the following requirements are set forth below: 1. The Main Control Center on the third floor should be the central station for all recommended fire alarm systems. That is, all fire alarm systems should automatically

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Docume1n2t #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 12 of 98
retransmit to the Control Center. 2. All smoke detectors should be connected to the building
fire alarm system. 3. Fire rated enclosures or separations should be 1 hour
fire rated with openings protected with self closing or au"tomatic closing fire doors. The exception is doors to cells which are not required to be self or automatic closing. 4. Smoke tight enclosures or separations can be of any materials that will resist the passage of smoke with openings protected with a self closing or automatic closing door that will resist the passage of smoke. The exceptions are the doors to cells which are not required"" to be self or automatic closing. Requirements: 1. Provide a manual fire alarm system. 2. Provide smoke detectors in the day rooms. The existing battery powered smoke detectors in the day rooms are inadequate for this occupancy. Battery powered smoke detectors are only recognized for residential occupancies. 3. Provide a smoke barrier partition on the third floor to allow for the horizontal evacuation of the occupants on the third floor. The partition should divide the third floor into approximately two equally sized areas of refuge.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Documen1t3#: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 13 of 98

4. Cease the practice of storing the food carts in the exit

access corridor adjacent to the kitchen by December 1,

1994.

5. a) Provide smoke detectors thro~ghout the third floor

to include in individual cells.

b) Provide heat detectors on the first and second

floors and in the basement. In addition, heat

detectors should be provided in the enclosed areas

on the roof to include the storage areas,

maintenance shops, mechanical rooms, laundry room,

by January 1, 1995.

c) Provide a 1-hour fire-rated enclosure of the

kitchen and adjacent storage area.

d) Provide a 1-hour fire-rated enclosure of all

vertical openings to include utility shafts and

stairways.

e) . Provide a 1-hour fire-rated separation of each of

the cluster hou&ing areas to include the individual

control rooms from the exit access corridors.

6. Immediately remove all the new foam plastic mattresses in

the facility and replace with approved fire retardant

treated mattresses by November 1, 1994.

i .

7. Replace all existing damaged fire retardant mattresses by

January 1, 1995.

8. Do not store mattresses in the housing units. If

mattresses are to be stored in the building, they should .,..

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 14 of 98 14

be stored in accordance with fire safety regUlations by

November 1, 1994.

10. A detailed emergency plan should be developed which is

applicable to the St. Thomas Facility, to include

training of staff and fire drills for staff by December

1,· 1994 and inmates by February 15, 1995. See Appendix C.

11. A fire evacuation plan for the housing units shall be

developed, training provided and drills performed.

12. Fire drills shall be conducted and critiqued. Drills

shall be conducted once per quarter per shift for a total

of 12 fire drills per year. Not all drills require the

evacuation of the inmate•.

13. Since the building currently cannot adequately protec~

, I

the occupants inside the building during a fire, a plan

shall be developed by December 15, 1994 detailing how to

evacuate the inmates or provision. for inmates to "ride-

out" the fire inside the building. The plan must take

; I

into consideration the type of fire protection systems in

the building.

14. Proper receptacles shall be provided for cigarette

smokin9 material by November 1, 1994.

15. The staff shall be trained in fire evacuation and fire

~mergency procedures by December 1, 1994.

16. The local fire department shall tour the facility so that

they can become familiar with and adequately plan how to

fight a fire in the building. The local fire department

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Docume1n5t #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 15 of 98 shall periodically participate in the faci'lity fire drills.
17. Although it is not a good fire safety practice to chain and-lock doors in the means of egress, it is not the intent of these requirements to interfere with the security needs of the facility. When on a periodic basis the chains and locks are needed for securitY4 all staff members shall be made aware of this and a sufficient number of the staff should be provided with keys to unlock the doors in case of an emergency. The doors
should not be chained and locked on a regular basis.
18. The defendants shall not store combustibles or other material in the exits.
19. -Repair all broken or damaged electrical lighting fixtures by June 1, 1995.
20. Flammabie liquids in the maintenance and storage areas shall be stored in approved flammable liquid storage cabinets.
21. The fire load in all offices shall be reduced by November 1, 1994.
IV. MEDICAL CARE A. STAFFING AND TABLE OF ORGANIZATION 1. ~he defendants agree to retain a Health Care Coordinator who is responsible for making recommendations for the development of medical policies and procedures which, when adopted, will be largely in compliance with the

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Documen1t6#: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 16 of 98
National Commission on Correctional Health Care Guidelines as they currently exist except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. These policies and procedures shall include, but not be limited to, such issues as quality assurance, programs for chronic care, special-needs inmates, admission to and administration of the infirmary at St. Croix, and a peer review of the practitioners who are contracting with~he United States Virgin Islands. The Health Care Coordinator shall be responsible for implementing the medical policies and procedures in conjunction with the Registered Nurse at CJC. Day-to-day supervision and management shall be provided by the Registered Nurse at CJC by December 1.i1994. 2. A full-time Registered Nurse will function as the on-site supervisor of medical services and will report directly to the Nurse Supervisor. He/she will be responsible for development, implementation and monitoring of health care policies and procedures and monitoring and requisitioning of supplies and equipment. The full-time Registered Nurse shall be in place at the facility by December 1, 1994, and certification by the Director of the Bureau of Corrections that the nurse is in place shall be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel. 3. Nursing personnel in addition to the Registered Nurse will be present at CJC from at least 9:00am until 8:00pm

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Docume1n7t #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 17 of 98

on weekdays and for four (4) hours each weekend day by

January 1, 1995. Certification by the Director of the

Bureau of Corrections, including the schedules of all

nursing personnel, will be submitted to the Plaintiffs'

counsel no later than January 1, 1995.

4. A ·physician will be present at CJC at least two hours

each weekday to provide new admission evaluations, sick

call and medical follow-up care, by December 1, 1994.

The physician's schedule, showing compliance with this

provision will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no

later than December 1, 1994.

It wi!.l be the responsibility of the 'Health Care

Coordinator to assure that adequate physician cov~rage is.

provided.

5.. A physician will be on-call by telephone at all times

when there is no physician on-site at the facility by

November 1, 1994. This may be the physician who

regularly visits the facility or other local physician (s)

contracted with for 24-hour coverage. The Health Care

Coordinator will be responsible for assuring that 24-hour

coverage is provided. A schedule showing this coverage

will be submitted to Plaintiffs' counsel no later than

N9vember 1, 1994.

6. A Master' s-level Mental Health Worker will provide mental

health services by January 1, 1995.

His/her

responsibility will include initial evaluation of all

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Docume1n8t #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 18 of 98
inmates with mental health problems, development of mental health treatment plans, monitoring psychiatric medications in consultation with the physician, insuring mental health follow-up, and individual and group counseling. The Mental Health Worker will be in place by January 1, 1995. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections will certify that a Mental Health Worker is in place. The duties of the mental health worker are more fully set forth in section V. below. 7. Table of Organization:

Director, Bureau of Corrections

I

Health Care Coordinator

/

I

\

Facility . CJC Physician NUrse Supervisor

Mental Health Worker

I

CJe Registered

I

CJC Nursing Staff

Nurse

A roster of health care personnel as indicated on the

table of organization and a record of hours actually

worked will be kept by the Nurse Supervisor. This record

will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel on a

quarterly basis, beginning January 1, 1995.

B. EMERGENCY CARE

1. Adequate equipment will be maintained on-site for

management of medical emergencies. This equipment will

include the following:

stretcher (1) ambu bag (1)

ammonia ampules (5) alcohol sponges (10)

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Docum1e9nt #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 19 of 98

flashlight (1)

band aids (1 box)

back board (1 )

4 x 4 gauze bandage (10)

splints (2)

5 x 9 gauze bandage (2)

cervical collar (1)

3-inch ace bandage (1)

sphygmomanometer (l)

4-inch ace bandage (1)

stethoscope (1)

triangular bandage (sling)

eye stream (dacriose, 1 bottle). 4-inch flexible gauze

bandage (1)

glucose tablets (6) or

3 x 9 Vaseline gauze (2)

glucola (1 bottle)

sterile gloves (2)

nitroglycerin tablets (1 bottle) 1-inch tape (1 roll)

betadine solution (1 bottle)

2-inch tape (1 roll)

A list of emergency equipment will be maintained by the Registered Nurse. The equipment will be inspected daily for completeness and condition and said inspection will be noted on the list with the initials of the staff member doing the inspection. Records of the inspections will be given to the Health Care Coordinator on a monthly basis. The Health Care Coordinator will ensure that replacement eqUipment is obtained aa necessary. The emergency equipment list, including all the equipment noted above, and the system of checking equipment will be implemented by April 1, 1995. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the equipment and the system are in place will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than April 1, 1995. 2. ~ log will be maintained indicating time of all emergency hospital referrals, time leaving CJC and time of arrival at the hospital by December 1, 1995. Certification by the Warden that this log is being

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Documen2t0#: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 20 of 98
maintained will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than December 1, 1995. The log will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis. C. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) (l) Training will be provided for all medical staff by
April 1, 1995. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator of completion of the initial training will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than April 1, 1995. All medical staff will
. maintain current CPR certification. The
Registered Nurse will be 'responsible for ensuring that all medical personnel maintain current CPR training. A list of medical personnel and their CPR status will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis. (2) CPR training will be available to correctional officers. At least two officers with CPR certification will be present at all times at CJC by April 15, 1989. Certification by the Warden that at least two CPR-certified officers are on duty at all times will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel no later than April 15, 1995. A list of officers with CPR certification and hours worked will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Documen21t #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 21 of 98 D. CHRONIC CARE
1. Written policy, procedure, and practice shall make available chronic and convalescent care to inmates of the facility.
E. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT 1. Written policy and procedure shall guide the clinical management of chemically dependent inmates-and include the following requirements:
diagnosis of chemical dependency by a physician determination by a physician as to whether an individual requires nonpharmacologically or pharmacologically supported care individualized treatment plans developed and implemented by a multidisciplinary team referrals to specified community-resources upon release when appropriate 2. Written policy, procedure, and practice shall provide for substance abuse programs for inmates with drug and alcohol addiction problems. These programs should include the following: staff trained in drug and alcoholic treatment to design and supervise the program coordination with community substance abuse programs efforts to motivate addicts to seek help realistic goals for the rehabilitation of inmates with substance abuse problems

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #2: 2805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 22 of 98

~ variety of approaches to provide fle~ibility to meet

the varying needs of different addicts

F. MEDICATIONS

1.

New admissions requiring medication will be

transported to the hospital for medical

evaluation and prescriptions if no medical

personnel are on call or on-site at CJC.

Certification by the Warden that this-system

is in place will be submitted to the

Plaintiffs' counsel no later than December 1,

1994. The Warden will be responsible for

ensuring that new inmates are promptly

transported to the hospital for medical

evaluations and prescriptions as necessarY.

2.

By Decemb.er 1, 1994, prescriptions for inmate

medications will be taken to the pharmacy and

the filled prescriptions returned to CJC

within twenty four (24) hours of the writing

of the prescriptions, unless it is medically

indicated that they be dispensed sooner.

Certification by the Warden that this is

being done will be submitted to the

Plaintiffs' counsel no later than December 1,

1994. A log of prescriptions and time

required for obtaining medications will be

maintained and submitted to the Plaintiffs'

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #2:3805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 23 of 98

counsel on a quarterly basis.

3 .

Medications will be given from a filled

prescription only to the patient for whom it

was prescribed by December 1, 1994.

Prescription medications will not be re-used

for other patients. Certification of

compliance with this provision, including

that all non-current prescription medications.

have been discarded, will be submitted to the

Plaintiffs' counsel no later than December 1,

1994. The Nurse Supervisor will be

responsible for ensuring on-going compliance

with thia provision and will inventory

prescription medications to discard those no

longer in use on a weekly basis.

4.

Controlled substances will be maintained in a

locked narcotic cabinet and will be counted

and logged by nursing staff whenever

dispensed and on a daily basis by December 1,

1994. Certification by the Warden that a

locked cabinet is present and in use and by

the Nurse Supervisor that the system of

counting and logging controlled substances is

in place will be submitted to the Court no

later than December 1, 1994. A copy of the

narcotics control log will be submitted to

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 28405-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 24 of 98

the Plaintiffs' counsel on ~ quarterly ,

basis.

5.

All medications will be routinely checked by

nursing staff for expiration d~tes and

expired drugs discarded. Certification by

the Health Care Coordinator that this is

being done will be submitted to the

Plaintiffs' counsel byOecember 1, 1994. The

Registered Nurse will inspect all medications

monthly and will note the presence of any

expired drugs. The results of these

inspections will be submitted to the

Plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

G. 'INTAKE EVALUATIONS

1.

By Oecember 1, 1994, a brief health screening

question list will be administered at

admission and prior to housing by a nurse. If

an admission occurs in the absence of nursing

coverage, a correction officer who has been

instructed in its use by medical staff shall

conduct this' evaluation. The prisoner shall

be evaluated the next day by the nursing

staff. Questions on the screening list will

include current illnesses, medications, and

suicidal .ideation or history. The form will

be submitted to medical staff for use in

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #2: 5805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 25 of 98

inmates' medical intake evaluations and

will be retained in inmates' medical

records. The form will .be in use by

December 1, 1994. Certification by the

Warden that this system is in place

shall be submitted to the Plaintiffs'

counsel no later than December 1, 1994.

2.

A medical intake evaluation, utilizing a

standardized history and physical examination

form substantially the same as the form

provided as Appendix D, will be performed by

the facility physician on all new admissions

within four (4) days of admission. This

system will be in place by December 1, 1994.

Certification by the Health Care Coordinator

that the system is in place will be submitted

to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than

December 1, 1994.

3.

Laboratory tests will be performed on all new

admissions within seven (7) days of admission

and consist of the following:

a. tuberculin skin test (PPD) in accordance with CDC

guidelines attached hereto as Appendix E.

b. urinalysis (dipstick)

c . syp~ilis blood test (RPR)

d. complete blood count (CBC)

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #2: 6805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 26 of 98
e. PAP Smear (women) - f. urine pregnancy test (women) g. additional tests deemed clinically necessary by
physician These tests shall be implemented by December 1, 1994. -Ce-rtification by the Health Care -Coordinator that the practice has been implemented shall be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than December 1, 1994. 4. By December 1, 1994, defendants shall conduct PPD testing on all CJC prisoners, employees and agents of defendants who have direct contact with prisoners, unless such employee or agent has had a negative testresult recorded within the last twelve months or has a.-previously recorded positive PPD. Persons who test ~ 5mm will be treated in accordance with CDC guidelines. 5. The defendants shall implement prompt and consistent testing, reading and recording of PPD tests for newly arriving prisoners, including the administration of PPD tests as soon as practicable at the time of entry into the system. H. SICK CALL 1. Sick call will be freely accessible on a regularly ~cheduled, daily basis and will be conducted by qualified medical staff (MD or RN) in an appropriate physical space containing a medical examination table, adequate lighting, and running

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 27 of 98

27

water. Equipment required for physical evaluation

will be available, including:

flashlight

otoscope/ophthalmoscope

sphygmomanometer

tongue depressors

reflex hammer

examining gloves

The sick call system, with adequate equipment and

physical space, will be in place by December 1, 1994.

Inmates' sick call request slips will be submitted

daily and collected from boxes in all clusters twice

daily by medical staff. Medical staff shall record the

date(s) of treatment on sick call slips and place slips

in the inmates' medical charts. Certification by the

Health Care Coordinator that the system is in place,

including a schedule of sick call times, a list of the

equipment available, and a description and location of

the physical space provided, will be submitted to the

Plaintiffs' counsel no later than December 1, 1994.

I. FOLLOW-UP CARE

1.

Patients requiring follow-up for chronic

diseases or other reasons will be

scheduled for the purpose in a follow-up

log substantially the same as that

provided in Appendix F. A disposition

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 28 of 98

28

on each patient scheduled will be

entered into the log. A list of

patients with chronic conditions will be

maintained by medical staff to insure

that such patients are not lost to

follow-up. This system will be in place

by December 1, 1994. Certification by

the Health Care Coordinator that the

system has been implemented will be

submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no

later than December 1, 1994. The

Registered Nurse will be responsible for

monitoring the follow-up system and

ensuring compliance with this section of

the plan. A copy of the follow-up logs

and chronic disease list will be

forwarded to the Plaintiffs' counsel on

a quarterly basis .

.J. MEDICALLY INDICATED DIET

1.

Medically indicated diets will be ordered by

medical staff, who will submit a requisition

form substantially the same as that provided

at AppendixG, to the kitchen manager. The

kitchen manager will insure that inmates on

medically indicated diets receive the proper

diets. This system will be in place by

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 29 of 98

29

December 1, 1994. Certification by the

Warden that the system has been

implemented will be submitted to the

Plaintiffs' counsel no later than

December 1, 1994.

2.

Guidelines for preparation of medically indicated

diets will be developed in consultation with a

dietician and will be present in the kitchen by

December 1, 1994. Certification by the Warden

that the guidelines are posted will be submitted

to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than December

1, 1994. The kitchen manager will be responsible' -

for. consulting with the dietician as necessary and

periodically updating the posted guidelines.

3.

Medical staff will maintain a list of patients

receiving medically indicated diets by December 1,

1994. The list of patients will be reviewed by

the Registered Nurse for continued need and for

completeness on a monthly basis. A copy of the

list will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel

no later than December 1, 1994.

K. HOSPITAL APPOINTMENTS

1.

A record will be kept of all appointments

requested at the hospital (clinics, dental,

laboratory, x-ray), date of appointment,

whether visit occurred, and disposition by

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 30 of 98
30
December I, 1994. Clinic referral forms and the clinic log book will be substantially the same as those provided in Appendix H. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the system is in place will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel by December ~, ~994. A report listing all hospital referrals and their disposition will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.
L. MEDICAL REFERENCES
Up~to-date medical references will be available at CJC, including Physicians' Desk Reference, conn's CUrrent Therapy, and Lippincott Manual of Nursing Practice by January 1, 1995. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the references are available will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than January 1; 1995. The Registered Nurse will monitor the availability and currentness of the references and will report to the Nurse Supervisor when replacement is necessary. The Health Care Coordinator will ensure that such replacements are made.
M. MISCELLANEOUS MEDICAL ISSUES

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 31 of 98
31
1. After ninety days of detention, the defendants shall provide eyeglasses to those inmates who need them.
2. After sixty days of detention, the defendants shall provide routine dental services to prisoners. If restorative services are indicated, they shall be provided.
3. Emergency dental care shall be provided to all prisoners regardless of length of stay.
4. The defendants shall adopt quality assurance practices, including bi-weekly meetings between the Health Care Coordinator and CJC medical staff by January 1, 1995.
5. By November 1, 1994, inmates in need of infirmary care shall be transferred to the Infirmary at Golden Grove.
N. MEDICAL CHARTS 1. The defendants shall adopt standardized charting
practices by December 1, 1994. The prisoners' health record files shall contain the following items: -completed admission screening form -health appraisal data forms -all findings, diagnoses, treatments, dispositions -record of prescribed medications and their administration ~laboratory, x-ray, and diagnostic studies -signature and title of documenter -consent and refusal forms -release of information forms -place, date and time of health encounters

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 32 of 98
32
-health service reports, e.g., dental, mental health, and consultations -treatment plan, including nursing care plan -progress reports -discharge summary of "hospitalization and other termination summaries. 2. The method of recording entries in the prisoners' records, the form and the format of records, and the procedures for their maintenance and safekeeping shall be approved by an appropriate health authority. 3. All findings, including notations concerning mental health, dental, and consultative services shalL be recorded at the time of service delivery or no later than 14 days from the time of discharge or termination of treatment. The receiving screening form shall become a part of the record at the time of the first health encounter. 4. Prisoners suffering from infectious diseases and in need of medical isolation shall be transferred to St. Thomas Hospital for appropriate treatment.
V. MENTAL HEALTH
1. Mental health referrals, evaluations, and follow-up will be managed by the Mental Health Worker. A mental health checklist and referral form substantially the same as those provided in Appendices I and J will be used. The Mental Health Worker and referral system

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 33 of 98
33
will be in place by January 1, 1995. Certification that the referral system is in place will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than January 1, 1995. 2. Referrals shall be made to the local hospital in emergency situations or to the Community Mental Health (CMH) Center. All prisoners referred for non-emergency care shall be evaluated by CMH or CJC staff within five (5) days, unless a shorter period is medically indicated. 3. Upon return to CJC from a mental health evaluation, any reports or recommendations will be reviewed by the Mental Health Worker and medical staff and appropriate housing and follow-up will be arranged. This system of review, housing, and follow-up will be in place by January 1, 1995. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that this has been implemented will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than January 1, 1995. 4. A housing area at CJC will be designated for inmates requiring mental observation by November 1, 1994. In this area, suicide watch and close mental health follow-up will be available. Certification by the Warden that a mental health housing area has been provided will be submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel no later than November 1, 1994.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 34 of 98
34
S. The defendants shall establish mental health cells for prisoners in need of restraints, seclusion, or observation by December 1, 1994.
6. Hospital beds for inmates requiring hospitalization shall be made available at the St. Thomas Hospital by November 1, 1994.
VI . CORRECTIONS AND SECURITY A. Operations 1. By April 1, 1995, the defendants shall establish policies and procedures governing the operations of CJC. This manual shall contain all procedures for ins.titutional security and control, with detailed instructions for implementing these procedures. The manual shall be available to all staff and reviewed at least annually and updated if necessary. 2. The defendants shall establish an objective-based classification program in conformity with the guidelines issued by the National Institute of Corrections by April 1, 1995. 3. Housing officers shall conduct fifteenminute checks of the housing units and maintain a log by November 1, 1994. 4. Disciplinary and protective custody

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 35 of 98
35
segregation cells shall be established. Prisoners in need of long-term segregation shall be transferred to Golden Grove by April 1, 1995. 5. Defendants shall immediately discontinue the -practice of instituting long-term facility-wide lockdowns of prisoners in excess of 72 hours, unless emergency circumstances exist. For the purposes of this agreement, emergency is defined as a circumstance caused by a significant security breach affecting the entire facility, or riot, fire, hurricane or similar event not caused int~ntionally by the defendant.. If the defendants intend to extend a lockdown beyond 72 hours for emergency reasons, the BOC Director shall notify plaintiffs' counsel immediately and certify the justification for extending the lockdown. Within 72 hours thereafter, the BOC Director shall forward a plan to plaintiffs' counsel to end the lockdown. A record of all lockdown periods, regardless of length, shall be maintained at CJC and made available to plaintiffs'counsel upon reasonable notice. If the lockdown exceeds 72 hours and the plaintiffs' dispute the justification offered by the defendants or believe the conditions are

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 36 of 98
36
unconstitutional, plaintiffs can seek appropriate relief from the Court. B. Activities 1. Outdoor recreation shall be provided not less than three hours daily, seven days a week by April 1, 1995. In the interim, prisoners will be provided 1.5 hours of outdoor recreation daily. 2. By November 1, 1994, inmates shall not be confined to their cells more than twelve hours daily. The cell doors shall remain open during out-of-cell periods. The parties understand that this twelve hours represents the maximum amount of in-cell time on a regular daily basis, and takes into consideration unusual circumstances such as power outages or staff shortages. 3. By May 1, 1995, the defendants shall establish a comprehensive library system; 4. Substance abuse services shall be provided by April 1, 1995; 5. Jobs shall be made available for sentenced and longterm detainees by April 1, 1995. C. Excessive Force

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 37 of 98
37
By April I, 1995, Defendants shall do the following: 1. Defendants shall develop a policy and procedures that strictly prohibit the use of force except in clearly defined appropriate circumstances; 2. All use of force incidents shall be visually supervised by the Shift Commander where feasible, and reported immediately; 3. A use of force report(s) shall be prepared by the staff involved; 4. Medical personnel shall be notified immediately when there is a use of force incident or when prisoners are placed in restraints. The personnel shall immediately examine the inmate and prepare an injury report; 5. For a period of one year from the entry of this agreement, all use of force incidents shall be videotaped and recorded where feasible; 6. All use of force reports, incident reports, injury reports, and videotapes shall be collected and forwarded to the Assistant Warden for review. They shall

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 38 of 98
38
be preserved in a orderly manner and made available to plaintiffs' counsel for review on a periodic basis; 7. Any allegations of physical abuse shall be referred to the DOJ and plaintiffs' counsel for investigation. D. Training Requirements Orientation 1. As of April 1, 1995, policies and procedures shall be written that all new full-time employees shall receive four (4) hours of orientation training before undertaking their assignments. Orientation training shall include at a minimum the following: orientation to the purpose, goals, policies and procedures of the institution and parent agency; working conditions and regulations; employees' rights and respOnsibilities; and an overview of the correctional field. Depending on the employee(s) and the particular job requirements, orientation training may include preparatory instruction related to the particular job. Correctional Officers 2. As of April 1, 1995, policies and procedures shall be written and practice shall provide that all new correctional officers receive an additional 120
j I
hours of training during their first

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 39 of 98
39
year of employment and an additional 40 hours of training each subsequent year of employment. At a minimum, this training shall cover the following areas: - security procedures - supervision of inmates - signs of suicide risk - suicide precautions - use of force regulations - report writing - inmate rules and regulations - ~ights and responsibilities of inmates - fire and emergency procedures - safety procedures - firearms training - key control - interpersonal relations
social/cultural life styles of the inmate population - communication skills - first aid VII. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Defendants shall comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by January 1, 1995. VIII. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Defendants shall provide the following by January 1, 1995:

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 40 of 98
40
A. Defendants shall provide meat substitutes for prisoners who observe religious diets.
B. Defendants shall allow prisoners to groom themselves in accordance with religious beliefs unless a medical risk exists in a specific case as defined by a physician.
C. Defendants shall offer congregate religious services. O. Defendants shall allow prisoners to have items necessary to
practice their religious b~liefs, including, but not limited too, kufi skull caps and prayer rugs, unless a security risk exists in a specific case.
IX. LEGAL ACCESS
A. By Janu~ry 1, 1995, policies and procedures shall be written, and practice instituted to ensure the right of inmates to have access to courts. The right of access to the courts shall provide at a minimum that inmates have the right to present any issue, including the following: challenging the legality of their conviction or confinement; seeking redress for illegal conditions or treatment while under correctional control; pursuing remedies in connection with civil legal problems and asserting against correctional or other government authority any other rights protected by constitutional or statutory provision or common law. Inmates seeking judicial relief shall not be subjected to reprisals or penalties because of the decision to seek such relief.
B. By January 1, 1995, policies and procedures shall be

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 41 of 98
41
written and practice instituted to ensure and facilitate inmate access to counsel and assist inmates in making confidential contact with attorneys and their authorized representatives; such contact includes, but is not limited to, unmonitored telephone communications, Uncensored correspondence, and contact visits.
c. By January 1, 1995, institutional authorities shall
assist inmates in making confidential contact with attorneys and their authorized representatives; these representatives may include law students, special
investigators, lay counsel, or other persons who have a .
legitimate connection with the legal issue being pursued. Provision shall be made for visits during normal institutional hours, uncensored correspondence, telephone communications, and additional hours outside of the routine schedule requested because of special circumstances. D. By April 1, 1995, policies and procedures shall-be written, and practice shall provide for the rights of inmates to have access to an appropriate law library
and to paper, typewriters and other supplies and
services related to legal matters. The law library shall include at a minimum relevant and up-to-date constitutional, statutory, and case law materials, applicable court rules, and practice treatises.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 42 of 98
42
When an inmate is unable to make meaningful use of the law library on his or her own, the additional assistance necessary for effective access is provided.
x. MAIL, TELEPHONE AND VISITATION
Defendants shall do the following by January 1, 2995: A. Policies and procedures shall be written to govern inmate
cQrrespondence; they shall be available to all staff and inmates, and reviewed annually and ~pdated as needed. B. Policies and procedures shall be written and institutional practice implemented to provide that indigent inmates, as defined in policy, receive a specified postage_allow~e to maintain community ties. An inmate without financial resources shall be provided the means to send a reasonable number of letters per month. Community ties include family, personal friends, but DQk privileged communication to attorneys, public officials and courts.
c. Policies and procedures shall be written and implemented to
govern inmates' access to publications. Any restrictions on access to publications shall be directly related to maintenance of facility order and security. D. Policies and procedures shall be written and instituted to provide that inmate mail, both incoming and outgoing personal, ~ DQk privileged legal mail, may be opened and inspected for contraband. E. Defendants shall develop and institute written policies and

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 43 of 98
43
procedures to provide for inmates' access to telephones. Telephone facilities shall permit reasonable and equitable access to all inmates and permit a reasonable amount of privacy. Procedures shall specify the hours during which the te-Iephone is available, the maximum length of calls, and any limitation on calls. F. Defendants shall develop and implement written policies and procedures that provide that the number of visitors an inmate may receive and the length of visits may be limited only by the facility's schedule, space, and personal constraints or when there are substantial reasons to justify such limitations.
XI • MISCELLANEOUS
Halfway House: It is not the parties' intention that the services provided in this Agreement for the benefit of CJC prisoners shall be diminished in any respect by the opening of the Halfway House or other facilities.
Expansion of CJC ~y expansion of CJC into the first or second floors·of the building shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, except that staffing levels shall be increased proportionately. MONITORING-AND COMPLIANCE The following provisions shall be in effect immediately upon the execution of this Agreement: A. The BOC shall post and maintain one (1) copy of this
Agreement in the CJC law library and in the

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 44 of 98
44
dayroom of each housing cluster. B. On 72 hours' notice to defendants, plaintiffs' counsel
and their assistants shall have the right to meet freely and privately with individual prisoners at CJC in a contact visit area. C. Defendants shall grant plaintiffs' counsel access to tour CJC to evaluate defendants' compliance with this Agreement. Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide ten (lO) days' notice to defendants in advance of these tours. D. For the purpose of monitoring this Settlement Agreement, the BOC agrees to permit meetings between plaintiffs' counsel and groups of CJC prisoners at a time on.& monthly basis at the CJC. This provision will in no way interfere with the right of plaintiffs' counsel to meet with their clients on an individual basis. E. Upon reqUest by plaintiffs' counsel, BOC shall grant plaintiffs' counsel, their assistants and consultants access to any documents that may demonstrate compliance or lack of compliance with the terms of this Agreement. F. As of the effective date of this agreement, the defendants will begin providing the following periodic reports related to compliance with this agreement to plaintiffs' counsel:
quarterly populatio~ reports indicating the number of sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees held in

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 45 of 98
45
each cluster, the number of inmates held in: new admissions housing area(s), protective custody, infirmary, or medical isolation units. quarterly medical reports indicating: the number of physical exams conducted, PPD tests administered, referrals to St. Thomas Hospital for emergency care and specialty clinics. quarterly prisoners' medical grievances indicating: the number of grievances filed on various medical care issues. quality assurance reports (as generated) quarterly statistics and narrative summaries of incidents involving assaults by prisoners and by staff, indicating the outcome of each incident. quarterly reports on use of force by CJC staff. quarterly food services repo~s (by Virgin Islands Division of Public Health) quarterly water quality reports (by BOC and Virgin. Islands Departments of Planning and Natural Resources and Health) bi-monthly status reports on recruitment and hiring for positions covered by this agreement sanitation reports (as generated by the Department of Health and Internal BOC Audit) semi-annual law library inventories. During each monitoring visit, defendants shall make available to

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 46 of 98
46
plaintiffs' counsel, their assistants and consultants, records and reports relevant to any of the matters described in this Agreement. These records shall al~o be available for review by consultants or experts working with plaintiffs' counsel. Among the documents to be produced are:
medical records of treatment provided to plaintiffs maintained by CJC staff and by St. Thomas Hospital; records of mental health care provided to plaintiffs at CJC or community mental health facilities; records of the death of any plaintiffs, either at CJC or at St. Thomas Hospital or local hospice facilities; copies of sick call request ,lips submitted by prisoners and daily lists of prisoners seen by medical staff; incident reports involving plaintiffs; use of force reports; staff disciplinary reports and referrals to outside agencies; logbooks and documents reflecting new admissions to CJC; the number of prisoners attending daily recreation sessions and law library. Plaintiffs' counsel shall have the authority to retain consultants to evaluate compliance with the terms of this Agreement in the 'technical areas of medical, dental and psychiatric care, environmental, fire and life safety, when they reasonably believe such assistance is necessary to assess compliance under the terms of this Agreement. Defendants will bear the cost of the reasonable fees and expenses of these consultants in the event that plaintiffs' counsel are required to initiate enforcement proceedings. All provisions of this decree which are not accompanied by an implementation date shall be implemented as soon as practicable and no

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 47 of 98
47
later than January 1, 1996. Counsel for the plaintiff class will bring any complaints of non-
compliance to the attention of def~ndants' counsel prior to initiating any court action. The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve all such disputes between themselves in the first instance.
Defendants' counsel will notify counsel for the plaintiff class of any proposed modification of the rights and privileges accorded plaintiffs by this decree prior to seeking formal court approval for " any such modifications. "The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve all disputes concerning such modifications between themselves in the first instance.
If defendants are unable to implement fully the terms o·f this Agreement, despite their best efforts, plaintiffs are fr~e to seek such other and further relief from the court as may be nec~ssary to .:Dring about elimination of the conditions which this decree seeks to :remedy. The defendants shall petition the court for relief under F.R.C.P. 60(b) (5) for changed circumstances that may arise that are outside the contemplation of the parties as set forth in this
Agre~ment.
JURISDICTION This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to insure
compliance with the foregoing provisions until such time as all provisions of this decree have been fully implemented and the court has made a finding of substantial compliance. ATTORNEYS' FEES
The parties agree to attempt to negotiate attorneys' fees and

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 48 of 98
48
costs. Should the parties be unable to reach a settlement as to attorneys' fees and costs within 60 days of final approval of this decree, the matter shall be submitted to the Court for its determination; provided, however, that this time period may be extended by stipulation of the parties if approved by the Court.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 49 of 98

49

Respectfully submitted,

Be min A. Currence, P.C. No. 12 Norre Gade, Second Floor P.O. Box 6143
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804-6143 (809) 775-3434

Ma~ro;h,::tsq.~ ~
Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. National Prison Project of the ACLO Foundation
1875 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: October' 12--;-1994

BY:

Honorable Stanley S. Brotman United States District Judge

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 50 of 98 APPENDIX A

_. " "'. -.,. ....

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 51 of 98
APPENDIX A

HOUSEKEEPING PLAN/SANITATION

puRPOSE
To ensure effective housekeeping practices t~=cuqh the cor.duc~ of regular inspections thus requiring desired standards of sanitation.

GENERAL This procedure provides a vehicle tor the regular monitoring of environmental health programs especially related to housekeeping practices and sanitary conditions.

EROCEptlRES

x. A stat~ member designated by the Warden will serve as

coordinator o~ the sanitation inspection program designed to

ensure:

.

.

A. All area. are clean and orderly

B. Lighting and ventilation equipment tunction

c. No ~ire, satety, -or health hazards exist

0, All equipment, tools, and security devices pertorm

properly

.

E. Xn living. areas, inspections shall include veritication

o~ appropriate supervision o~ inmate workers and

p~tentially hazardous materials F. All plumbing equipment includinq toilet, bathing,
washing, and laundry facilities operate properly

G. A review of previous reports is conducted

·XX. Inspection.·

.....

Inspections will ba done weekly by appointed statt. Statl will be appointed ~or this within 15 days ot entry ot the -plan. Those statt members who are appointed shall be 'tamiliar with expected sanitation and satety practices ot the area they are inspecting. Atter the inspection, the inspecting statt member shall till ~ut the inspection report (see· attachment), will review the results ot the inspection and write down any needed work to be done in order to comply with any indicated deticiencies, and will sign ott on the report and then send it to the Warden tor review.

Any deliciencies that are noted on the inspection should be corrected as soon as possible. All deticiencies that create serious satety or health problems tor inmates or staff ~ill be corrected immediately.

III. Area Housekee~inq Plans

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 52 of 98 -2-

Plans will require the tollowing:

A. A cleaning schedule tor the area B. Specitic assignments tor inmates assigned to sanitary
duties.
c. A time' schedule tor duty completion
. D. Specific instructions for the cleaning ot:

1. Floors and doors 2. Inmate quarters 3. Inmate personal property 4 • .Walls and windows S. Toilet and shower taciliti.. 6. Equipment 7. storage areas

E. Waste cU.sposal procec:lures which provide tor proper collection, storage and disposal ot all liquid and.... solid waste accumulation tor the area
F. Instructions tor the acquisition, utilization, and storage of cleaning supplies and equipment.

IV• Elan Approyal

The area housekeeping plans. will be torwarded to the virqin Islands Health Department for review and approval. 'A copy ot the approvac:l plan for each area shall be distributed and mainta'ined in the area and in the Warden'. oftice•

v. sanitation of Cells anel Roggs

Each

inmate

is

.. required

to

mai- nta' in

sanitary

living

area

conditions as- follow.: .

-,

A. Each inmate shall be responsible tor the cleanliness ot his cell o~ living area including walls, tloors, sink, toilet, windows, and other property within the cell room or 11v inC) area.

B. Cleaning material. and articles tor cleaning shall be issued by the area supervisor to the inmates. The inmate is responsible tor the proper usage and care of
. these articl•••

\ ,

c. No curtains, screens, paper, cellophane, or cardboard,

\

etc, shall be hung in the cell or on the cell doors since this constitutes a tire hazard.

D. the designated staft person shall inspect cells and living areas daily and report any infractions ot these orders to his/her icmediate supervisor.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document-#3:-805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 53 of 98
E. The supervisor shall, as needed, issue the inmate an unsatisfactory cell condition warning (written or oral) and, in case of continued non-compliance, issue a misconduct report.
VI. Monthlv Ins~ections A monthly inspection will be conducted by the institutional Coordinator of Sanitation. Hs/she will submit a report to the Warden for review. . The report sball be sent to the affected areas for review and response. All discrepancies shall be examined and corrected witJlin 30 days ot receipt. It items take longer, a Plan at Action wUI be .u.bmitted.
VII. Semi-annual Independent Audit '!'be Virqin Islands Health Department viII conduct a semiannual sanitat~on and health inspection. These reports will be reviewed by.the Warden and the Director of the Bureau ot
. CorreQtion.. .l11 disCrepancie. shall be examined and corrected within 30 day. ot receipt. If the items take
longer, a Plan ot Action will be subaitte4. VIII. Traininq ot tnSect;On
The inspecting otticers doing weekly inspections for the institution .ball be knowledgeable in sanitation and satety practice.. In~itutional inspectors sball be knowledgeable of daily sanitation and safety needs. '!'be Virgin Islands Heal:th Department wUl conduct training s •••ions for these officerw and for the institutional Coordinator of Sanitation•
•

AREA INSPECCaTseE:D3::_9_4-_c_v-_0_0078_-C_VG_-R_M_D_oc_um_en,AtR#E:A80S5U-2POF··-ilTeSd:O0R3:/_ 24/_15_P_ag_e 5_4 _of 9_8OATE:_ DATE INSPECTED: _______________________FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW: _________ INSPECTED BY: ______________________~_DATE REVIEWED: __· ____________________

CIRCLE APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION: S-Satistactory O-Unsatistactory N/A-Not applicable

1. GROUNDS (Exterior)

S U N/A] 7. ELECTRICAL

S U NjA.

Free ot debris, grass area.

]Groundinq ot equipment, exposed wirinq

sport equipment, cO.ndition 01'

]covered. Condition ot junction boxes,

sidewalks, .tairs, and walla.

]awitche., and ~ittings. Power cord not

-2-.--B~U~I~LD~I~N~G~S~(I~n-t-e-r~i~0-r~)-----S~~U~~N~/~A}]_tr_a_y_e~ d.~~ Gu~ ar~ din~g ~ ot~e~ qu~ ipm__e_n_t.~~~~

Floors, wall., ceilings, and stairs . 18. PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT . , S U N/A

clean, repaired. Windows· washed and ]Eye and face protection. Gloves

repaired. Control tlammabl.., toxiea, ]available. Noise protection.

·caustics. containers properly labele4]____~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~___

____~~~__--------------~~~~~.19. FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS

3. ROOKS

' . S U KIA].

S U N/A

Clean, in qood condition, beda mada, ]Proper and .at_ storage and dispensing•

. proper bedding, and mattre.s. t;:oVera. ]Mequat. ventilation in storage and

. ventilation clear and open. . Wasta lwhen dispenaing liquids. Grounding ot

control: Food and snaclca in rooa

lcontainars with 1'lammable and

approved and contl:ollad.· MinimUJI o~ ]combua1:ible materials.

t_ lam_m_ab_ le _ ma_te...r...i..a....l.-._ . _ _ _........_ _ _ _)]_1_0-. -~FI~ll~B'~SA~F~E-T-Y----------S-·--U-~N~/A~

, • SHOWER FACILITIES

S U K/Al rira protection. equipment: extinquisher

~loors, wall., and ceilings clean and )reqularly cheeked, evacuation plan up to

in good condition. Shower operatiJlg. ]data# first- aid equipment, tire hoses,

. .

.

--.

]haat and smoka detectors, emergency

5. ·TOILET FACILITIES

S U KIA) lights.

Soap, towel., and covered wa.te ba.ket)____~~~~------------__----__~~~

provided. Facilitie. clean and· in ]11. RE!'tJSB

S U NjA

good condition. Toilet operating. lAdequate amount 01' containers

.

.

]availabla, con~eniently located,

C6.lotHhYinGgIENcEleaned, properly stoS raUd, N/A1l_cl_e_a_n_e_c1__r_e_q_u__la_r_t_y_.______________________

and in good condition. Bedding clean.l12. FOOD SERVICE

S U N/A

-.

]Proper tood temperature maintained.

lSarving are., equipment, and utensils

lelean. cross contamination prevented.

lFOod handlers hair restraint, tree ot·

linteetions or respiratory illnesses.

1 INSPECTOR'S EXPLAN~TIONS:

AREA SUPERVISOR'S COMMENTS:

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 55 of 98 APPENDIX B
•

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 56 of 98
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
-0-
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NATURAL ReSOURces
NISICY SHOPPING CENTER SUITI[4S
CHARLOTTE AMAUE. ST. THOMAS. V.I. 00e02
September 27, 1994
Mr. Alcedos Lettsome Chief, ~ureau of Corrections Alexander A. Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex St. Thomas, VI 00802
Dear Mr. Lettsome:
In accordance with the Virgin Islands Rules and Regulations, Title 19, Chapter 51, Subsection 1303, the Alexander A. Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex is classified as a community public water system (CPWS) because it has at least fifteen (15) service connections' and/or regularly serves at least twenty-five (25) persons year round. Furthermore, the facility uses water from a cistern that is supplied by two (2) sources, roof catchment and the ~I Water and Power Authority (WAPA). Because these sources are mixed in the cistern, the facility cannot be considered part .·of WAPA's public water system. As a CPWS, you are required to provide for the routine monito~iug of your drinking water quality as dictated by the Virgin Islands Safe Drinking Water Rules and Regulations and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Amendments.
The Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR's) records indicate that up to the present date your public water system has not complied with any of the drinking water monitoring requirements of either the Federal or the Virgin Islands Safe Drinking Water Act.
You are hea.rby notitied to immediately come into compliance with all of the Rules and Regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The following is a summary ·ot what is required:
1) Routine monthly monitoring of Total/Fecal Coli forms under §1303-41 of the VI Rules and Regulations.
2) Routine daily turbidity sampling under §1303-42 of the VI

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 57 of 98
Alcedos Lettsome RE: Alexander A. Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex September 27, 1994 Page 2
Rules and Regulations.
3) Lead and Copper sampling under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Ch. 1 Subpart I: The initial monitoring period tor sampling for your system began on July 1, 1993. You are required to sample at least ten (10) sites within your system during the initiql compliance period (six (6) months). A second set of ten (10) samples will be required in the subsequent sampling period (subsequent six (6) months). Future sampl ing frequency' wi,ll be based on the results of the first two (2) rounds of sampling.
4) Inorganic contaminant sampling in accordance w'ith §1303-43 of the VI Rules and Requlations and 40 CFR Ch. 1 Subpart C 5141.23. You are required to sample annually for all inorganic contaminants listed in 51303-21 at the entry point to your distribution system in the compliance period that began·on January 1, 1993 and ends on December 31, 1995. The five (5) inorganic contaminants promulgated under the Phase'· V Rule (antimony, beryllium, cyanide, nickel, and thallium)' have to be sampled annually between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1998. Repeat monitoring requirements depend on the analytical results of the first round ot sampling.
S) Volatile Organic Contaminant (VOC) sampling in accordance to 51303-44C of the VI Rules and Requlations for eight (8) contaminants (Phase I Rule) listed in §1303-28 should have been completed in the initial compliance period beginning on January 1, 1991. This sampling must be conducted at the point ot entry to the distribution system every three (3) months tor one (1) year. Frequency ot subsequent sampling will be determined by DPNR based on these initial results. 'In accordance to 40 CFR Ch 1. Subpart C 5141.24, sampling for an additional ten (10) contaminants listed in §141.61(a) (9)-(18) (Phase II Rule) must be completed by December 31, 1995, and sampling for an additional three (3) contaminants listed in §141.61(a) (19)-(21) (Phase V Rule) must be completed December 31, 1998. Initial sampling for these VOCs must occur in tour (4) consecutive quarters for one (1) year. The results ot this sampling will determine the frequency ot future sampling.
6) Regulated SynthetiC Organic Contaminant (SOC) sampling in accordance with 40 CFR. Chap 1 §141.24 must be completed by December 31, 1995 for 18 SOCs listed in §141.61(c) (1)(18) (Phase II Rule) and by December 31, 1998 for an
". ..

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 58 of 98
Alcedcs Lettsome RE: Alexander A. Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex September 27, 1994 Page 3

additional 15 SOCs listed in §141.61(c) (19)-(33) (Phase V
Rule). The sampling must occur in four (4) consecutive quarters during the initial year of sampling. Future sampling frequency will be based on the results of this
initial. round of sampling.

7) Unregulated Vocs and SOCs mu~t be sampled in accordance with

40 CFR Ch. 1 Subpart E 5141.40. Sampling should be

performed quarterly for the period of one (1) year every

five (5) years.

.

7) Radionuclide sampling in accordance to 51303-45 and §1303-46 of the VI Rules and Regulations. Quarterly samples must be taken during tha initial year of sampling. Compliance will
be based on a composite of this quarterly sampling. Future monitoring will occur once every four (4) years unless otherwise determined by DPNR.

8) Daily chlorine residual samplinq is recommended by DPNR for·· all CPWS.

Enclosed is a copy of the Virqin Islands Drinking Water Regulations to assist you in this task. A copy of the Code of Fede~al Regulations (40 erR) is available for your review at the ,DPNR office at Suite 231, Nisky Center, St. Tho~s. Failure to ·~nitiate monitorinq tor Total Colitorma under and turbidity under
within thirty (30) days of this letter will result in future ··enforcement actions trom DPNR.. Failure to initiate lead and copper sampling within torty-five (45) days of this letter will result in future enforcement actions by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Sampling of inorganics and organics
that should have occurred prior to 1995 must b~ completed within sixty' (60) days ot this letter. Enforcement actions may include the imposition ot tines up to $5,000 per day for each day you
continue to be in violation.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 59 of 98
Alcedos Lettsome RE: Alexander A. Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex September 27, 1994 Page 4
If you have any questions, please call Ira Hobson of my staff at
774-3320.
Sincerely yOU~~!

{-,Benjamin I. Nazario Director, DEP

Enclosure

cc: Honorable Rosalie Ballantine, Attorney General

Honorable Anthon Christian, Police Commissioner

Honorable Verne Hodge,

Presiding Territorial Court

Judge

Mr. Steve Monsanto,

Director of Operations

Department of Justice

Mrs. Alda Garfield,

Deputy Commissioner of Police.···

,""

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 60 of 98

APPENDIX C

.....

\ Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 61 of 98

I

" .

\

EMERGENCY PLAN

:;.. •. ~ =.. " .:.-

PURPOSE

To describe institution fire procedures, identity equipment

available, and to require monitoring ot both tire prevention procedures and emerqency equipaant. To describe the emergency plans for bomb threats and riots •

. -
GENERAL .-:.' .. '

Inmates, employees, and visitors are provided with a ute

environment through the ettective use of fire aafety procedures

~. ,<,:;•.:' .~; ..4 and equipment. The moat important aspect ot an effective tire

. ......

. protection plan ia tire prevention. Correctional employees

.: -'~"l;;"""':- . cC?nstantly .hall be coqnizant of fire hazards such aa altered

:,'- ~~·~~~.'r.,.
~.t;~~;~~:.-.. ;;:¥.t~-:.,~ I·i1-.~;:~ ~'"

outlet:s, overloaded electrical units, expendec:l tire extinquishers, and improper truh storage. An institutional fire cannot only cause tremendous financial los., but also threaten live. wben the tire occurs in • hOWling unit. It is essential .

r"':~~ therefore that' all employee. lIBke tire prevention a ba.ic part, of

~~: ~ ...",.-" . :.

their daily' activiti...

.

. .. ,

All;" employ••s shall' b. attentive to maintaining good bousekeepiJ;aq·· .. -.

~ -':t:r.:-::.··,. {:
.' ~;~~~r':·t~.·
t·- .'
$~:~"~~..~~ :-.: .
~.l~';!;~ .:. ~ "
~. :.;~\"";.c;"'"
•:","£'.t.'""t.~~"':"~:".:'..
. '

sta...n....-d..a. rds to auqment tire safety. This ahall include:

. A. Proper atorage of coabuatible materials

..~. B. Preventing hazardoWi electrical .ituationa'

" ..:..•...:..:..;. Dc."
. ·;:-7:-i··:··..p.·, 2.••

Participating in tire drills Instructing inmate. in fire satety procedures Reporting tire hazards to the Safety Officer

::: F • Checking tire control equipment re~larly.

.

PROgOQBES

. .--

.
~

.~."..'........., .

I. :':'" Fire Prevention and Safety

.' .

. A. The following will b. required at the facility:

1. Specitications tor the .election and purchase ot furnishings to indicate the minimum acceptable
requirements tor tire and satety performance ot
materials

2. Non-combustible receptacles for smoking materials readily accessible in living quarters and throughout the institution

)

All exits distinctly and permanently marked,

. ~ ... -

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 62 of 98

-~-

'--
'. -. ," '.
-"- . ~.: ..

continuously visible and kept clear and maintained in usable condition 4. An emergency generator maintained to provide essential lights, power, and communication during ". - : emergencies." The power generator shall" be tested - - - at least every two (2) we.ks and other emergency equipment shall be tested at least once each quarter"

a..", ....
.. •... ~ -, I
t ',.:'" 0' _

~:..:;;-;.~:~.;,:..
.' -,....... '"
'r.;.1-.1..,,·..:.•ki·~':':;'· .
~~-~~~::;:':."

. ~ .:-.~) .~

· ..

. ' ~ _~r II. ..

....

.~

.":""~:...:.~ ,.
,' ,:,.. ~

..

-. ..:. • eo ..,

J.
~

.:-"'::-'":"1'.-" .

~• ....I :i'f .........

~. -:.;..-;!>.....:.~..

;. ~.,-" ....... -:a'
........ ?

5. All personnel aball be trained in the operation ot

_. written emergency plans prior to entry on duty• .

:;;- • ~;·':'t~~:Employe • ahall review said emergency plans on a

\. yearly basi.. -

."

'.'

... .
B.

~~~~i~'Pl~t~~~~ial/Equipment Requi~~~~~

•.:..:.!:_

.

_ .•''':of,:

..

.,....

.........

.

.,..' __ .:. ".: . 1. ;;.. Furnishing': VS. ot· tumiture with. polyurethane

-...
.: -:

__1.:-
.... ,,"

. __
"

..:.!:::::!:. ~ paddiDq a
... ':...::::I.. -~ pzo&&"".II..Ii.I.J..

nd cu
it.-w~ .

b

icle
Hov

divi
ever,

dWeW-r1-s.A~&o..t.w.. p-. "lYiVt~u~·r.~.p' Ja;n:-d.·p.l.a. .s.1:ic

.

.':::~:~' cubicle dividers clad with laminate meetinq Class

.- .. " .:.~.~

.. '~"',:",:" A
... .. "
--'":.-::-

interior

a. rioor

tinish ratinq i. acceptable. Coverings: ~keep and excessive

".' '. we~

. ".

are prime consieSeration. in evaluating type and choice ot tloor coverinq. However, all

.' ~-.

carpetinq and resilient carpetinq must meet Cla•• 8 ratinq•

. ~~a..:-.".,.

curt,ins. Drapt•• ,nd blinds: All curtains,

drape., and adjustable blinds shall be ot

.. '",

. Claa. A ratiDg'.

at : .0,,0"

•..;. •.••

2 ::.,.. Exits:' All livinq units shali"bave

least two

:i~~(2) exits positioned no more than 100 teet to

-':":' satety•. No dead end shall be longer than titty

....:. (50) teet.

a. All exits are to display exit signs. Diagrams ot exit routes must be displayed on unit bulletin boards or walls • .
b. No living quarter.doors shall have more than one (1) lock: it shall be ot the prison-type locking device_

3. ~Emergency Lighting: All housinc; units shall have

emergency lighting trom the emergency generator to

)

provide sutficient illumination to eqress areas during emergencies.

~ -' -

.". ,',

-. ... ...
-' ....;;

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 63 of 98
-3)
4. Extinauishers: Fire extinguishers will be placed throughout the institution. Extinguishers shall be conspicuously located and mounted where they are readily availabla. Extinguishers shall not be obstructed or obscured trom view. Portable extinguishers shall be maintained in a tully charged and operable condition, and storad in the designated place when not being used. Maintenance shall be performed as tollows:

Ali extinguishers will be checltad monthlv . according to the Preventive xaintenanca schedule.

!*'-: ..... #" •• : ••••
..,: ...•...

All extinguishers out ot date, which is yearly, . will, be removed and raplacae! with a current
extinguisher. '!'be out 'ot date extinguisher will

~';;;":i~~~;;:'
.. ;~~t~·~ ..

'~.' be replenished it needed and hydrostatically
";/~:<"::'..•. !:~tYO:~t?ec:U ot ga.uq.. will be made by

..."::" ."~'. :-~~~5~~1I'::;'cy ~I huqency ~--'r. marked as

. .'~~ij,~ti~:~:'

.-: :.j:1~ ~'•. ' 'emergency by. Oft institutiorial. .tatt key rings in

...... ;.:......... ~~~_;.,... :: ...~~ o~~ .to be able ~ .unlOC$. ~ancy doone

.

-;

"".l .. :.:.~.:'"
;.~~.~.:;

..-_..,'--''.. :~~.~•..~>.....

bergency Control.

key ring. are located at. Central Th... ring. contain the nec...ary

key•

. )

.:~:_.>....

:". to' open up ~ency door. within the

. ..-...~.~~.._•,.~.;.... .

....~.~.:" .. ~~tution.;.~

.cr.

~

.' . . .

• ..::.,.. • •

-to

c. ..~. J:iiSpe~.toiia

.~ ". :

<":.... . "':':~ ::

. .

.

• 1.of'~·:·' The' vuvin :r.landa Fir. Protection .ervice will

'.;l'.,?,,~~'~"'inspaCt th•...iu1:itution y.arly in order to ,..~.."..~-; ·d.tarain. ccnaplianca with fire and .atety code•• . . ...~~- .. Ali'" ilup.ct:iOD report will be subm1tted to the

_.... . . .' ~

~."

~~~;~..;...

..t::.--.:.;- .

Warden, who 1D turn will correqt any deticiencies

found by the Inspector. The response by the

.,; .- _:. Warden. shall be .ant back to the Inspector with·in

thirty
. ..~::..

(30)

'.d. ay.

atter

receiving

such

a report• .

..

.... . ':

2 • The inseitutional Satety otticer will conduct

inspections of the institution at least monthly.

A report of h!s/ber tindings will be submitted to

the Warden.

'!'h. Warden will send out the report to the

respective areas that are mentioned on the report.

Each area supervisor will have two (2) ~eeks froQ

the receipt ot the report to respond back to ~~e

Warden about what will be done to correct any

deticiencies.

.

)

3. There will be weekly safety checks by selected

..institutional staft. They will submit a weekly

.-.'" .

, "

. .

. . '

' .

•..:-';:"~~".. '

..... -,:",

. ~": .

":-:' . ~ ) -
. ~~. . ~.- .•.. :
.-; :::!'.~~. ;¥:~~ -'~.,

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed:l03/24/15 Page 64 of 98
\
-4-
report to the Warden for his review. Any discrepancies will be sent back to the appropriate work/unit supervisors so that they may take steps to alleviate any problems. - -.

;., ... .:...- "":"'= :.

.--"._' ...-.:........... -.:_,'..

. _-

... . '::-~'.':., .;. ..' ti .....,

. ,. . ..

. ~q~:t.··::·~·~:·~~····

.'';-.''!'-- .••.
.... --, .
-.-:. .

4. The Virgin Islands Fire Protection service will train institutional staff to do the required
weekly and monthly inspections.

-' D•

Fire

Dri11a and
-

E.,v
.

a-.c.

u

a

t

i

o

n

1 • Institutional' PhilosopJri: ~PreseJ:Vati_on ot inmate,

public, and atatt lite ~ the moat important

elements of the fire prevention and evacuation

plaJI~ "The atatt'. firat reaponsibility in cases

ot._fire i. to get everyone evacuated to satety.

It the tire ia ot auch a na1;ure that a staft

,:: member can bandle it by extinguishers, then the

.- -'-" -.ploya. .bould bandle it. _ It will be a staft

':.~:; '-'- _ember'. judgaent call. Xt 'the-"~ir. is of suc:h a

nature that be doe. not know wbat to do, evacuate
;:;,,~~.-,,:,:.., the, ar_ and' let trained fire figbter. from the.

: "i~..Department handle it. statf are not expeCted

, " to be' hero. ., but they are expected to follow' the

---'-'-- evacuation procaclure. properly•

, .".- . . , ......

.

- 2. - lira Pri111: Fire drill. ahall be conducted

:: -, ' - quarterly at the direction of the Safety Ofticer.

- The Vadan ahall be intormed of a pending

,. . ..... announcement of a. tire drill •

.-.' ..- .

.~.n7:

.

-.~~"~:'.,~~

a~:::',i·..~ eFaicrhe

drill. aha1l quarter.

be

conducted :

at

least

once

.'- ~

b. ~'Tbe safety otticer shall schedule the drills

.: - and notity the Warden ot the schedul inC].

Prior notitication ot the drill shall be

limited so as to increase drill

, ettectiveness •

c. The Safety Officer shall monitor the drill and report to the Warden in writing.

d. Inmate. shall be evacuated trom their housing ~~its and work areas according to the posted
evacuation maps.

e. An Officer will be dispatched to the parking

lot in order to otter possible assistance to

)-

the Fire Department personnel and appara-tus.

--- ..............-... - . -.

..

\ Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 65 of 98
-5-

-. .... ...~ .,.~~. :
.....

f. The yard officer shall report to the Control center in order to issue keys and/or equipment as needed•
" '.
q. Traffic through the entrance and gates shall -be cleared immed~at.ly to facilitate fire apparatus access •.. _.::

'.: .

.. -..:.-.

.

.
"

.;--~'::~......,-: :'..~ .....

- ' .•. ~~ ....

. ' ... ; ...~~~~.~.:.. :;.--

;·"~;7~··-

. -

:.:.f.~"):.;_.~. : _·.1~.7 _
.. '"'-f~"'~6·1"'1;'1·~J~:""~.. '•
-_-. -.....

h. When the all claar signal is determined by

the Safety Officer, iJulediately following the

~ire drill, a unit count shall be conducted

i~ ordend by the Warden. -.

.. .....

•.. !~:."'; ...

i. The drill shall not be complete until all

inmat. . and stat~ a.signed to the area are

identitied.

.. :~ ...

•

j. Whan count is claar, all personnel and

.. inmates shall retum to their regularly

assigneet ar.... ..

.. !;J . ' .

. ~~ .. 0·..

.~. .

•

Enqyation In.truction.1 Evacuation instruction.

tor each individual work area and housing unita' .

are on the.posteet evacuation aaps that are posted

TIi. in eacb area.

_ .

4. security:

possibility ot an e.cape attempt i.

increased during a drill OJ:' an emergency.

Theretore, the ot~icer in cbarqe must insure that

a sufticient number ot .ecurity staft are postad

on the perimeter ~enca during- an .erqancy or .

drill especially when inmates·are being evacuated

~r01ll their unita. The ottice.,in charge shall

activate a roving patrol that ahall monitor the

institution perimeter a. well a. repel possible .

inter~erance by out.id~ spectators.

E. Emerqan~ Fire Procedures anel General Instructions

1." Notify the Control Room immediately by radio, telephone or by pulling the tire alarm station nearest the emergency it one is available.

I~ possible, call the Control Room to report the tire emergency with eXA;tdescription ot the situation includinq location of fira, size ot fire
and smoke color.

Smoke color indicates thetollowing:
)
a. yellOW: Indicative ot toxic gases, evacuate
immediately. po NOT attempt to extinquish"

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 66 of 98

-6-

. .
b. grey brown wisps: Indicative ot·tlashover. STAY CLEAR •. Evacuate immediately.

c. grey black: . Indicative ot primary stage . tire. Extinguish it possible AFTER.immediate
area is evacuated. DO NOT attempt to
extinguish in thick smoke.

2. Do not disturb the tira sit.. "

.. -.-
..:..:~ - ~! ." . :~

: -: ...

zt . .erqe"n. cy extingu. ishin'g equipment is used, us. e ' .
sbort blast. at the t1ame base. Do not disturb

the powder by prodding br tanning. Use.additiona1

extinguishing powders it necessary.

J ...•

-

.

. ... .... :~:d.:;..,.:.-~-- lt:~.:.·

:~3.:c.-'

...

TUrn o~~ all
; .' . . : .... -:."

el

ect
:-

r

i-c.;a. l~

:

switc
'..

h

es
.

•:;-~.

.

J.~:~.t;.~ ·~-!"=-:,-;;~·;~i~:.:..:.:· ~.}~;. ~los. all windows and doors. :.";-r. ::r..i/;~· :-:- .

: .--..•-.

."

""'-J'"

.' -""

-

•

.

.

"." ..;:, ""~.::~~~: .::S~:l.~:';.·_ ~~.:~.' Protect the tire scene until an i~vestigation can

_=::: .. ';;'~'~,I;_:;::.•. :;._, ...~~r~l.'". ~•••

be conducted. 'l'he institution investigator o~·· "."

. ' . ' : , ; ' " '.:.

. designee shall be in attendance during the

)-" .....
. . -, ~",

investigat~on. The Virgin I.1and. Fire Protection

service shall be provided an institutional tire

. :':'-'

0'- report within twenty-tour (24) bours attar the

• •.·.r..

• .. ---.

:!~

~ ....~ . .. ~ .... ..

.·a-::-~:..:."..,-;.;.:...,•'...-
:./....:-. -:-.... .:..

._'.': F.

.' .. . .:

.,~

- .......... 'I
.. .... .. ,'. ;:.
:;..: ".;

Fir. Related Dutie. tor control Center-

"'-r:

,,:':'

~ .• : .......... -

'''-'~''''.

When noti~iad ot a tire, by a panel alarm or through

another type o~ communication, the Control Canter

ofticer .hall initiate the ~ollowi~~procedure:

1:' :Immediately call the Pire Department throuqh the
local emergency number providing all available tire related information and the exact location of the tire

2.- Notify the affected areas, it necessary, to begin evacuation procedures. This notitication shall consist ot either telephonic instructions to the supervisor, when possible, or instructions via the radio.

J. Advise all radio units of the emergency situation,

directinq available personnel to proceed to the

affected area, and alertinq the outside perimeter

posts to maintain high security levels.

)

_ - 4.

Begin

notification

ot

personnel

on

the

emergency ...

..

..

-- -.
. :-" .. '''''.,
.-

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 67 of 98

-7-

notification roster, i.e., Warden, Assistant Warden, etc.

5. Alert the Medical Department personnel if on site.

6. Maintain an accurate record of notifications of and times pertaining to the emergency.

7. Make all emergency keys in the key cabinet available to appropriate .taff immediately upon notification of the emergency.

G. Fire Related Duties ot Physical Plant staff and Medical Staff

1. Maintenance personnel shall b. notified and placed on standby alert in order tp perform any necessary emergency r.pair work. .

2. Medical personn.l shall b. placed on standby alert in order to treat posaible injuries.

. H. Authority and Responsibility During a Pir•

)

1. During a fire emergency the highest ranking officer on duty aball have absolute and total

authority for deci.ions made affecting the

institution, the emergency, and security of the

premi.... Once the Warden or his/her designee

arrive., command viII be transferred after

briefing.

.

2. Opon the arrival ot the Pire Department, the Senior Pire Ofticer ot th. Fir. Department shall be del.gated sUfficient authority to control and extinguish the fire.

I. Distribution and Posting of Fire Plan

i.

1. A copy of the floor plan showing exit routes shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each area of the institution. The floor plan shall have directional arrows that reflect the exits and escape routes, the location of the fire extinquisher, and emergency equipment.

2. ·The institution's Safety Officer will ensure that . these floor plans and instructions are up-to-date and accurate.

)

J. Fire Plan Review

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 68 of 98
-8-

This plan is t9::.be certified by the ..Virgin Island Fire

Protection Service. It is to be reviewed annually and

updated, it necessary, by the Warden. It it is updated

it will be reissued to the Virgin Island Pro~ection

Service. II. Bomb Threats

--- .. ..

...- .' - ". ~.. .... -"- ...

The.procedures to be tollowed in the event at a bomb (scare)

threat are tairly basic and the most important action is

evacuation without causing a panic which could result in damage

to personnel and property.

.. A.

~e~1~9·with th.-~lier

.... .. - . ~:.

1. once the threat has been received, try to keep the

caller on the line by askinq questions which miqht

help to est~liah whether the call is genuine or a

crank gall.

.

zu-ple: 1. Where i . the bomb placed?

.2 _ .-...._ _ .°.
0

2. When ill ~t .et to qo off?

)

3. Why did you place the bomb?

4. What doe. it look like?

5. Who ara you? (attempt to identity caller)

2. Listen for backqround noi... on the phone which
might qive a.clue to the locat..i..o. n of the callar •
3. Notify the proper Bureau of Correction personnel, starting with the Warden.

B. Evacuatiori/Immediata Action Plan

1. P.rsons in the area will be evacuated silXlilar to the fire evacuation plan, moving to the satest zone while maintaining custody and control and avoiding panic.

2. Due to the fact that any otticer or other statt

personnel who works in a qiven area should be

. tamiliar with the area and can readily identity

any object that is untamiliar or does not belonq

thera, each person should search his own area and

)

anyone not associated with the search should be evacuated trom the area.

•

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 69 of 98

-9-

3. Most ·Time Bombs· are activated by the use of an alarm clock, thus searchers should listen for a ticking sound. .

4. In the event that a foreign object is located which resembles an explosive device the searcher should:

a. DO NOT TOUCH, make sure the area has been evacuated and call for the proper authority or the Explosive Device Technician.

b. Zf the object is questionable a.g., briefcase, purse, ~x, atc., try to ascertain who might have l.eft it where it was found. Zf no one identifies tha object, have it checked out. Remtul))er, it is better to be slow but sure, than hasty and sorry.

!S. After the area has been cleared as safe, a head count of inmates should be made, especially if a false alarm was declared. The threat might have been made to divert attention to cover an esca~.

III. Riots/Diaturbance.

A. Preventive steps

~ riot is any concerted act of five or more inmates that i. desiqned to cause p~operty damage or personal injury. The following procedur. . can help to detect, prevent or control such- acta:

1. constant alertness by staft pe~sonnel for the introduction ot contraband which may be used as weapons or tools for escap.s.

2. Caretul observation for possible weakness in, or tampering with security facilities ~ gates, windows, locks, bars, vents, etc.

3. Regular shakedowns for tha detection of contraband.

4. Frequent counts to ~aintain accountability of all prisoners at all times.

5. -Frequent review of riot control procedures and regular training of riot control teams.

)

6. Frequent check of emergency communications

and emergency equipment.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 70 of 98

.

.

B. Indicators ot Impending Riots

1. An unusual accumulation ot commissary products (edible) and tobacco stored in housing units.

2. Large amounts ot weapons and other dangerous

contraband necessitating more trequent

shakedowns.

-

.

3. Segregation ot larqe qroups ot prisoners engaged

_. in secret conversationa • . . •.. :-:.~

4. Increased violations o~in.titutional rules and

requlations.

. 5. Increased number ot ~i9hts within and/or between

groups.

:. -:.. -~ =-~

.6. Obvious amount o~ tool. and- kitchen'utensils .. · being stolen.

7. unusual silence and tansion throughout the .

!nstitution •..

)

8. ·Inmate. refusing to work or carry out orders.

9. Increas. in number o~ complaints or requests for . chang. o~ housing a.signment.

10. .Segregation in-th. dining room with inmates refusinq to eat.

C. Reaction to Danger Signs

1. Notify the Tour Commander o~ indications ot an impendinq riot.

2. Try to interrogate inmates in the area tor possible intormation about the cause ot these signs / or

3. Try to get intormation trom a Trustee or other valid source ot intorwation which may reveal a poeential occurrence.

4. . Investigate complaints and, it tound to be legitimate, take steps to get them settled.

)

5. Immediately report any intormation ot an impending

disturbance to the Tour Commander so that action

i,.- .

can be taken to prevent it trom happening.

i
I

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 71 of 98
-ll-

6. Keep all lines of communication between superior officers and the control room open limiting phone calls to the length absolutely necessary.

D. Responsibilities in the Event of a Riot/Disturbance

1. Warden and Assistant Warden:

a. Responsible for putting emergency plan into effect.

b. Responsible for alertinq all off duty personnel.

2. Supervisors:

a. Durinq 12-8 and 4-12 tours on duty staff will b, responsible for puttinq the emergency plan into effect.

b. Tour Commander will mobilize the staff by:

. '
.
3.

1. summoninq all available peraonnel·t:o the control room area by best c04e or alarm applicable, insurinq that all correction officers on all posts.excep~ entrance
. qat.. and doors will respond •. li. Give instructions, and usistad by
control room officar and/or other riot tea:a personnel, distribute necessary equipment • Control Room Officer:

a. When a disturbance develops in inmate livinq areas which cannot be handled by the personnel on duty in that area, the control room officer will be immediately notified by telephone, messenger, or radio.

b. Will be desiqnated by the Tour Commander to make the following notifications.

i. The Director

ii. Police headquarters by direct (hot line) phone. In the event that telephone communication is impossible, use available radio

-

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 72 of 98 -12-

personnel to request transmittal of message to police headquarters.

iii. Hospital superintendent requesting emergency equipment and personnel be put on standby.

E. Evacuation/Immediate Action Plan

1. The o~~icer who witnesses the start o~ the

disturbance will immediately notify the control

Room O~ficer.

He will

then attempt .:

to
..

::.

-.

a. Lock of~ all doors that might help to isolate the rioters ~rom other prisoners, o~~icers"or visitors.

b. Be will secure hi. area and attempt to remove himsel~ and all non-participants who wish to· be removed troll the area.

c. He will then appraise the Tour Commander ot.·

the situation.

.

" 2.

All .tat~ personnel will be noti~ied by the best a.vailable code or siqnal other than by announcement over the General Paging System.

3. Added s.curity will be posted on the perimeter and in the towers.

4. The ~ollowing areas will be considered ·Key Areas· an4 "shall be properly secured •..,

i. Support Building

ii. Vocational Training Building

iii. Treatment Building

iv. Administrative Building

v. Manhole (Electrical Ducts)

5. Non-participating inmates will be removed to the most secure area available with appropriate supervision. ·All other visitors and non-essential staff personnel should be removed to the outside of the institution.

F. Mobilization of Staff

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 73 of 98
~. The Tour Commander shall summon all available personnel, including those who are oft duty or on pass status.
2. All possible resources tor prompt action in providing maximum protection to lite and property and maintaining security of the institution will be mobiliZed.
3. Riot Control Teams will rendezvous in the desiqnated area. The Riot Control Team will consist ot: a. Eleven (11) officers each squad b. One (1) supervisor, one (1) Senior Correction Otticer each squad.
4. Squad Leaders vill issue necessary equipment and will be responsible tor brietinq ot squads during the course ot action.-
5. One squad will anter the institution trom the control room area and the other through the rear qate-mounted in vehicles. Both will rendezvous by the chapel and by order ot the Squad Leaders will assume the appropriate riot control tormation.
6. The Squad Leaders vill identity the instigator(s) of the riot, determine the necessary tormation and attempt to isolate the leaders/rioters.
7. A(t"er isolatinq the instiqator, and rioters the squads wi11 than secure the area.
8 •. if.be Warden will notify the Fire Department it necessary.
9 • The Director will notity the Governor and request activation ot the National Guard it necessary.
G. Post Riot/Disturbance Procedures "1. Check for and administer first-aid to the injured. Obtain required medical aid. 2. .Conduct head -count of all prisoners. 3. Assess and beqin repair of damages.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 74 of 98 -14-
4. ~l personnel involved wi+l complete a ~eport to the Tour Commander describing injuries, damages and other pertinent "information.
,"

.

" .....

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 75 of 98 APPENDI% C

EMERGENCY KEYS

PURPOSE To require that keys tor exits from inmate living areas are properly marked tor easy identification by touch and can be issued quickly as necessary.

'""""

GENERAL
" This procedure is intended to expe~i"ta.. ~taff and inmata . ."evacuation of locked areas in an emergency.

PROCEDURES

I"_ The emergency keys to open all exit doors from inmate living

area. will ba maintained in the inatitution's-control"cenuer

and will be readily availabla for iswaneaby the control

canter" officer.

.

~_ 0:"::-:-•."::; .. _~..... ,_0. -..r-.

.~._ : •

II. Each housing unit will hava ita own such emergency key rinq containinq its axit door kays. Such kay rings wil~ be . clearly labeled with tag. delineatinq the specific housing unit.

:-;::::iII.':'"Each'of the exit doors in each "housing unit will be clearly designated ,as Door 1, Door 2, Door 3, etc. in a consistent pattarn (e.g. from left to right when facing the unit from inside the compound) which shall be known by all staff.

_. IV. Tbe emergenCY-okays for 1;hese doors shall have one, two, three, etc. notches cut in their bandles'correlating to the number of the door which they fit.
v. A similar pattern of notching the kay handles will be
, employad for the exit door keys carried by the hou.ing unit officers inside the units.

VI. Rings of emergency keys to open all, exit doors for all other buildings in the facility will be readily available for issuance by the control center officer. Such keys shall be clearly labeled.

VII. The emergency keys in the control center will be tested

monthly by the Chief ot Security or his designee. Problems

with worn keys or malfunctioning locks will be reported

immediately and corrected.

'

VIII. A written record of the issuance of all emergency kers ~i!.!. be made by the control center officer.

DAn: OF CFIaRsEe:D3R:9I4U-:c_ v-0_00_ 78-_CV_G-_ RM_ _ Doc_um_eTntnt#E: 8D0R5I-L2L SFTilAeRdT:E0D3:/_ 24_ /15_P_ag_e 7_6 _ of 9_8_
AREA(S) EVACUA.TED:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
/-----------------------------------------------------------
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR SCENARIO OF DIULL::.-..__________________________
-"
EVACUAtION ROUTE USED:_______________________________________
TDi! LAST PERSON LEFT EVACUArAD AlEA:~~==------DIDEMPLCJYEE(S) AND OFFENDERS EVACUATE AREA IN AN ORDElU.Y FASB.ION1
_~ _NO COMMENTS:________~_______________

YEllE ALL DOORS IN EVACtlATED AREA S1l1lTf ~TES _NO COMHENTS:"_ _ _ _ _ _ _~
,'-

tJAS A CHECK HAD! OR COtlNT TAJCEN TO INStJU 1'BA'f ALL EMPLOYEES OR OFFENDERS W'EU

EVACUA.l'ED?

YES _NO ccoomN'l'S:_--:~-----~-----------

. - = , - - - - - - - - TD1! EMPLOYEES AND OFFENDERS ~ TO EVACUAtED AltEA.:____
~:---------------------------------------------------

SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR.(S):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

-
:

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 77 of 98
APPENDIX D .f'I c

-.' . '-- Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM

Docume-n-.1t #: 805-2
, I

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

-." --, INTAKE HIST.O.RY and PHYSICAL. EXAMINATION

Filed: 03/24/15
I
\ \

Page 78 of 98

DAM

o_ DATE:

TIME:

D PM INSTITUTION

H~ you been here before?__ When?---How long d~ you expect to be here?

CT Oat=-e____

QUESTION °

1. HAVE YOU SEEN A ~OCTOR

~. IN THE PAST MONTH?

..

NO IYESI GIVE DETAILS ON POSITIVE R:S?ONSES

2. HAve YOU BEEN IN nfe HOSPITAL REC&lTLYOR HAD AN OPERATION?
3. HAVE YOU BEeN INJUREO REC£NTLY : .~ OR HAVE AN INJURY NOW?

- ---

.. l ...

4. HAvE YOU BEEN TREATED FOR SYPHIUS. .:..'

. I-- ----------- GONORRHEA OR OTHER ------t--f VO?WHEN1WHERE7 o--f

of ~• • •

~ 5.. DO you HAve UeE OR CRABS NOW?

. ---------. ,---.---o--.- .!.:-:-iI- ..
~~;~"'~~~~-

• .. '" :

----~·---._.-~o-,-r--~~

,-:.~, .:~a;t; YOU HAVE ~~:Y OF:, '0:::. o. ". P,!:'~

:.~::~,. '.~~~,:.J~(_;O"!~/':"':~'

°

.

~

. ,.:'

~EH~PYI~I.PEE:P:S:RY:I:STEE~INZ=USIR:OE:SO~N~-----..--:"'!"':-+--1---1

. ,

° ~::.. :.. .

0 ~H:-;:EA~RT~TR..;.;.;;;.O-U-BL.;;.;e~-_ __+_ _+__I

-o.:~.".,

T•B•

-

DIABETES

____- ____ __ ._.
.o.~~

HEPATITIS

~~~----------~~

~

<. :.':.:r ~'~~"FAMILY HISTORY OF HEART DISEASe. :

~:lr.. ;~" ·DIASETESa.T.8. OR OTHER OISEAS&7 . "'.

~g

::t~e TAK~~ YOU

ANY MeOICATJONS1

~i~r

I

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

: 9. ARE YOU ALLERGIC TO ANY MEOICATIONS

';: . OR OTHER SUBSTANCES?·

... '

",0

10. HAVE YOU EVER HAD A SKIN TEST FOR TBl

.,.0 :.!.., WHEN?

.. "" RESULTSl,.

:'0 ,

1t. HAVe YOU BEEN ~EATeo OR HOSPITALIZED

FOR NERVOUS/M ENTAL PROBLEMS?

.,

12. HAVE YOU TRIED TO HURT OR KILL YOUfl.
SELF? THOUGHT OF m EXPLAIN?

13. 00 YOU HAve ANY OTHER HEALTH
. PROBLEMS? OESCRIBe.

1,,-·t0tY0_YISO. UhoUwS, m~uAcLh,ChOoHwOlLonOgRanOdRw.JhGeSn HlaAsSt lu1slJeAd.UW..Ylth?draw!1 t -_ _ _ _ _..F..E...M;.;...A;...L;=-.e;..;.P..;A~lcT :.:.;N:-...:.T..::.S...:::O:.:..:N~L:..!Y_ _ __

DRUGS USED
AIC::Ohol ealt)i wrates

YES

NO

On. of Lm Period: ______________

a Birth Control: !J YH No Typ. _ _ _ _ __

Pregnant Now? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

He!'tlin

Pre9,;anciH:

Children Born Aliv.: _ __

_

M!tl'ladone

Mis.:arriaqes or Abortions: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

-

Ci9ar~ttes

P.lvic or Tub. Infection: _ _ _ Da~!s: ____--.-_

Other

15. AAE YOU'ON,METHACONE ~MAINTENANCE PROGRAM7

o Yes a No ... If Y!s. Ncme of Procrzm

.

- ·"...t

SICNAT1J111£ 0,. ~ISTO"IAN:

... .... .-

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM CODNoScuUmLTenAtT#I:O8~0R5E-2QUFEiSleTd: 03/24/15 Page 79 of 98

INStrrUTION IUU.[OTO
SUBJECTIVE OAT A,

O.O.L
CLINIC/W AAO

E~ERGENCY

LIFlTH"EATENING7

YES 0

U"""cl.te Tr."_rt'

,,_rt> EMUIGENCY (WI",I" 2 ""- T••

YES 0

NO 0
NO 0

TOU" COMMANDE" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ nMI _ _ _ _ __

INDIVIDUAL CALLlNG_ _ _ _ _ _ __

1.."- PHYSIC'AN:

OBJECTIVE DATA:

. ., . •

.. _ r .. -~..,~.:~;;- ...:~

,&,. ... _

~'

'.

ASSESSMENT. I .

I

-',

f'

I

'~" • . . • --~,!'"

~';.::~ '~ ~'i' !:: .

"

-f.*~ ~f"'-~~'~~~ i:'

.,aEQUESTr ., -
: - . . .) ,..,.::;.,'
, 'O,-:.·t," ' ',' 0 "~'+' . • •,~ ., / DAlI ,- "

_ ·~.'~~~~ __________________________________rHOIHf ___________________

CONSULTATION. FINDINGS. AND RECOMMEWOATIONS,

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________ ___

O~'f

~~~~~H

.... ,...... , -",

t
PULSE

= Case:

3:I9m4in-c. v-0o00RIr~7t,8,_-.CalraVr G-RBMP (r

Document #:
ight arm sitting)

805-2

.

.

-- TEMPERAiUFlE (oral)
.

WEIGHT

HEIGHT

Filed: 03• ,/,2,U4"'/L1. 5....CUPIa.yge 80 of 98

"

I

I I t. /

B

VITAL.SIG~S TAI{£N BY:

.

SYSTEM .

NL ~t GIVE DETAILS OF ALL ASNORMAUTIES

-
/

1. GEN£RAt.A"!ARAN~~
%. SKIN AND EXTREMITIES: Ran. Trac!lS. Sun. Laions. Jaundica. Pallet.
~EoemI
"'ratfIt, 1.. HUO TltAUMA: ltUDCrion atIicS "'c-cioft. OIeck £NT • FvnOl. 00 Nevto.

.
•

4. OTHER TAAUMA:
5. eyES lPU"u. CORNu.. CONJUN=nvA.
UDs): O!~!l_ ~ftdI)f .0i1Oftic or ~

. L EHT - DtaflHuMi ImpaJnd

.

7. MOUTH AND TIlTH

.

.

L WNGS AND 'UspnU.TOAY I~""

.

.

L CAADIOV~&.AJIt: INude CMA of

..,....., ~ ""'.. H Hyoen. . . .

10. AICOMIN: OrpnoruvatY.iow.f SouMI.

. Tend."...

11. GAIT

.

12- .AUl'THISS AND ORIIHTATIOH

.

1.2. ~ AND .u,ICT

.

.14 ..ICTAL: • INW,. 40 or wi~ s,mcnatftl

.

15- EXTERNAL GIHITAUA

. .

.604"'" lL 'ELVIC: ClMc:aI. Uttnnl•

.
c:o.
.,

~A ) ,/

i

}

I

~

.

-

.

~~ t .r/\

~

})

~ Lb

17. BREAST ~HAT1OH

"'1"01 'L OTHER: IfIdYCII DftaiIecII oticat if II'ICfIClUd

I, MoO. Indic:ntdl

~Y . .

OHo

.

.

IWAlSSlON - 'LAN - OISPOSITION: Lift tttd N"",Off "'oot."". Oie9f\CNI ana ~KI CIt ProoIem Lift. Write A&hamem,1'ICI "'Ina beta.., inc:IudtntA'..oic.lt1on tttd FoIl_o.

tt Inmat. ~icioa17

:; No-

C Y.. - Netds hvc.hinr1c Aftlmion .

.

" ttl.,. I ~ouibilitV of OruglAICOftot WiUlcrawal7

.

i:: 'r..

!: No

'-"80R.....~Ony 1C.'1KIlI~O'OOfl'u :10:& fOt tcr. p.norm.cl

:3 RPR Rnur:s1

~,.~O Cil. P.raG

:J CXR

. , G.c.

~
~

LFT

-

::.., .... :'" .~'.'. ) . ! -

-:-0 UA

;n,." I nOllrntOlt

-~ MC7
" " .....
... ....;

--.. "REG.

. fum,,,,.,

-~ on-lE"

fOr,nt Name

.

. i
:'tI,7"~r
="'"45
=·.4~~C

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 81 of 98
APPENDIX E

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 82 of 98

II ;~J.111"-1"llfii~rI·-l·I1-·iIJ·Illl~jJJ;i I8'!~ i'l i~fa')-.!DI

f t

_
:I

i I ~o~o:~r:.'~1:.-!81:::Rill~H HI .

i

.j!'h~l~!iHlbfifl:fHU!hhHU'hU!Uoll

fun In
IH!! b.

I~i I~ii~
:J!tJIIiQ(
~llr

i
!

HUn
;i1its
rifll!

1fifl!i.lfrii:IJiUi~ijlIIl1fiil,n;:Ul:l.hl·o:·IR1~,-'-r-i1iI1Il

&

! I

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 83 of 98

reootfed AlOS cuee ftOresent I ~ iftCrelM Since I simi'., ~ w-. ~

in '911. Th. inciGenea of AlOS IfftOftt CJntOners It.. bHft reooned .. 1ft"...,

high., tIt.n fftlt 'mont tn. fOr" U.s. DODUlatioft ( , •• 0unft9 ,,... eM iftCtdenee of

.AlOS in me U.S. DODUlltJOn w.. 13.7,* '00.000 1'1'.· 0uIint eM..,... Y'Mt. cr..

..amitIeS I9Ote9ate iftCiGeft!C8 tot ~ COf,.c:DoNt IV......... 7'1 CNM eMf'

"lYe 100.000.' ,,__ lot iltCtiYidull IVltem, tIftgecI from 0 CO s3I. AIIftouOII MOreIftaft " .

eft. stata

rat" III 25. etgM stat'lVse.".. ttaYe,.... ~.,oa. The . . , . , . , . . . lot

'a '* 28 retOOftCIift9 ciCVICOUMY i'" tYttem8 wee

100.000. No...... race. in

cicylcountY iii.. wwe detcnbeO :w NIJ ,. ·•••DM'NIIY ~ ~ of , . .

cwnover of OODUlMioft '''.

.

HfV int.ccioft in CJef"SOftS witI't I~ ftlDetcutoua infeaion IDONN to CI'WMe I ".,.

hl9ft rilll tot dIYetOamMt of 1'1' 'Z-I4'. One rt'MW oI.&IOS caee amoftI"""'" in MIeccecI New Yo" c:omcdonat ~ found 1'1 ift 22 ,.."., 0131• . . . . .willi.

AlOS ''',. Tt'8It8millioft

of 1'1

in

comcdoNt

fadIJd.

ort••,. I

........

,,",til""

for ...

f'» in~ 1M 1ft", . . be. DtO.... fat me ~ iftIO ..... """- . .
,..,..... lICIt .,..,. mote crt." 'lftilNoft iftf'ft" .,. ~ from ..........

YOUftt-Z1.,..,.. ",-tN" riIIl_'" IftCt more tItM 200.000 from ... and fedetII DtfIOM C"" IIf. _ .. tNdIM ...

of iNftewe Oft ,...... il "'1tMfY

~

ift IMfIOM i n " " dun", iftCllCltftOll ;. COMidIrII',

Q8fMA&.~.

.

..

1DOI'ODf'f'" . CoMrot of TI ;. MNmtat In correcitOnat .............. COIf........ In•• 1'17

sIMMd dMip. . 1ft

tr'Iifttd offtCieI fllOlfl...... , . 0........ ,..

"'* lloe prewendoft MCI comrot DI'OIf'IIftift d'I.~ It ~.......... ~ ......
heve • QUaIifIecI ~ 1M to owrMe T....o.. ~ _lIu",a.....

..,..... '"'. . ~ IhOuIct be soecifted 1ft eM oMdItl joet ""~
,.,..... pIIft. The balM 1CdYftf. to be fottOWlO are ~. . . ~ . . II I a

: . . . I •••• rtNtI to icMMIltaOoft Met ~'" 01 .. TI a.e 1ft . . ~ __ or

i,.,... *"." -. -ift8ltaldoft Met idMallcadoft of lit ift'"_ and iliff wN lie I",... .... TI (I.&.

d'IOM wiU'I posidye IIdn . . . Newcae.1IId n. .

DItIGN mwr1M

i_lrilted. IIId tDOrOOri- d'IeIWD¥ betUft.

u.. ~ ,.,.,. to ......"..,.

tnftltftillioft of ~ in"'" ~

,""I"''' t'IOC occur. ~ ~ cruan.... IWY""'" Met fatlll -.y ....1•••

mull be

~,tIt fICUWI COftdUCMI (Q 1M. . . . 0111'1.""."

V'tIMItIdM, IftOuIcIbI...,.... "..,. offIdtII mutt...,. CftIt........." " .

~ ,. ,.••aMMt ~ be carefutty moni.... for ~ 1M dNt

taxi., . . COIftD'. . . 1OOIOOri- COUI"M 01 trUaMM.
""u...,. fa 1m••,,..,.,. co prison otftciiW ,~ tot ~ wMIMf 1M
U'\'tll....... conaiIttMm ac=MU.. are being catMct our

..,comCIf'.... DrIW_. .,.,.,.. c:oc: .n;; ie 1111 iii ,. 1M ~aau'''art • l-ve _ ca.cuIlU•• ~ 1_ ........ 01 c.-

, JI" ..
"l"R cll. . .

ill 1_ - coat aa~laOft' • '00.000. iMttlet wei ~ ft'Offt. _ _

t.u:.

plllaG 5ft me ~.!fte dffte 01 tfte IUIYW - ~ 1,,",_ aaD .II1IR Gf the ~ ..
,.,...,.. TOIO.CIOII. 0.. Oft ftUIftOer of CIMI bY .,.., ,eOOnM are ". ""il.iltl tot !NIl cor.....,.
,.,...". nte IMIftOd uMCI ".., "'"'.......,... tNt ~ IMUIt it Ci _ _ . . . COIf!:cI~ . .

2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 84 of 98

.,....1 ......

,." - c.wt• .-

~

01 ........

n._ i~ Mamcwr ruWCl,dltl r_ (nee multiDl' ~ r.... IftoWd

a..,eratty. be.UMd CO ideftCffV CMrIOftI·inftaed W'ttft tuDetet.1MCiNL

for corremon.t

iMdtutioft.." IN iNn..... , tuoerewltl ~ "lCIion .io """ i~ ia

con. . . . . . ~ ~•• reecdoft of -S mm il COft..d.... ClalitMt ... ~

wftO h~ hlel c:toM , . . . COtttaCI wieft 1ft ift'*=tioua IMtMft and in ~ wfto "-"e

an .0ft0tmIII dI. . rediogtlDlt COMisteftt widt TI , ',J. 1ft addhiOf;. ittfIctM ~

nt.,.,... wftO ,,. i~ tot ."., teNOn mlV SItOW ncae « no reecDoIt co eN

NtMrcuJift _. ""

rubem.aUft SIIfn.f. . relClioft in • C*IOft II:noMt to De

ifttectM oMdI HIV ~ ~ c:ottlidtred I'OIidve if 11'tdutaaon ia at""" flOJ. SJdn r. . . . of iftlft__ 1nd IWf SftOUkI be CII'riect eMit emry 01 Oft em_~

reeoeai'YeIy eZf J. !acft SIIin r. . JItOukI be ICSmiftitCeNd and rMd ." I~

tr'IiIttIct DellCWoMI and I"ICOtWcI in mtft iftdutatiOn in lite ~ IMdI. t'ICIOI'd. All

iftf'I'IaCM and . . " SttouId ~OIC& .." " UtOIe ~ doCUrMI'. . . . 01 •
"C'" prMoua DOIidve rMaioft CO d'I. ru~ r-. . a lit ~ . . . . " . ~ 0I""",*, tIUfItotIfIee /NY dfICIdtI". ttl ftJ I

""* ,..".. d«aft•• wftO .,. uttIl.,., tOiwttIIItt itt tM ~ Mill",. ~ fer ~ 7

~ 1'10...... ptfI'Ii."ott

0. "'. . foI~ "'.."..,. "'. . . . . f.....

. . . . . ",.., aM CUIftW Mt!JItW cIt_ , . . . . . , for MI ...,.. wtto· . . " , . .

""* 1MIOw.' tOI'IfMM 111.201 CSM Coma6ntMM.

'n

correatoNt iftllltUdoN. 1Idn-t_ ~ inm__ and ""_._ . . .

=.,,"ftdInt iltf conCMC wid.t iftmacw sMuId ttev.,..,.. .... r..a • ,... ~ If. ."..,

prwvt0U8 . . . . . . ..,.. TIl

IN 1WiIaDNt. 1M ~ for , . . . ...

. . . . . . . be __""'_ .....Oft m,"'" fardmety ~ iIIfanNdoiI.
'n . ObelrJed MIl of new "'~ iilftaicMl°" ttte molt UMfuIIWIII.... a . . . . .
contIktIr. intdtudonj wiIIt • hlllatlcal¥ row rtU 01 "'.,.,.... in,..... '&to. <o.a of S*"ION wiCft ~ conY. . . . ".".,.t... illCrl'" itt AIOS c:-. or
,.. CMM IftOuICI be 'V.......... ittGlcldnt • ftMd for men ...................

i"aIi...... 11 caW'".... ICIMtI-.
ParIoM ..... ~ .... . - ".IIiON and .. C*'ION witIt I¥rflGIlDIN 1lI11_
int TI C.... cougII. .,..,.., _ _ Joel. ,..,." sftOUIcS recaMt • c:t..- ,........

witNn 72 hOura 01 sldlHM I'IIdInt Of idendflcMlon of I'fIl'tCllOftl& eon.a..llII_

DIf'IOI"Io'" "~

IMuId be ...,. of tft_ oftM IC'tPiCII sipe and .,.,.. ..,. of

'n"," TI in CMtIOftI wiCft HIY i"fec:Doft I.au.

witft ICIftonMI _ _ _a......

I¥"''''' "tve .....,. ....,.. •ndIOt
.a .,....,..

.

.

.

com. . . . .
Sguua Mould

wbetc•ft•!~ l1MUItdot.1

.
fM

I

r

...

.

cu&tunt

_

_

cUIIn
11 ,....

IMQI''''' .,.. _ _ wiCIt OMUIROI" 01 tIrOMhidllY"'DCOIN tn. ,.. CO . . .

'n inld.... oIlftdb6oDe nMI....... ".,.. soec:imene SftOUId be COl..... 1111......
once dIIiI¥ Oft 3 COft••c.ntve 9¥& m. 'DUnCe of~.,.~ of

'Clua_ . . . . ~1CIion in • ptOlMftY venti,. . .,... sttouJct be ..... til obGIIt

'Ite sex. . .. . -n,b...... Itdft.(. . IMf9Y mlV t)e I ,.,IUWIY

"""DIMM lit ctte Pf'OII"

sian tram HIY In___ CO AIOS (12 J:~. in",. . . widllrnoWn Of ~

HIV int.cdoft {1ftducIInt tItoN wictI /tOft"ea:tve tuDereUlift teIIII should ,.....,. •

en.. ~ • paft of inidll tcrMftint. r.1"dIaI 01 n.tOeradIft sJdnot_ . . . .

3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 85 of 98

,...., 1'Z.t_

, . - Col... , .

CaM". . . . .

- Wftene¥er TI ia IUIOeaM Of con"""'" among i",,*- Of ",ff. mia inform.oort

shOuld be i,","~ IftteNd intO me T'I<oncroI rtcOrda • me iMlituIioft anct ..

av-. me h...,.,.. I""'. if in • mula..ttttia.ttioNI

TM JocaI Of stICe "eMft

,.,1Don8. dtCMftIMM IftOuId atao be noD"ed. .. teQUirId by ... and 1OCII',aw8Of

C--""'......... . . . . . . 11 i, lr'II'tIIftifte by me ~ route. ".,..,. • higftM ri8aI Pot

ICQUirinI inNctiOft are "do.. comacIS'" (e.g.. DetMN wtto ...... Itve, WOItII. Of

oUt. . . . 1ft.,. air wieft 1ft infwctioua I*"IOft d'ItOu9ft • eornmDft vend.........""..
wtIeft , ".,.. witIt ..,IMUId Of confI",*, 1'I1OIMItI • be im.caou. (e.g.. hee
SIft"". pu&tnottaIy itNOtvemem on en.. ~ .......... IItdIOI ~ SDUUft dole comtaa mu. be sIdft f..... unttIIlfte¥ nave • dOCUIMftCId ItitecNy 01 • DCMitIYe ~ t..r 'Zf ). cro.e COIIUIaI willi • DOIiIIve tulllralMn ..1=1ft ,. •
hiMIY of , ~ D08idYe r.- 1M ~ IMI'IOMo teprdI_ oIlIIiItoe_

,...,.., IMUldteceive immedfaced'tM~IO _ _ ~oI~

_1ft. T8. '

0ecMIndInI Oft eM ~ in 1ft intdlulloft. dole co..... could lnducIe ..

~ II """--anoalf Oft·, aer. 01111 ~ aM

0UiIcI... ......

deoMIMM .." UtouId be COftIUItM 10 dICenftine wftO aIIOWd be . . . . 'Mt.

.. . . ttltll..,"" COft"'*W are IOUftCt among Ute dOle con.., 0cMr .,.,....... _
'COII1K'I ",., neM • be examiMd. Ivwy tfI'oft Mould be,.,.... bIf "*'~

ftOfitftedlal.."to ....,. eM c:on~ of ~ wiaI T'I.

nw.w. ,.

COM . . . . . . . . . . 1'ftOfttftI' "...M

. ~1.I..I.-..-"t(IINn~ "1_OMtIUbCeI~owTt uIr"-". ,"..".~~•..,

COIialWodl :Ii... (If'.. cro. con_ wfto do nGi nave, ~ IIItll.- ..II"IA

1M wtto .,. ~"'1ftouIcI hewe • ~ tubefaIIIIt r.- 10-"2 _ _ ....

COIIC8a . . . . . . . .

_I Cont8cI8 willi krtowft Of IUICICIN HIV rnfecdoft ..... be cr:N........ , . •
t2-momtr caurw of orwv..id¥e dMnID¥. ~ 01 . . . . . , . . . if ~_ i....ataae ttt.r tM IOUICe ~ ... ~
A pdeMwidt ~ 11,.., ftfte MOIIM 1DUIUftI--- orClUltuta Citr.,
if "**"'Y infecIM. c:ro. corac:m 01 . . . . . . . 1ftOuId ... be ....,.,.... 111 ~
.• 1OUn:e cae and _ _ MWty i n ' " i."".. or 111ft

COHTM• . . "

rill 0'1f

.................. ,. c:onftnMct 11 whO heve DUImOI*Y i~ Oft

ce.. l«IoIr.... CIOUIII. 1ItdIoI. poaiM SDUIUftI lIMIt sIIoukt be ifM'Irillltt

1ft.,.. ~ 1ft '..._" ,..... '..g.. hOuIed In

widI . . . . . wndIadoft 111'"

* Otaldlt"....,. "",.n itt,...1tiOft to IdIICIM II'M& • • ' " four IO"
room.., ........ 'D m., DIf hOun J. It tie ftlClllllV • mew. IIMdeM IO .....

facWty 0I1tN(Ji_ widI • ~ isolldoft facility.
Ft....~ . . . . . 1MWd c:omInue utd pIdInII.,. Oft apotOOI*- d\er'IO¥ anct

• , _ tIItW CORI;iUd¥e daily ~ SOUIUIft ".,.,. indlcMe tftII ,......... ,

~ tM'I be i emowd. No SO«:iIt ~ ate needed tot hItMIIftt

pMiema' ~ booI& laundrY. beddIft9. 01 odW C*IOftII item&.

In~ 01 intemJDted trtMment fat TI eM I. . . . . ~IJiIInt TI and

ttaMmilliOft of ittfecaOft. T1'Ierefote. Itrw ,tflIcdw m~cane h.,. bIQuft, it ia 01

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 86 of 98

.,..,-,.

"' - c.-..,.,
ucmolt imDOt!MCe to "MO m. catiem Oft mldk:atioft undI ~ of mereoy.

COtta""" unt. . tHJM or I'f'"DC0m8 of 1ft Id\i.,... relCDoft 1OOMf'. ~t8 mu. De

- m.ae Wttft eft. huttll ~ tor

medicldOn and foIIowouo ~ 1ft

iNn. . wiCft TI is ,.,..... $imil., .".ft9~ IItOUkI be made ~ _ ,.......

of ;""*- Oft ~ eft.,..".

SecauM CtOWdi"9 Iftd ~ vemiJadoft are c:onduCNe UI cr• .,..••IIR of TI.

imDlOY""ems in hOuIiftO conditiOM cal' hefD ~ outDNII& ....... \lib IVioftt

1i9ftC8 may be "-Iof\aI itt DftIOM wft.,. trartamiuiGft of tubeleatoua irtfecricM .... tMM

MCti"" a DtOOi*" {Z.,. Amtoutft eft••Htcriv.,.... of ulcr~ ,..,. itt dlcttlli", TI

tnMIftf. . . . itt IUc:ft

hat not DMft confIf'IMd ~ tOidefIIiOIOgii S1'IMIie&

~. 'i9ft1a ".,. DMft uNCI to reduce trartamelliOlC 01 11 iti hoIOillit 1M

sMtWl tot me ttom.... fD.Zf). WIt... ~.'i9MI'" utM. prooer i,.....IIIiOft

and mlimtlf'teftCe il ~ fZ4 J.

Tr . . . . . . .

A1'SICOC ....commeftdltloftllltouJd be fotIowM tot tI...... Mid """IM*W fIJI

.,..... ..... COftfIrmed or ...1MCIId TI fZtUl). . . . dOle oI·m.df:eldaR ........

1ft., ~ 1tY. d........ anciHlIY 1ft.... tiItIII DIfWf' .....- - . die ......

....ow the Oif'" nte IftIClicldoft

be gMft tWice ......, c.- INI'OIIt.ee

-"1f'9tIO CftMge ;,..~ .,. 1-2 moncftl of cfa6Iy mlGlc:Mklft flfl To ...... ~

~ if. padIM ia to

before com. . . . OIl ...... die ......

~ IIIOUIcI bi ftodfItcI befOre d'Ht ift1Mt8 il "'111 ••

......on. ,...,.;. widt ooIidw II'M!IN or cutftnI " CIte tI........ fA ...., .........

monilONClltY ,..,.. souaum ......

lor tI'MCn'IeM, ........ uIIIII CM¥ til Dame

tmNroftetlliv& T~ fIiIute ia . . . . , dUe • " . . . . i. . . . . . . . .. . .

CMtIOC.'" dtet8IIY 1M IM¥ _ due to Ute IWtllna 01 ~ 0IIII......

.

. AI CNId. . . mutt be moni. . . ~ CI"IiMd

for ....... 1\Iftf_ _ fIJI

acMfM ,.-dUrtni~ (ZtUI).lxDMrnedIcII .......... ......

....~ .

of,. i"l morthot.' ... IRCftr trMII'ftll'll of ~ wiCft comllf.cld_ C..... AlGI. . . .
,...........,... .......... OI'IQMMY. ftOROUImOftlfYTIJ . . . . . - . . . . ......
"UIII1,.,. Soed8lemott••I.1I'MMd _ ~ Oft eta. 1UOeI\"llan"" CIre

. ,;

,......,...p8demI in'''' W'hft dNg,..,.... orgat.... ,,.,.,.. wiIft 11 ...... _ roudMIty offwred f-'"t widt . . . ._

caw lin.

for HfY in""" The !)r...... of HrY r"tecaon "......... JOft9If ~ for 1'1

and condnuecI dole ObI.N"" tor IdWtIe dfttt retaloN. a....... ,...... ....

" .M..11r.r..m. '.". -.,...,'. . . widt ~ tuDerCutln rNCDoN wfto haw lICIt ~

="a.,.... corrtIMIed . . . . . . COUI'M of D,...... m~ thouIId bit COMIktIrId far

.ptWIJ. . . . . . , . . . , _ _ d'\eN ate IMdic:II

faa). IJJtMt

i".,.... iftdude dtoIe wtto will _ incllClf'. long IftOUgft to comO!• • , _ t

«,... rnondI til candnuoua tMflClY: provisionl sftoukt be made before ....... for tM

" . . . . ~IO 0WtIM com",1Cioft of

emomftI of ~ _ ...

(un'" HIY iftfecIM: 110 tIetOWt,; . HIV..mt~ teIIint tnoWd be offered to aM known tu~ inm..,
Tubeteutln-poli1lYe IMfWQnI widt COf'lCWTlflt HfV infec:doft 'PONt 10 be • .,.,., hiOft

risk tot T8 and have "~h_ priOrity fat pm endYe ttl.,..,." ~ of aoe-llfarta

m.,.py. shoukt be made to tnCOUrage ~ with Itnowft Of SUI~'" HIY int.caoft •
eotnDC_ 1% monUt. of

5

•

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 87 of 98

1Y-c.... d •

.... dow oI."....d. . tI'terIIw should be lCtmift. . . . . 1Pf • ~ ...cillary

..medIcII . . " rMWIOft wtIO wetcft.. !M D«Ient ....... eM ~ Siftce daity IUOef'oo

vi..s ~ ~ ofteft noc feai... CW"=- ,e'.IUDlm.I''''''''' ie .........y

"'.....u ".,...,.,

beiwe twicl " ••Idy i"qnn;ftent ~.,....,. ............... ........

(lNHI tOO "., fa ....... Ihttougft if " .. 1tOI bMft . . . . . . .uaoHld cINaI D'IIIf& M,CIIc8don IhouIct not be.;Mn to 1ft imnac. widIouC . . . ooNrtldoa of c:INt

ing. . . . .

I_ ia,... AI C*'IOM on DNVamtYe tftet"lO¥ tftUII belftOftirored _ trIiNct pedCN_ for

~ aM """.,.. ot ...... re.atonI dUtift9 die .... IrWrMIIIPIriOd la).

Some lIMon .........wiII"eve undlf¥nt IIvtt ~II.''''''''. cnvioUI ...... or

narcacIa ..... fl1-a)' AIthouttt c:t4'onIe II.....

ca"ulildcllfon.

INN DIWY.mtve ~. IUCft PIdema IttOuId be car8fWIy moni.", faL

,..,.,.. for wtIOm TI ~"'ve tMrIO¥ ie f.ammen1ld but wftO ......... . .

g.,.,., uneIN • comDl_ • i lea~ COUIW ...... be counl.M." ...... DI'OmII

medf_ ...... if dIW .,..'. . . . . . """. . . . com_ _ widt 1'1. JItouMe

periocIo c:tt.- ,......,. IN

not U8IfUI far ~JllIIMI II.... itt _

.........a.... of IYfftPllOfl'll: c:tt.. ~......... be 'IIIF*I fat .,.,... . .
1Y. . . . . . . . . . .D.d_.~CGUIft.

."

,

rnrmae ... ftllIfwr... frtQuemty. 11tua. f'ICGfd . . , _ ". ncIIII. 1M III I II

ing.uM . . .ot . . . .wiIft TIn tutMtcuJoue in. . . . in ............ i ..... _

IIlImlll Th... I ¥ _ mull be "'....... .., .... curNIII ~. 011'" Io_~ tNCI'IMC . . . . _ degNe fill, l~ 0 1 _ . . . .~ . . . . .

ICdofI mull be . . . . . . " . rlinldtudoft 01 dNI ~ . . . . ~ . .

(arMY,....... ".. record·..,..... tMukI .... ~ ... .,..... • _

'. the CMfII

."......,,_ oITl<aalGot e«on8. ana _ ~ lnfonNdaIt tnouid be .........

'II'ICM'" • r... wwy 'n"" .......... CQftWf'" 1. T'Ubercuk1u8

and tUbIrcuIIn

~ far ml_""

affwitftln ..... In_III...,

2. e.. numbIrIlftd ~ , . .
IftCM_ ,.... .-w: 3. ~ oIl'I ......eoDII'WMfIl:tN fatlftlt8D¥ wtIO wmDl__ til ...... s-mamft CIIIUIIe 01 dhcIty oDell ..... ..,...." ill ....

_I.. .. ~ 01

willi c:uMInwOOIidve IDUUIt 1Mt ~ • c:uII&ft

"...,. ..... , _ _ 01 . . . . .,..,.. '00II Ie atftb

01.,._...... 1ft...,.... So ......al.

Oft IHH Dl'W'4IMtM

"'111. . . . . . .

tnOI'" dIa.., .......u._'. fill

fa ~

tIonI_"'" • . ,,, mull fNdIudoI. I¥--' d'teM deal IItOUId be c:amtlU•• far IndMduIIlNIIIII~ 0 wtIofe. w;m ,...".. pro~. CCNT. . . . . . . . . . . . ~.otIIaI.'"

ROLl Qlt1Ml HIM.". ~

...... . . " , . , . , IhoWd . . . ~ insdtudone In . . . . . . .

-=- upctadl19 "oUd.. ~ and r-=ord l'Yame for TI camraL The Mea

d~ Mould'" proyide

to IXOM TI ~ CGnIUttMIaft. A . . . .

h " , deQanm_ conaa I*WGft snouicS be d~ to ~ ~

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 88 of 98

Vaal,... ••

IIMI ~em ISliSlane. to eotrKUonlf taciliti... ~ 1ft;' resoonlltli'icy stIOWd

De ... ttemenc in Ute cS"'9""td r.7ert01t', 100 r.7erlormenc.l)lan. nti, reIDOnIIb.llcy

mey requite contidwaole jnmlf onllte COftsuimioft lINt JUOMCIUMt Mmi~

.SIi. _t¥~ lot COrrtCbonal inalinl&:iOn&

HHHft deDatUMm mil SltouJcr

in d~ ~ UI nin ~

--= i~ rtafI t..," to gerforl'ft. read. 1M rICOtd ~ sIIift teIIr. ideftaf¥ tipe

. and """.,.,. of TI: initiate and OOMfYe CftttlOY:' moniCOl fat tide

cotIect

~soecun"": educate inmate.: I'ftlimain r..:orcI..,.."... ...... or con..

done cSeoartmenta mlV wi.,. to 9tMf cnftcaDoft to COtf'ICdoMIfUIIf comDl..... dtie

~

HMtIft cSeoanmems MOUld 1110 ~e COftIUItMjoft fat can. . ~

'DOrOOri_ widrift conecDort" inltift.ttion. and .......

aamiftldOM fat nonMcItCII-

aced c:onrMEI of I*'IOM wieft TI wftO ate icSMtifted in dNeII iMdIudaM.

adell. 'ft

"elM cSeoatImeMIlftOUld COOOItIte wiCft CQlf,ca....... .." 1ft .,.,...

int c:ondftUiIt9 crucmMf for inm__ ret.... wftiJe .ec.Mftt TI ~ or-

eft...,. prfteMMI

"1Ve HeItIft dIDIftmtfID

I ' .......biIICY to en_ _ TI,. . . . . . . . u. . . .

Oft'" mealatll'tfomtelioft

CI.IINM TI CIIII widIift ....., juri'"a.... inau", ~

ift COIrKUonlt iftllilUlioM. It..,. IItOukt .,.'••• 11 •• ~..... nu ... ,

rwfaioM ift ~.. or ~ SftouIG .,. flCOlftlMfl ~I" 1ft IdcIIdoII. .....

d...,anenca IhouIcS Der'.oaledY ..... die i,"~ of c:otnIc:d1Dll i.......a...

"lIVe ...... 11 and IUOIteuIouI u,fec:doft Oft eM ~ ill ....... . . . . . intMtea mey bOCft Tland HfY iftferDIIft. ".... .,.,..,... . . . .

shOukI .... corrtCIkNtaI i~ift.""'a"",'''' ""......... HIV .......

doll JII'OII'M't& SuCtI Df'09IWM include . . . . . . iclellIIfIr ,... . . 01. . . .

It............... to couneat tItOIe iItfcId . . IW.............. _ ilia

~ anMIIIf ,..lnm-.· . .

..

M ~.cttMge, eft... ~ wII be _ a l l _ .....·11 ..

n.., IN ftOI'mwtdld to cbcour8ge MW" II~MM~ falrdl.IIlI'"

TI """endoft MCt coilacM in ~ The tlCOll'NMlidldlll. . . . . . be . . .

'.-

......... i".... CO enfIMCI tfte qu..aty of medical ctr8 fat .,.,... ill oorrecdoIlIII k 1&11a..

Rn'.I1"'" ' ' ICIIU. '1,. ,........ t. Irauft 111M. ,.""". .. ~ ....... 'ucn..' • io d II _ '" a • I I dI ,. • __

CI',U'• • • HIV t-=-=--r. Z. iS..N..d.I.r.OIk......... Me). 1"\6OIIl:UI'ali, ill corrtcllaJl'AllMl iAN-

.IAMA , _

1'.,.1'11 211:.....,.
1 . . . . MII. 1""..,.. . . Mor-.Ot,.M..........I .... ~

'IaI. . . . . . , '. .

ifMIUIl . . . . . . . ~ Nt .,.. . . (~JAMA ,• •, " " "
.'F,_11II:D& .cS.o.,swe..a......Ww~wWT..I~ U"n'••*•-•C"•l'f1ftal"a'..1..1...1,.,...,.'..'.'i'f.fN.itl.D-l.MMaor.ri.Na_ I..a._...'..".1k.1t.7l.'1.:.".fah r _ .:_ ~ .1IftIt.

'wt_t"II"N"M-' ,___ ""I.[ JNM II7'I:t.2IM-1.

7. 1CInIt. ClIIe
.........."' ..

Go ..

1\"11 IUlul. ."',..,.., .

.trG."in..Ir.e.J.A..."nN.et.. .

.

.

ill. JIMA lt77:m:m-a.
I ['I

Corr_,'" ,'lI•ii":'.•..• ,...,. t_ Ie

AlIt -., , ......

. .

..... 0111170:101:701-& TM. , . UodIMc AIOS in

comcDo._

fIciIIDe&

w

..

n

1M

L

DC:

ut 0

I

_

coc:. ' . ' ' ' ' fIt.Mlla NIIIOMt ........ oI.Mace. ,."" ~ ........... HCJ.11S1Z1..

1Go

inwftwIalllfJc:i,nc., 1'f'1d/'OmI ift .....ISott....

01 1M

N. . . . ,,..,. 01 JYIIiCe IN eM .u..1CM

L MMWR

lI:'....

1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 89 of 98

,

.. .

,

I';a ~. 1&11&': II IS ::. .- ~;; ; ~;; ~. .." ; i

nrl!! ifl;. 11~I11!!IR~!'IR!fllfll,'fRil~l!l~ltlt!~~~!(!!tIlI'~!~li~fl~ill~ ,I. t

. 5 I!~~ • ,~¥~ 111 III ~I f.11
..

·allil· ~~1~1

I~~Ir

I
t

II!I

r'I~:'»-

8

II'll)-

d
p-

!

, rI IiI I I III l I I I' !
as

t ~

I, Jd II ~

. .
I

i
1• '-1 0

I

I IgIa

I·

-, I
.:ji

-,

• j

I I

tt l~§l~rIl
< -
:

z ~I.t~
:-~5

~ .

I

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 90 of 98
APPENDIX F

CLINiC FOllOWUP. .1!:3.f.C;i.a.-~s: .e.~-:~-3=::-9.-4:---c:v;,-,0:.0- ~ 0~ 7- 8~ ..-C~- "~V. -r~G' ···-:R..~M~$;;±1.~D.- --o-~·cE- u~m~~ 'e~ n~t #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 91 of 98 I
----------_.--------) APPOINTMENT BOOK
DATE ______
PAGE _ __

N IDENTIFYING

L

0

NUMBER

0

C.

1

2

3
.

NAME

REASON OR DIAGNOSIS

CISPOSITlON

No SUft Show

co ... "'e·,

I

5

e
.
7

•

... !I

.

10

11

12

.

13
,.

.

-,

15
15
17
,.

'9

2:)

.

21

I ~2

I

I:23 '

I

24
....
.o.. !~S
-- -

I I

I

; I I

.

I I

I

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 92 of 98 APPENDIX G
,.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 93 of 98 D!!~ R!~r!S7 SL!?
!)A:Z: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

~"!.:~: ---------------------------------
!CC~ .um C.,!~ :j---------------------------
HOt:S!..~G .t\:..!..\:--------------------------
DA!!:-------------------------D.;':!:---------
DI!'!:
;.i4.:" •• ••. ..;. ....'\ .•. ,
I ~~.~•.,~~••,:~~~.;:: ••••~:.: ....

".
.' .....

- - - - :P~!D
---~LOt: FAT
- - - -LOW SALT. SlECI!"l ~O. or ~
_ _ _ _D.IA!ETIC, SlECIZY NO. OF CJl.ORIES_____
_ _C~(S). (24ec:), _ _ _ _TDf!S A DAY.
_ _ _ _FOOD Ap-I:lCIES:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.....
t
SICXA!'LAI':--_ _ _ _ _ _ _- -

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 94 of 98
APPENDIX H

"
luJO

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 95 of 98
\'.
.; )

-•:-";'.~._17_"!J'~f.;:'::',..4~~-i..~~:-:'£y~!..,,: r, "';',;'.l.?~;~~Jii1

lof NTlF'I'ING NUMOEA

L
o c

NAME

CLINIC LOG BOOK

'cf flu

DIAGNOSIS

DATE

lOUIl
DISPOSITION

PAGE
CLINICIAN

I
:1 J~tJ_tU I I I f l-
I
... Ir-r-I~I~·I-I~·I I I T I~- _I~

t,:..

:1 lUI

. I I~

'qPRH II ···t
'·1 II.' I I!II··I· I ;, " ;, I ,I
" l'III:I:r II J"I :1 :J~HP

. ,

-4,

11-11

-"-<41I

UI~I I'

I I ~
II II· I~ . '.'

I

I I I ·1

I

-II

I,.,
!

,I

' t"
II ,,'

I I I.

, !

"~. IIII

II I I

II···1"I

"I I ,I,

, ,

, ,

I
I

"I I

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 96 of 98 APPENDIX I

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 97 of 98 APPENDIX J

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 805-2 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 98 of 98

.... . .. -- . __ _ ..__.___ -:'::,.:.. .. :"'.... ... BEBAVORIAL . .. • • • • • • •

~ . , . t •.••••- .. :

.;;.-

.

.. ...... . . .

. - ............ :.:

e"':...

CB:!ClI.IST _. ~ _ " _... .

•

." • -

. eo: - - - .

•

e

.. -. ..

.. _

•

. _Li.stei belov aTe' some· of the behavorlal. tTaits that Wl1 indicate a need for

.. - - -- . .

-Men.t.a.l -refe..ual.•-.

(Circle
.: ...

the

appropirate

~te:[s]).

..

1. ShOW'ing raclical c:h&nges in beh&v1or:

2.· Ex?ressing a desire to commit sucic1de and/or attemptfnl suicide; . 3. Plam11J:al to :l.nfl1ct bodily bana, atte:lptiAl or ~ctual.lY carrying ow: :he
act. (This may be expTu~ed verbally or throush vrltteucommunicatio:l); ., 4. tJnable to sleep, particul:uly at night, avakaUng at odd hours of ihe
early1DOrniu, and brood1ng; ..

S. Arrangin, personal. belol1gin,s in order, after habitual disorder;
6. Any .isns indicatin, a trip is. being plaunad, • -I., pacldn, personal

--.......

7.

8. 9. :~.. , :.:.'-:.: '-.',~
10. 11. 12.

belon&!Dgst c!i.aCUS.inl travel'arransu:&nta, etc., 1IJlen·.uch a trip is

Dot feuib1. f

. .

GivinS &Vay'Valued poasusioua. e.I., wearing apparel, booles, pictures,

ci&..rette., cOlllllisS&J:Y,· .tc·.:

CODtinually refusal to lock-out during.lock-out periods;

EidiDl or attemp:t1.D& to h.:1d~. fTOlIl the viev of the correctiOD officer/

ob.enation aide;

.

AppeariDI to .be talkitll to 1I01M0U& vb.u,.m fact, 110 ODe is .present.

frequent c!1spla,.. of .ho1rt1Dg, crying lm4/or .crUllloiug:

.

AttemptiDl to 1DflJ.ct .elf iDj.ay by llanliD, pares· of the body against

the valla or f:lxtu••· f

- .'

. .

.

13. Compb1ninl of l11mUltll. 1l.l.ne•• (••] aDd/or disuse(s) that aTe uou-

'.

ex1s,tiDa;

.

..'

14•. Expresainl a belief thac theTa U& plot•.or plans againsc persoual

..•.•• ·0.

safety: beli.v1DS that .0000OD• ..,pr .everyone ~is vateh1tlg. talldng, &pyinl

'. ;,;.;, ..~ .... '~.. . or "acting a u s p i c i o u s l , . ; ·

.

... -:.,.....

IS. B.av1nghalluc~tiOD./delusi0U8 (.ee.1n, objects or heariag voices tbac

. ., do DOC ¢at); . ' . . . .

. . . . ..

-·'16. 1Jnusual loss of -memory;

' ..••-:-'..

' ~"'

. ,..

17. Shoving poor persoaal bYaieu. or appea.rmc-.e, doesn't shave, vash. or

. :.-." '. chaua. cloches• •tc.; . .

.

.: 18. 'Ex:h1bitiDI atrODI feelinas of gullt;

19. Beins depress.di

- .. -.. _- :--' .:- -:. ~-:-..... - ........ .

20. Canseantl,. fiabtiul Iud arguin. with otber 1nm.ates;

.. :.

21., Bdn" alarmed (frightened). or 1-.n a st~te of panic;

22. MY unusual. action or behavior that sbould be 'brougbt to the attention

of the Hental. Bealth Staff.

e. ,.l, r.

011itlt:

(explairJ) . ------------------------------~~----------~--------

.,

"

t: . :.· ..... \ .':..: .........\:.~ .: :_._: :_._ .~ .

---- .• ; .

..

'.. . .'

. .. . - _.

. SU[ PERVISING

OFFICER'S

ASSESSMENT

AND

. RECO~ATION:
;; -----------~~-;

--------------- -------------------------------.....

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

Supervisor's Na~e"!Shield ,

. ·Da:e:__··_·_ _ _ _ __

R!SPONS! FRO~ ~!AL F.EAL!S Sr.~!C~S ON rirP~ SIDE'
. .

.. , ., .

-- -- .... -.

..-...-:',.:--:..." ' .. ' -

..'. :'.
~ ':

.'

 
 Carty v. Farrelly
PC V 001-009
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

LAWRENCE CARTY, et. al. ,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

"..'

.

•

'<

; ^

vs.

) Civil Action No. 94/78

ALEXANDER A. FARRELLY, et. al.,)

3

Defendants

)

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF CONSENT DECREE AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The Virgin Islands, Bureau of Corrections, moves this Honorable Court to grant its Motion for Modification and for reasons therefor states the following:
1. The Consent Decree was entered into in December 1994, two years ago. Since that time, the Defendant Bureau of Corrections undertook several affirmative steps in a good faith effort to comply with all aspects of the decree, and indeed, did comply with many of the non-fiscal requirements of the decree.
2. Since the date of the Consent Decree, the Virgin Islands has experienced five major storms which have caused unforeseen and unbudgeted financial setbacks for the entire populace, and have resulted in an unprecedented public debt.

3. Despite the Bureau of Corrections's compliance with the non-fiscal requirements of the decree, there remain two areas where the Bureau cannot achieve compliance, namely, the overpopulation of the Criminal Justice complex and the forensic psychiatric evaluation, care, and treatment.
4. The compliance mandates of the Consent Decree in these twin areas will require fiscal obligations that are beyond the budgetary Ken of the Bureau, and legal authority that the Bureau lacks and cannot acquire without enabling legislation. It is outside the financial, legal, and political power of the Bureau to effectuate compliance with these dual mandates, and therefore, modification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rules and Civil Procedure 60(b) (1) .
WHEREFORE, the premises considered, and in conjunction with the Memorandum of Law in support thereof, the Bureau of Corrections respectfully requests that this Court modify the Consent Decree with respect to it in the areas stated above.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alva A. Swan Attorney for Defendant GERS Complex - Second Floor 48B-50C Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

LAWRENCE CARTY, et. al. Plaintiffs
vs.
ALEXANDER A. FARRELLY, et. al. Defendants,

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 94/78 ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MODIFICATION

The unique nature and demands of institutional reform litigation necessitate a more flexible approach to modification than may be appropriate with respect to consent decrees between private parties. The uniqueness of such litigation lies in the fact that it is necessarily aimed at achieving "broad public policy objectives in a complex, ongoing fact situation, with the consequence that consent decrees settling such litigation must be viewed as embodying not so much peremptory commands to be obeyed but as...future-oriented plans designed to achieve those objectives". Small v. Hunt. 1996 WL591893, 6 (4th. Cir. (N.C.)).

This flexibility component is bound within the parameters as first articulated by the Supreme Court in Rufo v. Suffolk. Co.. 502 U.S. 367 (1992) extrapolated by Plylor v. Evatt. 924 F.2d 1321 (4th Cir. 1991) and now buttressed by Small v. Hunt, Supra. These cases represent the constant evolution and interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 60(b). From the rigid constraints of exceptional circumstances to the now proffered more flexible standard, parties who have already entered consent decrees, may avail themselves to modification by giving due regards to the public interest which may have been the impetus for a particular change, or whose interest was not considered. Ordinarily modification should not be granted where a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered the decree. Conversely, modification of an institutional consent decree should not be had if it is merely no longer convenient for the defendant to abide by the terms. When a defendant asserts that modification is being sought due to changed factual conditions he must "additionally show that the change in conditions make compliance with the consent decree "more onerous," "unworkable," or "detrimental to the public interest." Id. at 6. The test for what is an actual change in factual circumstances or conditions versus mere inconvenience encompasses good faith of the defendant.
In order for a modification to be granted after having alleged a change in circumstance, the Court must determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to

the changed circumstances. Small at 6. As a court makes this determination, "three matters should be clear." Id. at 7. "First modification of a consent decree 'must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation.' Second, a' modification should not strive to rewrite a consent so that it conforms to the constitutional floor. Rather, a court should do no more than necessary to resolve the problem created by the changed circumstance. Third, within the constraints just mentioned, principles of federalism require a District Court to defer to local government administrators to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification... This means that while "financial constraints may not be used to justify the creation or perpetuation of constitutional violations, they are a legitimate concern of government defendants in institutional reform litigation and therefore appropriately considered in tailoring a consent decree modification." Id. at 6.
The Bureau of Corrections predicates its request for modification on the recommendations of the experts, which were made a part of the Special Master Report No. 3. The experts, James Austin, Ph. D. , a specialist in population, and Sonia Oquendo, M.D., M.P.H., a specialist in mental health, made recommendations for the corrections of the violations of overcrowding and mental health services which are, quite simply, beyond any ability of the Bureau to effectuate. At the time the Decree was entered into, it is now beyond peradventure that the bureau possessed the good faith belief that it could bring about the changes mandated by the decree. However, after several major Acts of God, an

unexpected explosion in the public debt, and a bankrupt public treasury, the recommendations of the experts which have a fiscal component to compliance, have become impossible for the Bureau to meet. For instance, it is recommended, among other things, that the Bureau (l) rehabilitate the Halfway House, (2) complete construction of the east wing of the Halfway House, (3) identify funding source to pay for the transfer of 75 inmates to BOP State Facilities, (4) identify funding source to build a 100 bed facility, all in an effort to reduce the overcrowding at CJC. While the achievement of these goals would be laudable, legal, and worthwhile, to achieve them will require a huge outlay of funds numbering in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Funds which the Bureau does not have. Even those areas which do not require a huge fiscal outlay increase pre-trial release and expedite parole releases require the involvement and cooperation of agencies over which the Bureau does not have control, such as the Territorial Court and the Parole Board.
Dr. Austin made this observation: "The pretrial periods appear to be excessive (and) most courts strive to have all felony dispositions completed within 180. days.... If the Virgin Islands courts were to be able to meet that standard, the number of inmates in pretrial status might be reduced..." We agree, and we will cooperate in any manner to achieve a reduction in the inmate population, however, the principal player is the Territorial Court, over which the Bureau has no control and minimal influence at best.

These changed factual conditions and circumstances from the inception of the Consent Decree, precipitated byunanticipated Acts of God, have made it impossible for the Bureau to comply with the mandates of the decree relating to overcrowding. Although the Bureau has complied with many of the mandates which do not require fiscal outlays.
With regards to the mental health aspects of the decree, Dr. Oquendo made these telling observations: "Cluster three is severely overcrowded. Although the Defendants tend to comply with the segregation of the mentally ill, the lack of adequate mental health services greatly hampers the value of services provided at CJC", and "mental health beds for the sole use of inmates in need of hospitalization are unavailable at the local hospital. As a residual effect of Hurricane Marilyn... half of the beds available are occupied by inmates who have been committed by the court for hospitalization ", and "no beds for the sole use of inmates in need of hospitalization are available at the local hospital." Dr. Oquendo recognized the good faith attempts by the Bureau to comply with this portion of the mandates, but the critical components of compliance are within the province of the hospital, the mental health department, and any long-term facility the government has, not within the Bureau of Corrections. The same holds true for her recommendations which include (1) the creation of a 6 -12 bed forensic psychiatric unit at the hospital, and (2) move 12 mental health inmates to the hospital. It should be clear to all that the Bureau cannot "create" a unit at the

hospital, nor can it move inmates into the hospital without the consent and cooperation of the hospital. And Dr. Oquendo recognized that there is no room at the hospital for either. Furthermore, any possibility of minimal success in implementing these mandates will require the involvement of the Executive, the Legislature, the Commissioner of Health, and other personnel or agencies over which the Bureau has no control.
When the principles of Small are applied to the decree, the Court should conclude that the request for modification is proper and warranted. The first prong in Small's threetier analysis is satisfied because the modification that is being sought is narrowly tailored to correct a constitutional violation, that is, to bring before the Court those agencies that can effectuate compliance with the decree and not heap upon the Bureau duties and responsibilities that are beyond its legal ability to perform.
The second-tier of the analysis is also easily satisfied. The Bureau wants the decree to remain-intact. It merely wants it to be qualified as to duties and responsibilities.
The third-tier is likewise easily satisfied because the proposed modification does not require the Court to micromanage the intricacies of the decree, but rather it provides the Court with a wide scope of accountability for carrying out its mandates.

Small is applicable to the facts of the present case, in that, it provides in part the matrix of a solution to the problem of population in particular, and the Decree in general. In Small, the decree was modified because the prison population growth exceeded that which was anticipated at the time the decree was entered. All indications were that the State of South Carolina would only experience lowsingle digit population increase of the next few years, when in reality the prison population increased by double digits yearly. Given this unforeseen eventually, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held "that explosive increase in prison admissions, and related unanticipated expenses justified modification of the consent decree "Small at 8. The Court granted permanent relief.
The way in which the State of South Carolina attacked its problem is what makes Small dispositive to the case at bar. If the Virgin Islands would apply the matrix of Small, then the problems that exist within the Criminal Justice Complex can be resolved. "South Carolina moved on four interrelated fronts to tackle the problem of prison overcrowding and to comply with the consent decree. First, the state (legislative branch) enacted a prison population cap that limited prison population to 18,000. Second the state (legislative and executive branches) had appropriated $500 million for new prison construction. Third, the state (judiciary branch) implemented and expanded programs providing alternatives to incarceration, thereby diverting

thousands of offenders form prison. Finally, the state

(legislative, executive and judiciary branches) enacted the

Structured Sentencing Act and accelerated its

implementation.

The structured sentencing legislation

reduces the length of incarceration for less serious

offenders and reserves the longest sentence for the most

dangerous of offenders." Id. at 4. South Carolina acted in

concert to abate its prison problems and comply with its

consent decree.

CONCLUSION

The reasoning of Small suggests that the two areas where the Bureau cannot achieve compliance will require intensive involvement by all three branches of government. This is a fact that the Bureau cannot guarantee and which is obviously beyond its ability to effectuate.

Respectfully submitted,

- /<Lw**/
Alva A. Swan Deputy Attorney General

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 26th day of November, 1996, I mailed a copy of DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY by facsimile and first class mail, postage prepaid, to:

S. Elwood York, Esquire Director of V.I. Bureau of Corrections 3008 Orange Grove Christiansted St. Croix, Virgin Islands 00820

Lori Gilmore, Esquire District Court of the V. I. 5500 Veterans Drive Suite 310 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802-6424

Darlene S. Grant, Esquire National Council on Crime & Delinquency 1325 G Street, N.W., #770 Washington, D. C. 20006

Marjorie Rifkin, Esquire ACLU-National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20009

Benjamin A. Currence, Esquire P. 0. Box 6143 St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands

00804-6143

 
 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St.
Thomas and St. John. Lawrence CARTY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. John DEJONGH, et al., Defendants.
No. Civ. 94-78.
Feb. 27, 2007.
Benjamin A. Currence, Law Offices of Benjamin Currence, St. Thomas, VI, Eric Balaban, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Iver A. Stridiron, Attorney General, Department of Justice, St. Thomas, VI, for Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
BROTMAN, J.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Background
*1 1. The plaintiff class in this case filed a class action complaint and preliminary injunction motion on June 20, 1994, challenging inhumane and dangerous conditions at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) and CJC Annex in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Named as defendants were the Governor, Attorney General, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections (BOC), and the warden and assistant warden at the CJC, among others. The parties signed a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) on October 12, 1994, which was entered as an Order by this Court on December 7, 1994. The Agreement requires Defendants to make specific improvements by dates certain to many aspects of operations and conditions at the CJC. Since entering the Agreement, the Court has issued a number of remedial orders requiring the Defendants to make additional improvements at the jail.
2. The Court has held the Defendants in contempt of the Settlement Agreement and its remedial orders three times. In 1997, the Court found that “[t]he

conditions of confinement at the CJC also continue to fall far short of very basic, minimum habitability ... [and] defendants have not made adequate efforts to remedy the critical issues they must face, both under orders of the court and according to the agreement to which they bound themselves.” Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727, 743 (D.Vi.1997) (“Carty I” ). In 2001, the Court again held Defendants in contempt of the Settlement Agreement and remedial orders in the areas of a) shelter, physical plant, and environmental health; b) preventive maintenance; c) hygiene items; d) mattresses; e) fire safety; f) medication distribution; g) legal access; I) telephones; j) security systems; and k) Annex construction. See Carty v. Turnbull, 144 F.Supp.2d 395, 399-416 (D.Vi.2001) (“Carty II” ).
3. As a contempt sanction, the Court ordered the Defendants to establish a remedial account and to deposit in it all monies received by the Government from the U.S. Marshal's Service for the housing of federal detainees in BOC facilities. See Order, Oct. 29, 2001. Disbursements from this account are limited to BOC operations, “with priority given to expenditures mandated by all consent decrees, orders, judgments, and settlement agreements addressing conditions at Bureau of Corrections' facilities.”Id. at 2.
4. In 2003, the Court again found Defendants in contempt of a host of provisions of the Agreement and remedial orders. SeeCarty v. Turnbull, Civil No. 94-78 (D.Vi. May 28, 2003) (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contempt Motion) (“Carty III” ). The Defendants remain under this contempt citation.
5. Over the past two years, the Court and the parties have focused upon mental health services at the jail. In April 2005, Jeffrey Metzner, M.D., a forensic psychiatrist who is an expert in correctional mental health care systems, toured the jail and issued a report. Dr. Metzner concluded that the jail failed to provide adequate mental health services to seriously ill CJC prisoners. See Ex. 2, Apr. 14, 2005 hearing, Apr. 14, 2005 hearing tr. at 6:23-24, (April 7, 2005 report by Jeffrey Metzner, M.D. (“April 2005 Metzner Report”)). Among his findings, Dr. Metzner

reported that the jail did not have a set of mental health care policies and procedures or established health care leadership, that the mental health intake screening and discharge processes were inadequate, that the medical charts were disorganized, that seriously mentally ill prisoners were not timely seen and treated, that the psychiatrist's contracted hours were inadequate, that the designated mental health unit was dangerously understaffed and overcrowded, and that the Defendants had failed to take basic steps to staff and open the forensic facility under construction at Anna's Hope, St. Croix. Seeid. at 2122.The Defendants stipulated to Dr. Metzner's findings and agreed to implement the recommendations in his report. (Apr. 14, 2005 hearing tr. at 5:4-23).
*2 6. On January 10, 2006, the Court held a status hearing that addressed the Defendants' efforts to implement Dr. Metzner's recommendations. Following the hearing, the Court issued a remedial order. Among its provisions, the Order requires the Defendants to transfer four prisoners adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) from the Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility (ACF) in St. Croix to a psychiatric unit. See Mar. 22, 2006 Order ¶ 10. The Order also requires the Defendants to transfer to an appropriate psychiatric facility Jonathan Ramos, a seriously mentally ill pre-trial detainee who has been housed at the CJC for close to five years. Seeid. ¶ 11.Finally, the Order requires the Government to hire medical staff, draft policies, and purchase equipment for the CJC Annex, which was closed at the time of the Order; and requires the Government to hire a health care records clerk. Id. ¶¶ 1, 3, and 5.
7. In April 2006, Dr. Metzner conducted another tour of the CJC, and has issued his report. See Ex. A, Declaration of Eric Balaban in Support of Contempt Motion (“Balaban Decl.”) (May 15, 2006 report by Jeffrey Metzner, M.D. (“May 2006 Metzner Report”)). He found that Defendants had made little or no improvements in mental health services at the CJC since his 2005 tour. As a result, seriously mentally ill prisoners continue to deteriorate at the jail. Defendants stipulated to Dr. Metzner's findings, and agreed to implement the recommendations in his Report, which this Court incorporated into its November 20, 2006 Order. See Nov. 20, 2006 Order ¶ 1.

8. Based on Dr. Metzner's report, the stipulation of the parties, and the record in this case, this Court makes the following Findings of Fact:
B. NGRI Transfers
9. In 1997 and 2001, this Court held Defendants in contempt of the Mental Health Referrals, Hospitalization, and Housing provisions of the Agreement.FN1See Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 739 & n. 20 (finding that acutely mentally ill prisoners were not appropriately housed and treated at the CJC, and that prisoners in need of hospitalization were not transferred to the Roy L. Schneider Hospital, since the hospital's mental health unit did not maintain beds for the sole use of prisoners); Carty II, 144 F.Supp.2d at 417 (concluding that under Virgin Islands law “[t]he Government has the power ... to encourage, if not direct, the expansion of mental health care services in the Virgin Islands [hospitals and] still ha[s] the option of contracting with an existing facility or constructing a new one to house mentally ill inmates.”).
FN1. The Agreement required Defendants by January 1, 1996 to refer prisoners in need of emergency mental health intervention to the St. Thomas Hospital or local Community Mental Health (CMH) Center. Agreement ¶ V.2. The Agreement further required Defendants by November 1, 1994 to make hospital beds at the Roy L. Schneider Hospital available to inmates requiring hospitalization. Agreement ¶ V.6. By December 1, 1994, Defendants also were required to establish mental health cells for prisoners in need of restraints, seclusion, or observation. Agreement ¶ V.5.
10. In 2001, the Virgin Islands Code was amended to allow the territorial court to remand persons who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) to a “certified forensic unit,” or to the custody of the Bureau of Corrections if no such unit exists, where they may remain under a physician's care “until the necessary arrangements to transfer the defendant to a certified forensic unit outside the territory [are made].”See5 V.I.Code Ann. § 3637 (2002).
*3 11. By the time the commitment law was

amended, three CJC prisoners had been declared NGRI. Defendants considered transferring these men to a forensic facility in the United States, but rejected this option because of expense. SeeCarty III, slip op. at 61.These NGRI patients remained housed at the CJC during 2001, where they continued to receive substandard care. (Oct. 29, 2001 hearing tr. at 64:1822, 65:6-11 (Braslow)).
12. By 2003, one more CJC prisoner had been declared NGRI in his criminal trial. See May 2006 Metzner Report II, App. I at 18-25. A courtappointed psychiatrist wrote in his post-judgment report to the territorial court that this NGRI patient “should remain in a locked, safe forensic psychiatric facility receiving state-of-the-art anti-psychotic medication for at least one year.”(Dec. 3, 2003 hearing tr. at 18:13:17 (Braslow)). However, this patient and the other three NGRI patients were transferred from the CJC to ACF by late 2003. At least three of these men were moved to ACF with no prior notice to the prison's mental health counselor or psychiatrist. See May 2006 Metzner Report, App. I at 18 (Inmate 11), 20 (Inmate 12), 22 (Inmate 13).FN2 At intake, the ACF counselor indicated that she was “at a loss of what to do” regarding the treatment of these prisoners. Id.
FN2. The NGRI patients are referred to by the inmate numbers that Dr. Metzner uses in his May 2006 Report.
13. In June 2003, Charles Braslow, M.D., an expert in correctional medicine and the former director of Rikers Montefiore (N.Y.) Medical Center, the health care facility for the New York City jail system, reviewed the four NGRI prisoners' care at ACF. He concluded that they remained at the prison essentially untreated. (June 6, 2003 hearing tr. at 4:13-8:25 (Braslow)). He also testified that had these men been prisoners in New York City jails, they would have been moved immediately to a forensic facility after they were declared NGRI. (Id. at 9:1-19 (Braslow)).
14. At a December 2003 contempt hearing, Dr. Braslow again testified that the NGRI patients were receiving grossly inadequate mental health care at ACF. (Dec.3, 2003 hearing tr. at 16:5-19:25 (Braslow)). At the close of Dr. Braslow's testimony, the Court commented that the “Government is killing-is killing persons assigned for mental health

reasons and not assigned by virtue of the system to the, say, Golden Grove and nothing is done with them, the Government is killing them[.]”(Id. at 30:15).
15. Through 2004, Olaf Hendricks, the BOC's Medical Director and the ACF's lone psychiatrist, repeatedly urged the BOC to transfer these men from the prison to an appropriate forensic facility. In June 2003, he wrote the following in Inmate 13's medical record:
This is the case of a thirty-two-year-old man who was ordered to be transferred to this facility without proper professional communications and in a manner that arguably does more harm than good. The patient is psychotic and apparently has been so for a long time. He is presently on antipsychotic meds and has not had any acute exacerbation of his illness.
*4 I'm at a lost [sic.] as to why the patients are remanded to this institution when there is knowledge that the fantasied forensic unit is nowhere near a reality. I must document my serious concerns about remanding individuals who are not convicted nor convictable to a prison where he spends over 20 hours daily in his cell. This is not sound medical practice.
(Dec. 3, 2003 hearing tr. at 16:25-17:24 (Braslow)).
For Inmate 12, he wrote “[p]atient again for some reason is remanded to this facility without being convicted. This patient needs to be placed in a forensic facility-not here at ACF.”Ex. B, Balaban Decl. (Charles A. Braslow, M.D., “Report on Health Care Services at the Criminal Justice Complex Jail, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, Feb. 24, 2004”), at 11.
16. In December 2003, the Attorney General told the Court that the Government had been negotiating with Puerto Rican officials to transfer the four NGRI prisoners to a forensic facility that housed chronically mentally ill Virgin Islanders under a contract with the Virgin Islands Department of Human Services. (Dec. 3, 2003 hearing tr. at 36:12-23, 39:6-18 (Stridiron)). The Government had failed to complete an amended contract to house the NGRIs at that facility in the nine months since it had begun negotiations. (Id. at

43:9-23 (Braslow)).
17. By July 19, 2004, the Government still had failed to transfer the four NGRI patients to the Puerto Rico facility. (July 19, 2004 hearing tr. at 5:12-22 (Trawick)). The BOC's Director testified that Puerto Rican health officials had stopped the transfer pending their receipt of infectious disease test results on the four men. (Id.) However, the Director assured the Court that tests had been done, were “negative and all of [the NGRI patients] should be able to go to the facility.”(Id. at 7:12-14 (Trawick)). Following the July 2004 hearing, the Court ordered the Government to transfer all of the NGRI patients to an appropriate forensic unit by August 19, 2004. July 21, 2004 Order ¶ 1.
18. By September 2004, the four NGRI prisoners remained at ACF, despite the fact that two of them had been medically cleared by Puerto Rican health officials. (Sept. 8, 2004 hearing tr. at 14:12-15:3 (Swan)). The Attorney General admitted that he had not considered moving the patients to either of the public hospitals in the territory. (Id. at 28:9-14 (Swan)). Rather, he testified that the Government was nearing completion of the new forensic facility at Anna's Hope, and that the NGRI patients would be moved there when the facility opened in November 2004. (Id. at 20:25-21:5 (Swan)).
19. The four NGRI patients were housed at ACF until February 2005, where they remained essentially untreated. According to their medical records, the prisoners suffered from psychosis, hallucinations, paranoia, and delusions during this time. See, e.g., May 2006 Metzner Report, App. 1 at 19 (Inmate 11 suffered from delusional thinking on June 15, 2004), 21 (Inmate 12 described as seclusive and watchful on Oct. 30, 2003), 22 (Inmate 13 was observed responding to internal stimuli on August 23, 2004), and 24 (Inmate 14 suffered from auditory hallucinations and paranoia on Aug. 20, 2004).
*5 20. On the eve of another contempt hearing, the BOC transferred the NGRI patients to the psychiatric unit at the Juan F. Luis (JFL) Hospital on St. Croix. (Feb. 15, 2005 hearing tr. at 31:5-7 (Ponteen)). The patients thrived during their stays at the hospital. On April 1, 2005, Inmate 11 was examined at ACF after being discharged from JFL hospital. According to the doctor's progress note, Inmate 11 “has significantly

improved and was leading group sessions in the hospital. He is alert, pleasant, cooperative. He is not psychotic and his judgment and insight are good. Will be going to court to recommend discharge for him.”May 2006 Metzner Report, App. I at 19. Inmate 12 was also “seen [On April 1, 2005], one week after discharge from hospital. He is alert, oriented times three, coherent, cooperative and pleasant. He was in the JFL hospital for approximately 7 weeks and did very well. In fact, patient had begun to verbalize and socialize. Back here he has become more reticent. Awaiting completion of forensic facility for admission.”Id. at 21;see alsoid. at 23, 24 (describing Inmate 13's and 14's responses to hospitalization).
21. Defendants moved the NGRI prisoners back to ACF without notifying either the Court or class counsel that the men had been discharged from the hospital. (Jan. 10, 2006 hearing tr. at 43:14-45:10 (Balaban and Ponteen)). The BOC Director explained in January 2006 that hospital staff had discharged the patients because they were concerned that the hospital's accreditation was jeopardized if the NGRIs remained in the psychiatric unit. (Id. at 45:4-10 (Ponteen)). The Director also testified that in one month the Government would complete retrofitting an empty unit next to ACF's infirmary that could house the NGRI prisoners until the forensic facility at Anna's Hope was completed.(Id. at 45:18-21 (Ponteen)). However, the Director acknowledged that ACF did not have a treating psychiatrist on staff. (Id. at 53:19-25 (Ponteen)).
22. On March 22, 2006, the Court entered the following order:
Defendants shall move the four prisoners adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, who have been previously identified in this case, to the psychiatric unit at the Juan Luis Hospital or the Roy L. Schneider Hospital or to both hospitals, as the case might be, until such time as the Defendants complete retrofitting and staffing an appropriate forensic unit at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility.
Mar. 22, 2006 Order ¶ 10.
23. In April 2006, Dr. Metzner interviewed the NGRI patients, and reviewed their medical records. Dr. Metzner also reviewed the December 2005 reports

prepared by John Kennedy, M.D., a forensic psychiatrist hired by the Government to examine the NGRIs and determine if they had regained the capacity for judgement and control such that they were no longer a danger to themselves and others, and were entitled to be released. See Ex. C-F, Balaban Decl. (December 8, 2005 reports by John Kennedy, M.D.).FN3 According to Dr. Kennedy, each of the NGRI patients displayed symptoms of serious mental illness. In December 2005, guards reported that Inmate 14 was actively hallucinating. See Ex. C, Balaban Decl., at 2. When examined by Dr. Kennedy, Inmate 14 “presented in a bizarre fashion, speaking through clenched teeth, making poor eye contact, but repeatedly scanning the environment in an odd manner.”Id. at 2. He also “admitted to auditory hallucinations despite being on medication.”Id. According to occupational therapy notes, Inmate 13 “was talking to himself, had impaired concentration, and was delusional.”Ex. D, Balaban Decl., at 2. On exam, Inmate 12 “was very fidgety and made poor eye contact. He had poverty of speech [and h]is mood and affect were flat.”Ex. E, Balaban Decl., at 2. Inmate 11 was noted to be “delusional, rambling incoherently, and disorganized” in his medical record. Ex. F, Balaban Decl., at 2. Dr. Kennedy diagnosed each man with schizophrenia. He concluded that none of the men were eligible to be released, that three of the four were at high risk to harm themselves or others, and that each man should be transferred to a forensic facility. See Ex. C-F, Balaban Decl., at 3.
FN3. All identifying information has been redacted from these reports.
*6 24. In May 2006, Dr. Metzner concluded that the patients were “receiving grossly inadequate mental health treatment.”May 2006 Metzner Report at 25. Dr. Metzner found that the four men were all receiving psychotropic medications based on expired physician orders that were written more than one year ago. Seeid.App. 1 at 18-24. At least three of these men had not been seen by a psychiatrist for a year. Id. at 20 (Inmate 11), 22 (Inmate 12), 23 (Inmate 13). Dr. Metzner reported that “[t]he lack of any psychotropic medication monitoring by a physician is a very dangerous practice.”May 2006 Metzner Report at 27. He recommended that a psychiatrist assess the NGRI patients immediately. Id. at 25-26.Dr. Metzner concluded that “[t]his is the only prison or jail system

I know of from my 30+ years of experience with correctional health care systems where persons judged NGRI remain incarcerated for such prolonged periods of time.”Id. at 26.
25. Dr. Metzner also toured the planned forensic unit at ACF, “which was clearly not yet completed.”Id. at 25.The prison also had no mental health staff. Dr. Hendricks resigned in November 2005, and ACF has not had a psychiatrist for the last six months. Id. Also, “[t]he prison's social worker, who had been in charge of providing mental health services since Dr. Hendricks' resignation, has not been to work in several months.”Id. Dr. Park, the lone physician at ACF, told Dr. Metzner that he had not seen the NGRI patients, “that the prison needed a psychiatrist, [and that he] was clearly not comfortable in providing psychiatric treatment to inmates with serious mental illnesses.”Id., App. I at 17-18. There were also vacancies at the prison for a mental health counselor and an occupational therapist. Id. at 25.Dr. Metzner concluded as follows:
It is unlikely that the BOC will be able to recruit and hire staff to fill [the vacant mental health] positions in the near future given the unwieldy and time-consuming NOPA process, and the lack of medical leadership in the BOC. Therefore, it is likely that the four NGRI patients will continue to languish untreated in the jail.
Id. at 26.Dr. Metzner recommended that the NGRI patients be transferred immediately to “an appropriate mental health treatment setting.”Id. Defendants stipulated to implementing Dr. Metzner's recommendation, which is now part of this Court's November 20, 2006 Order. See Nov. 20, 2006 Order ¶ 1.
26. In October 2006, Defendants reported that the four NGRI patients remained housed in a general population unit at ACF. See Ex. A, Declaration of Eric Balaban in Support of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [“Balaban Decl. 2”] (Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories), at 9. Defendants also reported that there are still no mental health care staff at ACF who could provide treatment to these men. Id. at 10.Defendants did report that they contacted six maximum security forensic hospitals in March 2006 about accepting these men as patients. Id. at 9. However, Defendants

have not contacted a single hospital in the past nine months about accepting these patients for treatment. Id. Also, Defendants apparently have made no effort to transfer these men back to the JFL Hospital, where they thrived while being treated in 2005.
C. Forensic Facility
*7 27. In 2003, this Court again found Defendants in contempt of the Referrals, Hospitalization, and Housing provisions of the Agreement. Carty III, slip op. at 61-62.Rather than comply with the Agreement's provisions as written, and expand services at the Roy L. Schneider Hospital, Defendants decided to construct a forensic unit at Anna's Hope on St. Croix, and planned thereafter to transfer NGRI and seriously mentally ill prisoners there.Carty III, slip op. at 61.The Court found that in June 2002, “the Attorney General and the BOC Director both acknowledged the Government's responsibility to remove NGRI prisoners from the jail, and house them in an appropriate forensic facility.”Id. at 62.The Court ordered the Defendants to devise a time line to complete the forensic unit. Id.
28. By November 2002, Defendants had failed to prepare a time line, and had made no substantial efforts to construct, staff, and open the unit. The BOC's Director testified that he and Dr. Hendricks had not met to discuss construction of a forensic unit, or other options for appropriately housing seriously mentally ill prisoners, since the June 4, 2002 status conference.Id. The bulk of Defendants' efforts had been dedicated to amending the Virgin Islands Code so that NGRI prisoners could be housed in a noncertified forensic unit, given what the Defendants deemed to be the prohibitive cost of operating a certified unit. Id. However, “the Director acknowledged at the hearing that the last time he spoke to the Attorney General about these legislative efforts was six to eight months before the contempt hearing.”Id. at 62-63.Further, “[t]he Director also testified that Defendants ha[d] not developed a plan to construct a forensic unit, or convert an existing unit at the Golden Grove facility into a forensic unit, and would not do so until their effort to amend the statutory language is resolved.”Id. at 63.
29. Through July 2004, Defendants made no efforts to construct and open a forensic facility. At a July 19, 2004 status conference, Defendants renewed their

pledge to renovate the former juvenile facility at Anna's Hope for use as the forensic unit. (July 19, 2004 hearing tr. at 10:12-19 (Schrader)). Defendants stated that the building “would be operational by the end of November [2004].”(Id. at 10:18-19). Following the July hearing, the Court ordered the Defendants to submit by September 19, 2004 a progress report documenting their efforts to construct, staff, and open the forensic facility. July 19, 2004 Order ¶ 2.
30. The Court held another contempt hearing on September 8, 2004. The Attorney General told the Court that the Government had plans and specifications in place to build the facility, which would be akin to a “small hospital.” (Sept. 8, 2004 hearing tr. at 9:21-11:5 (Swan)). The Attorney General assured the Court that the facility would be opened by November 25, 2004. (Id. at 19:20-24, 20:19-21:5 (Swan)). He testified, “[i]t will be finished for occupancy. It will be finished in terms of staffing. It will be finished in terms of who is in charge.”(Id. at 20:5-8 (Swan)). Based on the Attorney General's representations, the Court ordered the Defendants to complete construction of the forensic facility by November 30, 2004. See Oct. 5, 2004 Order at 1.
*8 31. At the hearing, the Court also reminded Defendants of its previous Order requiring them to submit by September 19, 2004 a written progress report on their efforts to open the forensic facility. The Court provided the following instruction regarding the detail it expected in the report:
I want to know what recruitment you're undertaking to get the [facility's mental health staff]. I want to know the type of people you're trying to recruit. I want to know who is in charge of it. I want the names of the people who have actually been directed to implement the specific aspects of the plan and the move, every possible detail, as though we're planning an attack on Baghdad at that time, like a military operation. I don't just want generalities. I want specifics.
(Sept. 8, 2004 hearing tr. at 31:17-25). Despite the Court's admonition, Defendants failed to submit a progress report.
32. On February 15, 2005, BOC Director Ponteen

testified that Defendants had developed a staffing plan for the facility, and were preparing a supplemental budget request to fund the new positions in the plan. (Feb. 15, 2005 hearing tr. at 28:2-10, 28:25-29:19 (Ponteen)). Director Ponteen also testified that the renovations to the physical plant would be completed by the “first week in March[, 2005.]” (Id. at 27:20-22 (Ponteen)).
33. In April 2005, Director Ponteen and Dr. Hendricks described to Dr. Metzner the status of the construction project. See April 2005 Metzner Report at 18-19. Dr. Hendricks explained that the construction would take place in two phases. In phase one, the existing buildings would be retrofitted, and a treatment building would be built. Id. at 18.The existing facility could not provide hospital-level care, and would not meet Joint Commission on Accreditation for Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) standards. Id. Dr. Metzner recommended that the phase 1 unit serve as a step-down unit for patients who could not function in general population units. Seeid. at 19.The second phase would involve the construction of a new building that would have an additional 30-35 beds. Dr. Hendricks stated that the BOC submitted a proposed $3,000,000.00 budget for the forensic facility to the Governor, but could not produce the budget during or after Dr. Metzner's site visit. Id.
34. Defendants had failed to hire any health care staff for the forensic facility at the time of Dr. Metzner's 2005 inspection. Id . Dr. Hendricks explained that he did recruit a forensic psychologist to head the treatment team for the unit, but he did not receive authorization to extend an offer to her, and she had since taken a position with the Department of Health. Id.
35. Dr. Metzner also toured the site of forensic unit. Despite the Attorney General's assurances that the physical plant would be completed by November 2004, Dr. Metzner found that the facility “still is far from completely renovated.”Id. at 19.For example, the air conditioning and duct system had not been installed, there was no emergency generator, and the treatment building construction had not yet begun. The doors to the patient rooms “must be individually locked by key, which poses a substantial fire safety hazard, and violates JCAHO standards.”Id . Dr. Metzner also found that “the rooms and shower areas

were filled with hanging points that mentally ill prisoners could use to harm themselves or attempt suicide.”Id.
*9 36. Dr. Metzner made several recommendations regarding the Government's plan to open a forensic facility at Anna's Hope. He recommended that the BOC hire a director for the facility at least six months before it opened, so the director could hire and train key staff, and develop policies and procedures. Seeid.He also recommended that the BOC consider a contract with the Department of Health to operate the forensic facility. Seeid. at 21.Finally, Dr. Metzner recommended that the BOC either contract with a construction firm with experience building mental health treatment facilities, or hire a consultant with such experience to work with the contractor who will retrofit the existing buildings and construct the forensic facility. Seeid . at 20-21.
37. According to news reports, in the Fall 2005 the Government did request additional funds from the legislature to hire an additional 34 correctional and medical personnel to staff the forensic facility. See Ex. G, Balaban Decl. (Megan Poinski, “Justice Seeks Money for Corrections,” Virgin Islands Daily News, Aug. 17, 2005, at 4). At the January 10, 2006 hearing, Director Ponteen testified that the BOC had spoken with Dr. Denise Marshall, the director of the Mental Health Division of the Department of Health, about her interest in assisting the BOC in recruiting staff and drafting policies and procedures for the forensic facility. (Jan. 10, 2006 hearing tr. at 46:1925 (Ponteen)). The Director conceded that the renovations to the phase one step-down unit had not been completed, and that no work had been done to construct a treatment building. (Id. at 49:24-50:19 (Ponteen)). The Director also acknowledged that the Defendants were in default of the Court's remedial orders, and agreed with the Court that the chronically mentally ill “should not be within the prison population. They should not be within this facility.”(Id. at 51:16-20, 52:1-2 (Ponteen)). Following the hearing, the Court ordered the Defendants to submit by April 22, 2006 a progress report on its efforts to determine which government department would run the forensic facility. See March 22, 2006 Order ¶ 13. To date, Defendants have failed to submit a progress report.
38. Defendants continue to violate the Agreement

and the Court's remedial orders. In April 2006, Dr. Metzner spoke with BOC Director Rosaldo Horsford about the Government's efforts to open the forensic facility since his tour one year earlier. Dr. Metzner concluded that “[t]he BOC has made little progress in the past year to open the forensic facility.”May 2006 Metzner Report at 23. Since his April 2005 site visit, the BOC had done no construction at the site other than “pouring ... a concrete floor for a conference room.”Id. at 22-23.Director Horsford also stated that he knew of no recruitment efforts to hire staff for the facility. Id. at 23.The Director did report that the Department of Justice had spoken with the Department of Health regarding contracting out the mental health services for this forensic unit “although Director Horsford described these discussions as very preliminary in nature and inconclusive.”Id. The BOC did not implement Dr. Metzner's recommendation last year that it consult with an expert experienced with architectural/treatment issues for a forensic facility. Id.
*10 39. In May 2006, Dr. Metzner reiterated his recommendation that the BOC should consider executing a contract with the Department of Health to operate the forensic facility under an interdepartmental contract. Id. He also recommended that the Government should develop a staffing plan, budget, and construction time line for the facility, and renewed his recommendation that the BOC should “hire either a construction firm with experience building forensic facilities, or a consultant to help oversee the project.”Id. Defendants agreed to implement Dr. Metzner's recommendations, which were incorporated into this Court's November 20, 2006 Order. See Nov. 20, 2006 Order ¶ 1.
40. In October 2006, Defendants reported that they had made no effort to complete a contract with the Department of Health to run the Anna's Hope facility, that they had not hired any staff for the facility, that they had not hired a construction firm, and that they had failed to develop a staffing plan, construction budget, construction time-line, or operational budget for the facility. See Ex. A, Balaban Decl. 2 (Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories), at 8.
D. Jonathan Ramos
41. Jonathan Ramos is a seriously mentally ill

prisoner who has been incarcerated at the CJC since April 2002 for allegedly attempting to steal a bicycle. April 2005 Metzner Report at 30. His five-year stay at the jail has been chaotic, “characterized by active psychosis, unpredictability, and dangerous behavior.”Id. Mr. Ramos has been assaulted by and has assaulted both deputies and fellow prisoners, and he has been on constant lock-down for two years because he poses such a serious security threat. May 2006 Metzner Report, App. I at 12.
42. In October 2003 alone, Mr. Ramos was forcibly restrained after being involved in at least two violent altercations with staff. On October 9, 2003, deputies observed him “banging himself around his cell ... pulling on his cell door, cursing, and threatening.”The deputies forcibly restrained Mr. Ramos. (See Dec. 3, 2003 hearing tr. at 9:7-13, Pl.Ex. 1). On October 13, Mr. Ramos got into a violent scuffle with at least seven officers at the nurse's station. Deputies placed him in handcuffs and leg irons. (Seeid.)Dr. Lu, the jail's psychiatrist, was not involved in the decision to restrain Mr. Ramos, and did not assess Mr. Ramos after either of these violent incidents. (Dec. 3, 2003 hearing tr. at 8:9-10:18 (Braslow)).FN4
FN4. Dr. Braslow wrote the following regarding Mr. Ramos in his medical report that was filed following the hearing: “[I]nmate Jonathan Ramos [is] a psychotic with multiple episodes of abnormal and disruptive behavior. Chart notes indicate that Dr. Lu requested that the patient be admitted to the hospital psychiatric unit but the psychiatrist in the unit refused to admit the patient because he was busy and said to call back in a week. The following week there were no beds available. This patient displayed multiple subsequent episodes of aggressive and violent behavior despite being deemed by Dr. Lu as seriously mentally ill and inappropriate for jail housing. It should also be noted that the chart mentions placing the patient in restraints on several occasions despite Dr. Lu's being unaware of any policies related to restraining mentally ill inmates.”See Ex. B, Balaban Decl., at 11.
43. Dr. Braslow testified that this lack of involvement

by health care staff violated both professional standards and the operating procedure for New York City jails when he was the medical director for that system. (Seeid. at 9:23-10:15 (Braslow)). He also testified that if Mr. Ramos remained housed at the jail, he could “become a danger to [himself] or to others including medical staff and correctional staff and will almost certainly continue to exhibit disruptive behavior and fail to improve psychiatrically.”(Id. at 27:13-16 (Braslow)). Dr. Braslow stated that Mr. Ramos should be moved to a secure psychiatric facility so that he could “receive more intensive care, more close monitoring by trained mental health staff, more ensuring that [he took his] medications, and more appropriate treatment of [his] acute mental health problem.”(Id. at 27:7-9 (Braslow)).
*11 44. Defendants have long acknowledged that Mr. Ramos cannot safely be housed at the CJC. Leighman Lu, M.D., the jail's psychiatrist, attempted to transfer Mr. Ramos to ACF in 2003, but Dr. Hendricks refused to admit him. (Seeid. at 24:17-22 (Braslow)). After the Roy L. Schneider Hospital in St. Thomas also refused to admit Mr. Ramos in 2003, Dr. Lu sent the following plea to Attorney General Iver Stridiron:
Presently [Mr. Ramos] is still ... ill and exhibits serious behavioral problems, hitting his head against wall, being self-destructive, actively expressing suicidal thoughts, and refus[ing] to be in the hospital. At this point he is being rejected by the hospital for both psychiatric and medical care due to [being] criminally insane and uncooperative. He is unlikely to ever regain competency and is in need of long-term residential psychiatric treatment [ ] stateside since there is no adequate facility available here in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
(Dec. 3, 2003 hearing tr. at 25:17-26:5, Pl.Ex. 3). Later that year, a senior corrections officer wrote the following after Mr. Ramos spit on a deputy, defecated and urinated on himself and his cell floor, and beat himself with his fists:
Inmate Jonathan Ramos is a security risk to himself and all BOC personnel. When you move inmate Jonathan Ramos extra security must be provided. Constant attention must be paid to keep inmate J. Ramos from hurting himself and from being hurt by others. It is a major battle to have inmate J. Ramos to take his personal hygiene; J Ramos ha[s]

a practice of urinating on the cell floor, spit [ting] at officers and inmates alike. Inmate Jonathan Ramos is consuming the resources of this department manpower, medically and financially. It is my opinion that the inmate Ramos is a danger to himself, fellow inmates, and the personnel of the DOC, officers and medical staff, and Jonathan Ramos should not be housed at this facility.
(Seeid. at 23:18-24:1, Pl.Ex. 2).
45. The record in this case is littered with Defendants' broken promises regarding Mr. Ramos' care. In September 2004, Attorney General Alva Swan acknowledged that the CJC “is not a proper place” for Mr. Ramos, and testified that he would never be restored to competency in his criminal trial. (Sept. 8, 2004 hearing tr. at 35:10-11, 35:23-24 (Swan)). The Government announced that it planned to dismiss the criminal charges against him, and “have him involuntarily committed. And perhaps-or we're certain that way he will go to that long-term unit in Anna's Retreat,FN5 and get his treatment there.”(Id. at 35:19-22 (Swan)). In December 2004, Defendants' counsel Richard Schrader reiterated, “[t]he objective will be to have the involuntary commitment petition in place as a safety net upon the dismissal of the criminal charges.”(See Feb. 15, 2005 hearing tr. at 22:18-23:5, Pl.Ex. B).
FN5. The Attorney General informed the Court that Anna's Retreat was a newlyopened chronic mental health facility on St. Thomas. (Id. at 36:12-20 (Swan)).
46. Despite the Attorney General's assurances, Mr. Ramos remained warehoused at the CJC. Defendants reneged on their promise to assist Angela Ramos Michael, Mr. Ramos' sister, in initiating commitment proceedings for her brother. The only help that the Government gave Ms. Ramos Michael was to mail blank commitment forms to her. (Id. at 19:9-25 (Ramos Michael)). Ms. Ramos Michael testified in February 2005 that she could not complete the commitment papers because they required information about Mr. Ramos' current mental health status that only his treating clinicians could provide. (Id . at 20:1-13 (Ramos Michael)). In the month before she testified, Ms. Ramos Michael had tried without success to contact Defendants' counsel Richard Schrader about the commitment papers. (Id.

at 20:18-21:3 (Ramos Michael)). No one from the Government ever contacted Ms. Ramos Michael to offer her help. (Id. at 21:14-17 (Ramos Michael)). Also, neither Dr. Lu nor any representative from Department of Justice attended an interdepartmental case conference at RLS Hospital to which they were invited to “develop a long-term plan” for housing and treating Mr. Ramos. (Id. at 12:7-13:1 (LaPlace), Pl.Ex. A).
*12 47. In 2005, the Government committed to moving Mr. Ramos to the forensic facility at Anna's Hope once it opened. (Feb. 15, 2005 hearing tr. at 26:9-11 (Schrader)). Director Ponteen admitted that construction at Anna's Hope had not been completed, and there was no money to recruit and hire staff for the facility. (Id. at 27:10-28:10, 29:11-19 (Ponteen)). In the interim, Attorney General Swan and Director Ponteen stated that Mr. Ramos would be moved in one month to a retrofitted unit at ACF that would be staffed by a physician and nurse “so that Mr. Ramos could be housed in a much better setting than he is now at the facility here on St. Thomas.”(Id. at 38:525 (Ponteen), 36:5-15 (Swan)). The Attorney General stated, “[i]f we revisit this issue in a month then you can hold the Government in contempt if we haven't moved Mr. Ramos there.”(Id. at 36:16-18 (Swan)).
48. Mr. Ramos was not moved to a retrofitted unit at ACF. He remained at the CJC when Dr. Metzner conducted his April 2005 expert inspection. By that time, Mr. Ramos had been locked down and singlecelled in Cluster 3, the designated mental health unit, for nine months “due to his persistent violent behavior.”April 2005 Metzner Report at 14.
49. Cluster 3 was plagued by overcrowding, partially as a result of Mr. Ramos' being single-celled: In the seven months before Dr. Metzner's 2005 site visit, “as many as four of the five cells in the cluster had held three prisoners,” meaning that at least one seriously mentally ill prisoner in these double-bunk cells was forced to sleep on the cell floor. Id. at 1415.
50. Despite being locked down, Mr. Ramos was still involved in a fight with a fellow prisoner and he assaulted deputies in the months leading up to Dr. Metzner's tour. Seeid. at 31 (documenting Nov. 23, 2004 and Jan. 6, 2005 assaults). Dr. Lu failed to assess Mr. Ramos after either of these fights.

Seeid.During the first three months of 2005, Dr. Lu reported no improvement in Mr. Ramos' illness. “He continued to demonstrate ‘sill[iness] and nonresponsiveness or gave inappropriate answers to questions. During March 8 [, 2005], he answered all questions with ‘I don't know.” ’ Id. Dr. Metzner agreed with Dr. Lu that Mr. Ramos “is experiencing a serious mental disorder and [is] in need of mental health treatment (e.g., inpatient psychiatric hospitalization) that is not available at CJC.” Id.
51. Shortly after Dr. Metzner's site visit, Mr. Ramos “told officers that a blue woman was bothering him and standing next to the officers. He started spitting all over the room, kicking his mattress on the floor, hitting the wall with his fist.”May 2006 Metzner Report, App. I at 12. Dr. Lu did not see Mr. Ramos after this incident. Mr. Ramos has also reportedly had two more fights with fellow prisoners in the following year despite remaining locked down.Id. Dr. Lu did not assess Mr. Ramos after either incident. Id.
*13 52. On December 8, 2005, Dr. Kennedy prepared a forensic evaluation of Mr. Ramos. Mr. Ramos refused to answer any questions during the evaluation, and appeared poised to assault Dr. Kennedy before his interview was terminated. See Ex. I, Balaban Decl. Dr. Kennedy diagnosed him with schizophrenia, paranoid type and antisocial personality disorder, and recommended that he be housed in a “maximum security forensic hospital or a psychiatric hospital designed to contain and treat highly aggressive individuals. Dr. Kennedy did not think that this inmate could be safely housed and treated at the Anna's Hope Forensic Facility.”May 2006 Metzner Report, App. I at 12.
53. In January 2006, Director Ponteen acknowledged that the Defendants were in default of both the Agreement and the Court's remedial orders regarding the housing and treatment of Mr. Ramos and other seriously mentally ill prisoners. (See Jan. 10, 2006 hearing tr. at 51:23-52:1 (Ponteen)). He testified that the Government would send Dr. Marshall of the Division of Mental Health to tour several facilities on the mainland to identify a suitable stateside facility for Mr. Ramos. (Seeid. at 49:1-8 (Ponteen)). At the close of the hearing, the parties stipulated to the entry of an Order requiring Defendants to transfer Mr. Ramos to an appropriate psychiatric facility, either in the territory or stateside, by May 22, 2006. See Mar.

22, 2006 Order ¶ 11.
54. There are some 446 psychiatric centers and hospitals across the United States. See Ex. H, Balaban Decl. (National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors directory). As of January 2006, the Government had contacted only three stateside psychiatric facilities about taking Mr. Ramos: one rejected him, another the Government rejected because of its cost, and the third facility refused to consider Mr. Ramos “because [the Government] owe[s] them, they're not willing to do any additional business with us.”(Id. at 49:14-16 (Ponteen)). Defendants contacted seven more psychiatric centers about taking Mr. Ramos in March 2006, the same month this Court ordered the Defendants to transfer him to a stateside facility. See Ex. A, Balaban Decl. 2 (Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories), at 9. In the last nine months, Defendants have not contacted a single one of the some 440 remaining stateside psychiatric facilities about accepting Mr. Ramos as a patient. Id.
55. Mr. Ramos remains housed at the CJC. Dr. Lu has noted no improvement in Mr. Ramos' condition in the past year. In April 2006, Mr. Ramos “had a ‘bizarre flat affect [and] poor eye contact[, i]nappropriate demeanor[, his] speech [was] minimal[, and he gave] irrelevant answers.”Id. In May 2006, Dr. Metzner again found that Mr. Ramos “suffers from a chronic schizophrenic disorder, which requires treatment in a long-term hospital setting.”Id. Mr. Ramos did not even recognize his sister the last time she saw him. Declaration of Angela Ramos Michael (dkt.462) ¶ 7.
*14 56. In June 2006, without notifying either the Court or class counsel, Attorney General Drue ordered her department to dismiss the criminal charges against Jonathan Ramos. This was less than a week after Plaintiffs had filed the pending motion to hold Attorney General Drue and the other named defendants in contempt of the Court's March 22, 2006 Order requiring them to transfer Mr. Ramos to a psychiatric hospital.
57. The Court held an emergency hearing regarding Mr. Ramos on June 23, 2006. The Attorney General told this Court that the Department of Justice had prepared a petition to have Mr. Ramos committed on an emergency basis at RLS Hospital, and that he

would be transported from the CJC to the hospital that day. The Attorney General conceded that she had not spoken with the hospital or the Department of Health about the commitment petition or Mr. Ramos, and that she had no assurance that the hospital would accept Mr. Ramos. (June 23, 2006 hearing tr. at 34:16-35:2, 42:17-18, 48:4-16, 51:12-13 (Drue)). She also conceded that the emergency commitment would last for a maximum of five days.(Id. at 46:1-15 (Drue)). She was unaware of any plan the Government had to house and treat Mr. Ramos after the five day commitment order-if granted-expired. (June 23, 2006 hearing tr. at 34:16-35:2,42:17-18, 48:4-16, 51:12-13 (Drue)). She also said that she would have no authority over Mr. Ramos once his criminal charges were dismissed on the Government's motion, and that she did not have the authority to order the hospital to accept Mr. Ramos. (Id.)
58. On June 23, 2006, CJC staff took Mr. Ramos to RLS Hospital, and attempted to have him admitted under the emergency commitment statute of the Virgin Islands. Ramos Michael Decl. ¶ 8. Dr. Lu had completed an emergency commitment petition on behalf of Mr. Ramos. Id. RLS Hospital refused to accept Mr. Ramos. Id.
59. Following the June 23, 2006 hearing, this Court ordered the Defendants to file a motion to modify the March 22 Order, which they did on June 27, 2006. See Defendants' Motion to Modify the Court's March 22, 2006 Order [“Motion to Vacate”] (dkt.456). In their Motion, Defendants have asked this Court to relieve them entirely of their obligation under the Order to hospitalize Mr. Ramos, and “[r]elease Jonathan Ramos to the care of his legal guardian, within the oversight and jurisdiction of the Superior Court (formerly known as the Territorial Court) of the Virgin Islands.”Id. at 5.
60. In support of their Motion, Defendants notified the Court in August 2006 that Jose Ramos, Mr. Ramos' half-brother, had filed a petition for guardianship before the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. See Informative Notice (dkt.469). Defendants noted that Jose Ramos stated in his petition that “he would like the opportunity to care [for] and obtain medical care for his brother.”Id. at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted).
61. Defendants failed to notify this Court that in

September 2006, Jose Ramos was identified as a convicted felon in the proceedings before the Superior Court, and that his petition for guardianship was denied. See Ex. B, Balaban Decl. 2 (Reply to Response to Petition, filed Sept. 22, 2006, in In the Matter of the Guardianship of Jonathan Ramos, Jr., Case No. ST-06-GU-27 (V.I.2006)). Rather, the Superior Court ordered Arturo Watlington, Jr., the attorney who represents the estate of Mr. Ramos' late father, to submit the names of two attorneys who may be considered for guardianship of Mr. Ramos. Ex. C, Balaban Decl. 2 at 2 (In the Matter of the Guardianship of Jonathan Ramos, Jr., Case No. ST06-GU-27, slip op. (V.I. Oct. 24, 2006)).
*15 62. In its October 24 Order, the Superior Court also denied a request to have a guardian appointed to “care for [Jonathan Ramos] or locate a residential treatment program to care for Jonathan Ramos,” on the grounds that “the issue of placement of Jonathan Ramos is pending in Civil No. 94-078 in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, a Court of competent jurisdiction.”Id. at 3. Defendants failed to notify this Court about this Order, even though it was served upon Attorney General Drue, Mr. Schrader, and territorial warden Agnes George. Id.
63. Mr. Ramos remains warehoused at the CJC, even though there are no criminal charges pending against him. The risk Mr. Ramos poses to himself and others would be magnified if he were released to the streets of St. Thomas, where he would have no home, no supervision, and would likely no longer be taking his medications. Mr. Ramos has been institutionalized since he was thirteen years old. See Declaration of Angela Ramos Michael ¶ 2. According to his sister, Mr. Ramos has on several occasions assaulted his family members who have attempted to care for him. Id. ¶¶ 2-5.Mr. Ramos assaulted his sister one day after she took him into her home after he was discharged from the Seaview juvenile facility at age 14. Id . ¶ 2. At age 18, Mr. Ramos attempted to assault his brother and sister-in-law on the day they took him into their home after he was discharged from a Georgia juvenile facility. Id. ¶ 4. Mr. Ramos had been housed at the Georgia facility since his arrest for assaulting a home health care nurse whom the Ramos family had hired to care for him-the nurse called police after she barricaded herself in a closet to escape Mr. Ramos. Id. ¶ 3.

64. In the month leading up to his arrest that had him at the CJC, Mr. Ramos was living on the streets, unmedicated, refusing offers of help from his family. Id. ¶ 5. Shortly before his arrest, Mr. Ramos reportedly got into a scuffle, and was almost drowned. Id. Due to the severity of his illness and his violent history, no family member would take Mr. Ramos if he were released. Id. ¶¶ 2, 9.
E. CJC Annex & Medical Staff
65. In 1997, Defendants signed a Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP) Agreement with the U.S. Marshal's Service to house federal detainees in BOC facilities in exchange for a per diem payment for each detainee, and $1,329,00.00 to renovate the Annex so that detainees could be housed there. Carty II, 144 F.Supp.2d at 412. In 1999, two disbursements totaling approximately $1,000,000.00 were issued to the Government from the CAP Agreement for Annex renovations. Id. at 412-13.
66. Despite this influx of funds, Defendants failed to complete renovations to the Annex. The Government hired a private firm, F & G Construction, to renovate the Annex, but the project was plagued by work stoppages caused by the Defendants' failure to pay F & G. Id. at 413.Based on the long-standing delays in completing the Annex renovations, and the resulting environmental hazards, this Court on August 2, 2000 ordered the Defendants to complete the renovations by November 1, 2000. See Sept. 7, 2000 Order ¶ 3.
*16 67. In 2001, this Court held the Defendants in contempt of the Annex renovation provision of the September 7, 2000 remedial order. Carty II, 144 F.Supp.2d at 412-13, 416-17. This Court found that “delays in renovations allowed dangerous conditions at the Annex to persist, and the unfinished construction created its own hazards,” and created the risk “of [Defendants'] being held in breach of the Marshal's Service CAP agreement, which would lead to a substantial loss of revenue and threaten Defendants' ability to comply with the Agreement and the Court's orders.” Id. at 413-14.
68. In 2003, the Court again held Defendants in contempt of the Annex renovation provision. It found that the Government had failed to monitor F & G's work throughout 2001 “despite their avowed poor working relationship with the firm.”Carty III, slip op.

at 40.By the time the Government cancelled its contract with F & G, the Annex was plagued by “structural deficiencies,” including “water intrusion that likely would damage the building's electrical system.”Id. at 38 (internal quotations omitted). Before the Annex prisoners were moved out of the building in 2002, they had to endure “hazardous and unsanitary conditions,” including sewage and water flowing into their cells, inoperable toilets, and bug and rodent infestation. Id. at 39, n. 42.
69. The Annex remained closed when the Court issued its May 2003 contempt decision, “despite [Defendants'] assurances that the renovation project would be ‘fast-tracked’ and completed by November 2002.” Id. at 40.
70. In 2003, the Government executed a contract with Roy's Construction Co. to complete the Annex renovations. (See Dec. 3, 2003 hearing tr. at 44:14-25 (Stridiron)). The Attorney General testified that the project would be completed by March 2, 2004. (Id. at 45:5-8 (Stridiron)). Defendants later submitted to counsel and the Court a punch list for completing the Annex renovations, which had a projected completion date of April 8, 2004. See Ex. J, Balaban Decl. In July 2004, Defendants reported that the construction project had not been completed, and that they now expected the work to be done, and the building re-occupied, by October 2004. (July 19, 2004 hearing tr. at 23:18-24:12 (George)). Warden George assured the Court that the Government could return prisoners to the Annex as soon as it “got a permit from the Department of Public Works that [the Annex] can be re-occupied.”(Id. at 24:5-7 (George)). The Court ordered the Defendants to complete the Annex and return prisoners there no later than October 31, 2004. See July 21, 2004 Order ¶ 3. At a September 8, 2004 hearing, the Defendants assured the Court that they were on schedule to reopen the Annex no later than October 30, 2004. (Sept. 8, 2004 hearing tr. at 51:11-15 (Williams)).
71. Defendants failed to meet the Court's deadline. On December 21, 2004, James Balsamo, an environmental and fire safety expert, toured the Annex construction site. No work was ongoing at the site at the time of his inspection. (See Feb. 15, 2005 hearing tr. at 46:5-22, Pl.Ex. D at 23). Mr. Balsamo spoke with the general contractor from Roy's Construction, who told him that the company had

worked several months without a signed contract. (See Feb. 15, 2005 hearing tr., Pl.Ex. D at 23). He explained that “the company ceased work in the Fall after the Government failed to pay its bills for the work. The contractor estimated that the company had done ‘several hundred thousand dollars' of work before stopping due to non-payment.”(Id.) The contractor stated that Roy's and the Government were negotiating for the payment of earnest money, so that work could resume. (Id.)
*17 72. After some further delays, the Annex renovations were completed at the end of 2005. However, the Defendants failed to hire health care staff for the Annex. (See Jan. 10, 2006 hearing tr. at 10:11-12 (LaPlace)). Defendants planned for existing health care staff working at the CJC to travel to the Annex and provide services. (Id. at 11:3-13 (LaPlace)). However, Lisa LaPlace, R.N., the BOC's Nursing Coordinator, testified that this solution was “unacceptable [since t]he staff is already stretched as far as it can stretch.”(Id. at 11:11-13 (LaPlace)). On Nov. 21, 2005, Ms. LaPlace submitted to the Director a list of health care positions that were needed to serve the prisoners at the Annex. (Seeid. at Pl.Ex. A). Ms. LaPlace testified that Defendants would need two part-time R.N.'s and a part-time M.D. at the facility. (Id. at 11:15-16 (LaPlace)). Ms. LaPlace has identified candidates for these positions who are ready to begin work. (Jan 10, 2006 hearing tr. at 11:23-12:2 (LaPlace)). However, as of January 2006, Defendants had failed to submit a supplemental budget to the legislature to fund these positions. (Id. at 16:1-3 (Ponteen)).
73. Despite her requests, Ms. LaPlace was not given access to the Annex until she accompanied the Court on its January 10, 2006 inspection. (Id. at 13:8-12 (LaPlace)). Following her tour, Ms. LaPlace testified that the Annex does not have medical equipment necessary to provide health care services, or a set of health care policies. (Id. at 13:16-22 (LaPlace)). Following the hearing, the Court ordered the Defendants to hire a physician and two nurses for the Annex, and by March 29, 2006 to produce a progress report on their efforts to draft policies and purchase medical equipment for the Annex. Mar. 22, 2006 Order ¶¶ 1-3.
74. Defendants have failed to hire a full complement of medical staff or produce a progress report. Dr.

Metzner reported in May 2006 that the Annex remained closed “because the BOC has failed to hire health care personnel to staff the facility, and has not installed necessary medical equipment.”May 2006 Metzner Report at 2. CJC staff told Dr. Metzner that mentally ill prisoners would be excluded from the Annex, but the BOC “has not developed policies and procedures to assess, identify, and exclude mentally ill inmates from the facility.”Id. Dr. Metzner recommended that Defendants develop policies and procedures that “describe the screening process to be used to identify and exclude mentally ill inmates from the Annex[, and that] describe the process to be implemented that identify and transfer inmates who were appropriately admitted to the Annex but later demonstrate symptoms of a mental illness.”Id. at 3. Defendants agreed to implement Dr. Metzner's recommendation, which was incorporated into this Court's November 20, 2006 Order. See Nov. 20, 2006 Order ¶ 1.
75. In August 2006, Plaintiffs filed their First Set of Interrogatories. Among the information they requested was the following: “Identify all persons who provide health care services to CJC Annex prisoners, and the date(s) they began their work at the Annex, the number of hours of service they provide at the CJC Annex, and the number of hours of service they provide at the CJC (if any).” Ex. A, Balaban Decl. 2 (Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories), at 2. Defendants failed to list any health care personnel working at the Annex in their October 2006 response. Id. Defendants also failed to list any draft and completed health care policies and procedures for the Annex in response to Plaintiffs' interrogatories. Seeid. at 4.
*18 76. Despite not having medical staff or health care policies and procedures, the Defendants nevertheless re-opened the Annex in May 2006. The facility does not house any federal detainees, and only houses sentenced Virgin Islands prisoners. Seeid. at 2. Though the Annex has a capacity of 80 prisoners (Jan. 10, 2006 hearing tr. at 10:21-22 (LaPlace)), the average daily population at the Annex since it re-opened is 18 inmates. Ex. A, Balaban Decl. 2 (Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories), at 2.
77. In November 2006, Defendants reported that they had hired a part-time RN to work at the Annex. See

Ex. D, Balaban Decl. 2 (Nov. 6, 2006 memorandum from Lisa LaPlace Knight, RN, to Director Horsford), at 2. Defendants did not indicate the status of the unfilled physician and second RN positions. Seeid.Also, at that time the Annex still was not equipped with an adequate medical office to treat prisoners. Id. Among the deficiencies noted were “[n]o garbage can, no privacy screen, no water source, fire hydrant hung where inmate may use as a weapon, exam table missing part and torn fabric to cover [,][b]uilt in cabinet not where requested and no consultation with territorial coordinator as for the reason for the need to change from requested placement.”Id. Ms. LaPlace suggested that there be “monthly meetings to develop policies for the Annex.”Id. She concluded the memo as follows, “It is not clear as to what type of client will be housed at [the Annex], and the procedure to have patients seen at CJC by Dr. Less[, the jail's physician].”Id.
78. As a result of Defendants' failure to repopulate the Annex, they have been unable to house federal detainees on St. Thomas,FN6 thus losing valuable revenue from the CAP Agreement that otherwise could have been used to remedy the numerous dangerous conditions at the jail.
FN6. The BOC's Director testified in 2002 that the Annex renovations will result in an additional 24 or 25 beds to house federal detainees. (Nov. 7, 2002 hearing tr. at 91:1017 (Magras)).
F. Medical Records & Health Care Records Clerk
79. The Medical Charts provisions of the Settlement Agreement require Defendants to adopt standard charting procedures so that prisoners' medical records are complete and usable. See Agreement ¶¶ N.1-4. Through 2004, Dr. Braslow reported that the CJC maintained mental health records in separate charts that were kept in a different office from prisoners' medical records. See,e.g., Ex. B, Balaban Decl., at 9. Dr. Braslow found that “[t]his results in considerable confusion in trying to review and monitor patient care.”He recommended that “[t]he medical and mental health records ... be maintained in a unified chart, but may be kept in separate sections within that chart in order to protect confidentiality.”Id.
80. In April 2005, Dr. Metzner found the record

system unchanged. He reported that “[s]ignificant problems exist related to the current health care record system because the jail maintains multiple health care records for the same inmate, and does not have medical records staff to organize and maintain the files.”Metzner April 2005 Report at 12. Dr. Metzner found that “[i]t is extremely difficult to document and assess a specific inmate's course of treatment with the current disorganized records system.”Id. At the close of Dr. Metzner's tour, Defendants agreed to integrate health care records into a single chart for each prisoner. Id.
*19 81. As of January 10, 2006, Defendants had failed to integrate the medical and mental health records, or to hire additional staff to maintain those records. (See Jan. 10, 2006 hearing tr. at 23:21-24:5. (LaPlace)). Rather, Ms. LaPlace, as the jail's chief nurse, handled all medical record filing, but she did not have access to the mental health files. (Id. at 24:1-11 (LaPlace)). Following the hearing, the Court ordered the Defendants to hire a health care records clerk. Mar. 22, 2006 Order ¶ 5.
82. Defendants are violating the Court's Order and the Settlement Agreement's Medical Charts provisions. In May 2006, Dr. Metzner again found that the jail maintained separate medical and mental health care records. Metzner May 2006 Report at 1415. He did report that the jail had assigned a corrections officer to the medical department to work as a records clerk. Id. at 15.Dr Metzner concluded, “[t]hough such an assignment attempts to provide a much-needed function, the use of a correctional officer for such purposes violates national standards (including those of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC)) related to issues of confidentiality and medical autonomy. In addition, a correctional officer, no matter how well intentioned, does not have the training or experience required for a medical records filing position.”Id. Two months before Dr. Metzner's tour, Plaintiffs had objected to the Defendants' plan to hire a deputy to act as a records clerk, had sent the relevant NCCHC standard to Defendants, and asked them to reconsider. See Ex. K, Balaban Decl. (Feb. 17, 2005 letter from Eric Balaban to Richard Schrader, Jr.). Defendants disregarded Plaintiffs' request.
83. In May 2006, Dr. Metzner recommended that the BOC fund a medical records technician position for

CJC health care. May 2006 Metzner Report at 15. Defendants agreed to implement this recommendation, which was incorporated into this Court's November 20, 2006 Order. See Nov. 20, 2006 Order ¶ 1. Rather than hire a qualified medical records technician, the Defendants are using Department of Labor trainees to assist medical staff with prisoners' health care records. See Ex. A, Balaban Decl. 2 (Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories), at 5. As of October 2006, only 40% of prisoners' medical and mental health records had been integrated. Id.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. There is Clear and Convincing Evidence that Defendants are in Contempt of Both the Agreement and the Court's Remedial Orders.
1. A court has the “inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders through civil contempt.” Spallone v. Unites States, 493 U.S. 265, 276, 110 S.Ct. 625, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990) (quoting Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966)). Willfulness is not an element of civil contempt, and good faith is not a defense. SeeRobin Woods, Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir.1994); Harley Davidson, Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142, 148-49 (3d Cir.1994). In order to hold Defendants in contempt, this Court must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) a valid order existed, (2) the defendant had knowledge of the order,FN7 and (3) the defendant disobeyed the order. See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1326 (3d Cir.1995) [“Harris I” ].FN8
FN7. A corollary to the requirement that the contemnor have knowledge of the order is that the order must be specific and definite See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1342, 1349, 1350 (3d Cir.1995).
FN8. The Court's contempt power is unaffected by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626etseq. (West 2000).SeeCarty III, slip op. at 63 n. 83 (citing Essex County Jail Annex Inmates v. Treffinger, 18 F.Supp.2d 445, 462 (D.N.J.1998) and Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 2000 WL 1978 at *16 (E.D.Pa. Dec.23, 1999)).

*20 2. Defendants, however, “may escape contempt by showing that [they] could not possibly comply with the court's order, despite making all reasonable efforts to do so.” Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1333, 1341 (3d Cir.1995) [“Harris II” ]. The Third Circuit has held that the defense of impossibility refers to “physical impossibility beyond the control of the alleged contemnor.” Allegheny County Jail Inmates v. Wecht, 874 F.2d 147, 152 (3d Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 493 U.S. 948, 110 S.Ct. 355, 107 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989), remanded with instructions to vacate as moot, 893 F.2d 33 (3d Cir.1990); see also Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital, 673 F.2d 628, 638 (3d Cir.1982) (only “literal physical impossibility” excuses compliance); cf. United States v. City of Yonkers, 856 F.2d 444, 458 (2d Cir.1988) (City held in contempt of civil rights housing decree for failing to pass court-ordered housing ordinance; impossibility claim rejected because City did not ask Governor to use his authority to remove from office the recalcitrant city council members who refused to pass the ordinance); cert. granted in part sub nom, Spallone v. United States, 489 U.S. 1064, 109 S.Ct. 1337, 103 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989); rev'd., 493 U.S. 265, 110 S.Ct. 625, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990) (reversing contempt sanction against city council members).
3. To preclude a finding of contempt, Defendants bear the burden to produce “evidence beyond a mere assertion of inability [to comply], and to show that [they] ha[ve] made in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.” Harris I, 47 F.3d at 1324;see also Carty III, 144 F.Supp.2d at 415 (“[m]ere good faith efforts are insufficient” to escape contempt) (citing Robin Woods, Inc., 28 F.3d at 399 and Harley Davidson, 19 F.3d at 148-49). If a defendant “offers no evidence as to [his] inability to comply with the [ ] order, or stands mute, [he] does not meet [his burden]. Nor does he do so by evidence or by his own denials which the court finds incredible in context.” Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 75-76, 68 S.Ct. 401, 92 L.Ed. 476 (1948).
4. Defendants are in contempt of the Agreement and the Court's March 22, 2006, October 5, 2004, and July 19, 2004 Orders. It is undisputed that the Agreement and remedial orders were and still are valid; they are not presently challenged by either

party. It is likewise undisputed that Defendants had knowledge of their obligations under the Agreement and remedial orders, which are explicit and unambiguous. As set forth in the foregoing factual findings, there is clear, convincing, and undisputed evidence that Defendants have willfully disobeyed numerous provisions of the Agreement and remedial orders.
5. For the most part, the Court's findings are based on Dr. Metzner's reports, to which the Defendants have stipulated, and on Defendants' own admissions at previous hearings. In many cases, Defendants conceded during these hearings that they failed to comply with the Court's Orders.
6. Over the past three years, Defendants have also failed to live up to the commitments they made to this Court to remedy conditions at the jail. For example, since 2003 Defendants missed no fewer than four separate deadlines they pledged to meet for re-opening the Annex. They failed to assist Mr. Ramos' sister in preparing civil commitment papers, and did not move Mr. Ramos to either Anna's Retreat or to a retrofitted unit at ACF, as they variously promised to do over the past three years. Defendants have made virtually no progress in completing the forensic facility at Anna's Hope, despite assuring the Court that they would open the facility no later than November 2004. They acknowledge that the four NGRI patients remain virtually untreated in a general population unit at ACF.
*21 7. The efforts Defendants have made to comply with this Court's Orders leave much to be desired. They contacted less than 2% of all psychiatric hospitals in the United States to find an appropriate facility for Mr. Ramos and the NGRI patients, and have not contacted a single facility in close to a year. While they removed corrections officers from handling medical records, they replaced them with Department of Labor trainees who pose the same confidentiality hazards as the officers themselves. They did hire one part-time nurse to provide services at the Annex. However, their own staffing plan calls for the hiring of a second nurse and a physician, who apparently have not begun work at the facility. Also, the Annex still has no health care policies and procedures, and its medical area is ill-equipped. Defendants acknowledge they have made no effort in the past year to complete the forensic facility at

Anna's Hope. As a result, prisoners like Mr. Ramos and the four NGRI patients will continue to languish in the territory's prison and jail. Certainly, these halfmeasures do not amount to “all reasonable efforts” to comply.
8. Defendants have attributed their non-compliance with the remedial order requiring Jonathan Ramos to be transferred to insufficient funds. The Court repeatedly has held that “ ‘lack of financing is not a defense to the failure ... to provide minimum constitutional standards in the operation of a ... jail.” ’ Carty III, 144 F.Supp.2d at 416 (quoting Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 744-45);see also Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 392, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) (“financial constraints cannot be used to justify the creation or perpetuation of constitutional violations.”). Defendants are obligated to consider all reasonable options to comply with these provisions, regardless of how costly or politically unattractive they may be. See Harris I, 47 F.3d at 1324 (the fact that the City might incur additional costs by conducting a court-ordered facilities audit which may later require an amendment did not render the City's performance of the audit impossible so as to relieve them of the responsibility for compliance); Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 855 F.2d 874, 877-78 (D.C.Cir.1988) (rejecting District's claim of impossibility to comply with population cap in consent decree; political difficulties associated with the acquisition of additional facilities or other actions designed to accommodate the overflow did not establish that the District was powerless to alleviate overcrowding so as to excuse disobedience, and contempt sanction is upheld). Moreover, at least one facility they contacted-St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C.-refused to consider taking Mr. Ramos because the Government had an outstanding unpaid bill for services from that facility.
9. This Court has recognized the financial barriers to compliance faced by Defendants, and created a remedial account in order to provide Defendants with ready access to funds necessary to improve conditions and operations at the jail. Even if the funds in the remedial account did not cover the entire cost of constructing a forensic unit, they could have been used to pay for the temporary transfer of Mr. Ramos and the NGRI patients to a stateside forensic unit, or to increase mental health services at the CJC,

until Defendants develop a concrete plan for appropriately housing and treating these prisoners in the territory. The funds in the account could have covered the costs of hiring medical staff for and equipping the Annex until the supplemental budget was approved. Defendants, however, took none of these steps. Such conduct exposes them to contempt. See, e.g., Inmates of Allegheny County Jail, 874 F.2d at 152 (county officials who “simply chose to take no steps to provide the Warden and his staff with the wherewithal to comply” with consent order held in contempt; impossibility defense dismissed as “sophistical”).
*22 10. Defendants have moved this Court to vacate its March 22, 2006 Order to hospitalize Jonathan Ramos. This Court addresses Defendants' Motion as follows:
1. Defendants Are Not Entitled to Vacatur of this Court's Order Requiring Them to Hospitalize Jonathan Ramos.
11. Rather than comply with the Court's Order to hospitalize Mr. Ramos, Attorney General Drue attempted to subvert it by dismissing the criminal charges against him, and discharging him from the CJC. The Attorney General took these steps without notifying either this Court or Plaintiffs' counsel, or filing a motion to modify the Court's Order. When it learned of the Attorney General's actions, this Court ordered the Defendants to file a motion to modify, which they did on June 27, 2006. See Motion to Vacate (dkt.456).
12. In their Motion, Defendants have asked this Court to relieve them entirely of their obligation under the Order to hospitalize Mr. Ramos, and “[r]elease Jonathan Ramos to the care of his legal guardian, within the oversight and jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands.”Id. at 5. However, the Superior Court presiding over Mr. Ramos' guardianship proceedings dismissed a request to have a guardian appointed to “care for him or locate a residential treatment program to care for Jonathan Ramos,” on the grounds that “the issue of placement of Jonathan Ramos is pending in Civil No. 94-078 in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, a Court of competent jurisdiction.”Ex. C, Balaban Decl. 2 at 3 (In the Matter of the Guardianship of Jonathan Ramos, Jr., Case No. ST-06-GU-27, slip op. (V.I.

Oct. 24, 2006)). Therefore, there is no longer a basis for Defendants to seek a vacatur or modification of this Court's March 22, 2006 Order. Defendants failed to notify this Court about this Order, even though it was served upon Attorney General Drue, Mr. Schrader, and territorial warden Agnes George. Id.
13. Defendants would not be entitled to vacatur even if the Superior Court had not dismissed the guardianship petition. To obtain a complete dissolution of all or part of a consent decree, a moving party must show it has complied with the decree for a reasonable period of time such that the purpose of the decree has been achieved, and that there is little likelihood that the wrongs the decree were designed to address will recur. See Bd. of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991) (a federal court may vacate an equitable decree “after the [defendants] have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time.”); see generally 12 Moore's Federal Practice, § 60.47[2][c] (3d ed.2003) (“a modification of an injunction may be justified on a wide variety of circumstances.... In contrast, if a party seeks to have a decree set aside entirely, he or she has to show that the decree has served its purpose, and there is no longer any need for the injunction.”).
14. Defendants are not entitled to vacatur. They concede that they have not complied with the March 22 Order, and that Mr. Ramos remains warehoused at the jail. In fact, Defendants have made no effort to hospitalize Mr. Ramos in the past nine months, other than their failed attempt to commit him to RLS Hospital, which has rejected Mr. Ramos in the past, and is not an appropriate facility for him, according to the jail's own psychiatrist. (See Pl.Ex. 3, Dec. 3, 2003 hearing (“[Mr. Ramos] is unlikely to ever regain competency and is in need of long-term residential psychiatric treatment [ ] stateside since there is no adequate facility available here in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”)). Certainly, their ill-conceived, failed effort to transfer Mr. Ramos to RLS Hospital cannot warrant vacatur. Cf. Dowell 498 U.S. at 24950 (holding that a school district that had “complied ... in good faith” with a desegregation decree for thirteen years might be entitled to termination, if it had “complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered,” and “the vestiges of past discrimination [have] been eliminated to the extent

practicable.”) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
2. Defendants are not Entitled to a Modification of This Court's Order.
*23 15. In Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), the Supreme Court set forth the considerations relevant to a request to modify a consent decree under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5):
Rule 60(b)(5) provides that a party may obtain relief from a court order when “it is no longer equitable that the judgement should have prospective application,” not when it is no longer convenient to live within the terms of a consent decree. Accordingly, a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.
A party seeking modification of a consent decree may meet its initial burden by showing either a significant change in factual conditions or in law.
Id. at 383 (footnote omitted).
16. A party alleging that a change in law warrants modification must show either that the decree imposes an obligation that has become impermissible under federal law, or that the law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prohibit. Id. at 388.A party alleging a change in fact must show that this change makes compliance with the decree substantially more onerous; or it makes the decree unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles; or it makes enforcement of the unmodified decree detrimental to the public interest. Id. at 384.However, “modification should not be granted when a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree.”Id. The Third Circuit has emphasized, “[c]entral to the court's consideration will be whether the modification is sought because changed conditions unforeseen by the parties have made compliance substantially more onerous or have made the decree unworkable.” Building and Constr. Trades Council of Philadelphia v. NLRB, 64 F.3d 880, 888 (3d Cir.1995) (emphasis

added).
17. Defendants have not argued that there has been an intervening change in law since the Court entered its Order three months ago. They do argue that there have been two changes in fact that require modification. Neither alleged change in fact requires this Court to modify its Order that Defendants hospitalize Mr. Ramos.
18. First, Defendants argue that the Virgin Islands superior court judge presiding over a probate action regarding the estate of Mr. Ramos' father “recently ordered counsel for the Estate of Juan Ramos (Jonathan Ramos' father) to file [a] proof of guardianship petition for Jonathan Ramos in the Family Division of the Court by June 30, 2006.”Motion to Vacate at 3.
19. Again, Defendants failed to notify this Court that the Superior Court has dismissed a request to have a guardian appointed to “care for him or locate a residential treatment program to care for Jonathan Ramos,” and has referred “the issue of placement of Jonathan Ramos” to this Court. Ex. C, Balaban Decl. 2 at 3 (In the Matter of the Guardianship of Jonathan Ramos, Jr., Case No. ST-06-GU-27, slip op. (V.I. Oct. 24, 2006)).
*24 20. Therefore, the future appointment of a guardian for Mr. Ramos will not address his placement or care. That issue has been left for this Court. The appointment of a guardian to protect Mr. Ramos' interest in the pending probate proceedings over his father's estate does not make Defendant's compliance with the Order to hospitalize him “more onerous,” nor would it create an “unforseen obstacle” that would make compliance “unworkable,” nor would it make compliance “detrimental to the public interest.” See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384. Certainly, the guardian's duty to protect Mr. Ramos' best interests is also served if Defendants meet their obligation to hospitalize him. One would expect that Mr. Ramos' guardian, once appointed, would strongly support the Government's complying with the Court's Order.FN9
FN9. In fact, Arturo Watlington, who represents the Ramos family in the probate action, filed a motion to have himself or another attorney appointed to serve as Mr. Ramos' guardian. Declaration of Arturo

Watlington (dkt.462) ¶ 5. Mr. Watlington states that he would oppose any modification of this Court's Order if he were appointed Mr. Ramos' guardian. Id. ¶ 7.
21. It is Defendants' refusal to comply with the Order that has been “detrimental to the public interest.” Three psychiatrists, two of whom work for the Government, have all agreed that Mr. Ramos poses a serious threat to harm himself and others, and that there is no facility in the territory that can adequately house and treat him. The public's interest in seeing that Mr. Ramos is not released until he no longer poses a danger to himself and others can only be served if the Government is required to comply with the Court's Order, and transfers Mr. Ramos to an appropriate facility, either in the territory or stateside.
22. Second, Defendants ask that they be relieved of their responsibility to hospitalize Mr. Ramos because he “is no longer a part of the plaintiff class due to the recent dismissal of his criminal charges.”Motion to Vacate at 5. This Court has already determined that Defendants' “canceling the charges or withdrawing the [criminal] charges no way changes the effect of [its] Order.”(June 23, 2006 hearing tr. at 53:8-10). Likewise, the Supreme Court made clear in Rufo that “modification should not be granted when a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384. Here, Defendants seek modification based upon a deliberate action they themselves took, not a development hat was unknowable to them last year when they stipulated to the Court's Order. Far from being unanticipated, this was a tack Defendants proposed in 2005, for which the Court rebuffed them:
MR. SWAN: I've just been informed of something that we have tried before, or we have talked about before but certainly wouldn't work in a humanitarian-in a humanitarian manner. We can easily go and dismiss the case against Mr. Ramos.
THE COURT: That's not the answer..
MR. SWAN: You'd have to do it but that's not the answer. And we simply have to find a place for him-just plain old humanitarian reasons.
(Feb. 15, 2005 hearing tr. at 37:10-19).

23. In essence, the Attorney General's argument is that she can subvert this Court's Order by exercising her authority and discretion under Virgin Islands law to dismiss the criminal charges against Mr. Ramos. The Supreme Court rejected such willful defiance in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958). In Cooper, the state of Arkansas amended its constitution to command the state's attorney general to oppose the “unconstitutional decisions” of the Supreme Court with regard to school desegregation. The legislature also passed statutes establishing barriers to integration, and Governor Faubus ordered the state's National Guard to block court-ordered integration of Central High School in Little Rock. Id. at 12.A unanimous Court ruled that legislature's and Governor's actions did not excuse compliance with the integration orders:
*25 No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery....” A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, ‘it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases....'
358 U.S. at 18-19 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
24. Since Cooper, the federal courts repeatedly have struck down similar efforts by state officials to nullify their responsibilities under court-ordered consent decrees. See, e.g., Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1333, 1340, 1342 (3d Cir.1995) (Third Circuit rejected defendants' claimed “complete defense to contempt” of court order requiring 90% occupancy at residential drug treatment facilities because under state law they “must rely on parole petitions to individual state

courts to fill a drug treatment facility with prison inmates, and these courts [were] refusing such petitions.”The court held, “[b]ecause the City directly contributed to the state courts' loss of confidence in [the treatment facility], it cannot now complain that its hands were tied by the state courts' refusal to cooperate.”); Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 861 n. 20 (9th Cir.1992) (“When the defendants chose to consent to a judgment, rather than have the District Court adjudicate the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, the result was a fully enforceable federal judgment that overrides any conflicting state law or state court order. The strong policy encouraging settlement of cases requires that the terms of a consent judgment ... be respected as fully as a judgment entered after trial.”); Hook v. State of Ariz. 907 F.Supp. 1326, 1342 (D.Ariz.1995) (in denying a motion to modify a prison conditions consent decree premised on an alleged change in state law precluding payment of special master, the court held, “[e]ssentially, the Defendants suggest that the legislature of the State of Arizona be given the power to require a federal court to modify or ‘harmonize’ its orders to comply with the Arizona state law.... Even the Congress of the United States lacks the power which the Arizona state legislature would enrobe itself.”); Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hosp., 533 F.Supp. 631, 638-39 (E.D.Pa.1981) (in finding Pennsylvania legislators in contempt of a court order appointing a special master in a special education case, the court held that the defendants were not relieved of their responsibility to comply with the order because the legislature refused to appropriate funds to pay the master); cf. Good v. Dauphin Co. Social Services, 891 F.2d 1087, 1091 (3d Cir.1989) (“[S]tate law cannot immunize government employees from liability resulting from their violations of federal law.”).
*26 25. There are no grounds to distinguish Governor Faubus' actions in Cooper to thwart enforcement of a school desegregation order from Attorney General Drue's willful decision to dismiss the criminal charges against Jonathan Ramos, and then use that dismissal as grounds to thwart enforcement of this Court's order to hospitalize him. In both cases, state officials used their powers under state law in contravention of an order of the federal court. Allowing this naked breach of the Supremacy Clause would only encourage additional attempts by Defendants to defy this Court's power. The risk is

particularly great for prisoners like Mr. Ramos, whose treatment needs outstrip the Government's current capacity. Apparently, it is far easier and less costly for the Government simply to dismiss the charges against Mr. Ramos than to do its duty to house and treat him.
3. All of the Equities in this Case Support Enforcement of the Court's Order to Hospitalize Mr. Ramos.
26. As the Rufo Court stated, “a consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 391. This Circuit has recognized that Rufo does not establish a “universal formula,” and has set forth factors that a court should consider when deciding whether to modify an injunction, including:
the circumstances leading to entry of the injunction and the nature of the conduct sought to be prevented; the length of time since entry of the injunction; whether the party subject to its terms has complied or attempted to comply in good faith with the injunction; and the likelihood that the conduct or conditions sought to be prevented will recur absent the injunction.
Building and Const. Trades, 64 F.3d at 888.
27. Here, equity requires this Court to maintain its March 22, 2006 Order, which was designed to bring an end to Defendants' mistreatment and neglect of Mr. Ramos. The Order is based on substantial evidence, including the testimony by three psychiatric experts who all agree that Mr. Ramos poses a serious threat to harm himself and others, and cannot be adequately treated in the territory. The Court was compelled to enter the Order after four years of Defendants' broken promises regarding Mr. Ramos' care. The Order was entered less than a year ago, and was based on the consent of the Defendants. Since the Order was entered, Defendants have made little or no effort to comply with its terms and hospitalize Mr. Ramos. By their own admission, in the past nine months they have not contacted a single stateside psychiatric center about accepting Mr. Ramos as a patient. As a result, Mr. Ramos remains warehoused at the CJC, where Defendants have long acknowledged he cannot be safely and appropriately treated.

28. This is the second time that Defendants have sought to modify a decree in this case. In 1997, this Court denied Defendants' motion to modify the compliance deadlines in the Settlement Agreement that was premised on “unforeseeable and unbudgeted financial setbacks caused by extreme inclement weather storms.” Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 746. This Court reasoned that equitable considerations did not support modification since Defendants' compliance with the Agreement had been “marginal at best,” the CJC remained an “[in]humane prison [that] does not provide minimal constitutional living conditions,” and “there is no evidence to suggest that defendants have even attempted to effect systemic change by advocating for legislative assistance and support.”Id.
*27 29. These same equitable considerations for denying modification nine years ago still apply today. Defendants' record of compliance with the Agreement and the Court's remedial orders remains abysmal. Defendants have now been held in contempt four times in this case, and they remain under two contempt citations. Their mistreatment of Mr. Ramos is well-documented: they have allowed him to languish in the jail for close to five years, despite the pleas from their own psychiatrist to hospitalize him for his own safety, and for the safety of fellow prisoners and staff. Defendants have contacted only 10 of the 446 psychiatric facilities in the United States regarding Mr. Ramos. The BOC's director admitted that one of these hospitals had done business with the Virgin Islands in the past, but it refused to consider taking Mr. Ramos because the Government had failed to pay its bills. At the last status conference, the Attorney General conceded she had not spoken with either the Governor or the Secretary for the Department of Health regarding Mr. Ramos.
30. Defendants' claim that Mr. Ramos will be transferred to an appropriate treatment facility as a result of the as-yet unfiled commitment proceedings by an as-yet unnamed guardian is divorced from reality. Last year, Defendants themselves tried and failed to have Mr. Ramos involuntarily committed under the territory's emergency commitment statute. Even if Mr. Ramos were committed, there is no facility in the territory that is appropriate to treat him. In fact, this Court has held Defendants in contempt three times for failing to hospitalize acutely and

chronically mentally ill prisoners. It was Defendants' long-acknowledged non-compliance that prompted this Court to order the Government to construct and open a forensic facility in the territory to house and treat seriously mentally ill prisoners, including Mr. Ramos. See Oct. 5, 2004 Order at 1.
31. The only appeal to equity Defendants make in support of their motion is to argue that this Court's Order does not provide an appropriate deference to the independent power of the territory to fashion and implement an involuntary commitment procedure, and therefore the Order is not narrowly tailored to address their acknowledged violation of Mr. Ramos' constitutional rights. Motion to Vacate at 5. The Supreme Court has made it clear that local government administrators are entitled to “no deference” when they seek to “establish[ ] that a significant change in circumstances warrants modification of a consent decree.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 392 n. 14. If the Defendants here were entitled to the deference they demand, then every prison consent decree would be voidable by administrators from inception at their will, whether or not government officials were able to satisfy their burden under Rufo.
32. Moreover, the Superior Court has already dismissed a guardianship petition to locate a treatment program for Mr. Ramos, citing this Court's March 22 Order and these proceedings. Therefore, the issue of Mr. Ramos' care rests squarely with this Court. Even if a guardian were appointed for Mr. Ramos to initiate commitment proceedings that result in an order, that order must yield to the hospitalization order entered by this Court. See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 1995 WL 527383 (E.D.Pa. Aug.17, 1995). In Harris, the city of Philadelphia asked the court to modify the nonadmission and release provision of a consent decree addressing unconstitutional conditions in the Philadelphia jail system, since judicial commitment orders required the jail to accept prisoners. Id. at *1. The court denied the City's motion, rejecting the argument “that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution does not require that state commitment order[s] yield to the federal consent decrees because there never has been a trial in this action.”Id. at *3.
*28 33. If anything, Defendants' argument here is weaker than the City's argument that was rejected in

Harris.Here the Court's hospitalization order was not based solely on the parties' consent,FN10 but rather was the result of numerous evidentiary hearings regarding Mr. Ramos held over the past four years. Three psychiatrists, two of whom work for Defendants, have all agreed that Mr. Ramos needs to be transferred to a type of facility that does not exist in the territory. Defendants are asking this Court to wipe clean their record of broken promises and mistreatment of Mr. Ramos, and to ignore the recommendations of their own experts, all for the sake of allowing a future commitment proceeding to commence that would yield the same result this Court has already reached.
FN10. To the extent the Court's Order was based on the parties' consent, Defendants should be estopped from arguing now that the Order goes too far. Typically, courts consider three factors in determining whether to apply judicial estoppel. First, “a party's later position must be ‘clearly inconsistent’ with its earlier position.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 751, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). Here, Defendants agreed two months ago that the provision requiring them to hospitalize Mr. Ramos was the least intrusive means to correct their violation of Mr. Ramos' federal rights. See March. 22, 2006 Order at 4. Now they argue that “[r]eleasing Mr. Ramos to the care of his legal guardian, within the oversight of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands will be the least intrusive and most appropriate means of assuring the Jonathan Ramos receives the proper care and treatment he needs.”Motion to Vacate at 5.
Second, the court must have accepted the party's earlier position. Id. at 751-52.Here, the Court had to adopt the language Defendants agreed to in order to comply with the requirements for imposition of relief of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) (2002). Third, the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position must “derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.” Id. at 752.Here, Defendants if not estopped would no longer be required to hospitalize

Jonathan Ramos, or take any action on his behalf, despite their documented and acknowledged neglect of Mr. Ramos in the past four years. Mr. Ramos' fate would then be decided by an as-yet unfiled commitment petition, to be filed by an asyet unnamed guardian. Given the fact that no hospital in the territory will accept him, Mr. Ramos would possibly end up on the streets, untreated, a man the Government's own psychiatrist deemed to be “at high risk in the reasonable future to be dangerous to himself or others if discharged into the community.”Ex. I, Balaban Decl. (December 8, 2005 forensic report regarding Inmate Jonathan Ramos by John Kennedy, M.D.) at 3.
34. Defendants do not argue that the Court's Order impinges on their ability to manage the CJC, or on their involuntary commitment process. The Court's Order does not bar Defendants from using procedures under territorial law to hospitalize Mr. Ramos. However, a party may not enter a consent judgment to resolve hard-fought litigation after specific findings of unconstitutional practices and then-with no allegation of changed circumstances or adverse impact on its operations-turn around and disavow that judgment. Indeed, Defendants' motion could have been made one day after the Order was entered.Rule 60 requires Defendants to satisfy this Court that there has been a fundamental and unforeseen change of circumstances such that Defendants' obligation to hospitalize Mr. Ramos is no longer equitable. Defendants have failed to do so.FN11
FN11. Finally, Defendants' claim that they are entitled to relief from the Court's Order as a matter of general equity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) is equally unavailing. Rule 60(b)(6) allows a party to seek relief from a judgment for “any other reason justifying relief.” This Circuit has long held that Rule 60(b)(6)“is available only in cases evidencing extraordinary circumstances ... and only when the relief sought upon any other reason than a reason which would warrant relief under 60(b)(1-5).” Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d 488, 493 (3d Cir.1975)(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, Rule 60(b)(6) is

inapplicable since Defendants have sought relief under Rule 60(b)(5).
B. The Court Shall Stay Imposition of Contempt Sanctions.
35. “[T]he law affords courts great and sound discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction for contempt.” Carty v. Schneider, 986 F.Supp. 933, 939 (D.Vi.1997); see also Elkin v. Fauver, 969 F.2d 48, 52 (3d Cir.1992). A court may impose fines following a contempt finding. These fines may “seek to compensate the complainants ... for damages caused by past acts of disobedience.” Carty II, 986 F.Supp. at 939 n. 12 (citing Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 545 F.2d 1336, 1344 (3d. Cir.1976)); see also Elkin, 969 F.2d at 52. “Alternatively, the court may exercise its equitable power and order that the sanction be used to remedy the problems underlying the contempt finding.” Carty, 986 F.Supp. at 939 n. 12 (citing Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986)). A court may also impose coercive contempt sanctions, which are prospective fines intended to spur the contemnors into obedience by penalizing them for future violations of lawful orders. Harris I, 47 F.3d at 1328. “Coercive sanctions ... are conditional in that the contemnor must be permitted to avoid them by adhering to the court order.” Carty II, 144 F.Supp.2d at 418. Finally, “the court may also require the contemnor to perform affirmative acts, even acts not required by the initial consent decree.” Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 747 (citing In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litigation, 689 F.2d 1150, 1159 (3d Cir.1982)).
*29 36. “The contempt power and the discretion to impose sanctions ... have limits.” Carty, 986 F.Supp. at 939. The Supreme Court has cautioned that “in selecting contempt sanctions, a court is obliged to use the least possible power adequate to the end proposed.” Spallone, 493 U.S. at 276 (internal quotations omitted); see also Inmates of the Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 901 F.2d 1191, 1198 (3d Cir.1990) (same). A compensatory sanction must not exceed the actual damages incurred by the injured party, and must be based on evidence of that party's actual loss. Elkin, 969 F.2d at 52. There must be a nexus between any affirmative acts ordered as a contempt sanction and the contumacious conduct.

See Harris I, 47 F.3d at 1331 (reversing district court's sanction of dismissal of City's motion to modify as insufficiently related to the City's contemptuous acts). Moreover, the amount of coercive contempt sanctions depends upon “the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by the continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired.” United States v. UMW, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947).
37. In the context of prison litigation, courts have imposed substantial coercive and compensatory fines for failure to comply with orders to remedy prison overcrowding and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See, e.g., Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 46 F.3d 1347, 1360 (5th Cir.1995) ($50.00 daily coercive contempt fines for each inmate over population cap upheld in prison conditions case); Harris II, 47 F.3d at 1342 ($125,000 .00 fine); Essex County Jail Inmates v. Amato, 726 F.Supp. 539, 550 (D.N.J.1989) (fines in excess of $3,000,000.00 for violations of population and exercise provisions). Courts have also required the contemnor to perform affirmative acts to assure compliance with court orders, such as providing early release to prisoners to meet court-ordered population caps, or expunging disciplinary proceedings that did not comply with an existing decree. See Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924, 933 (2d Cir.1981) (expungement); Inmates of Allegheny Jail v. Wecht, 573 F.Supp. 454, 457-58 (W.D.Pa.1983) (early release).
1. Coercive Contempt Sanctions
38. A coercive contempt sanction is the least power adequate to spur Defendants to comply with the provisions of the Agreement and remedial orders. Defendants have defied this Court's orders during the long history of this case, and, as a result, conditions at the jail still are hazardous. The prospect of Defendants' continued disobedience threatens the very lives and safety of prisoners and staff alike.
39. This Court has already found Defendants in contempt three times in this case, and declined to enter coercive sanctions each time, with the hope and expectation that Defendants would remedy the many hazardous conditions at the jail. The Court has repeatedly warned Defendants that they faced contempt sanctions if they did not comply, and even

provided Defendants with grace periods with firm deadlines for final compliance with the Agreement. The Court also ordered the creation of a remedial account so that Defendants could bypass the normal budgetary process and have ready access to funds necessary to make improvements to operations and conditions at the CJC and Annex. Throughout this case, the Court has also ordered the Defendants to produce progress reports and updates on their efforts to comply with the Agreement and remedial orders.
*30 40. None of these efforts has coerced Defendants to comply. This Court must therefore conclude that coercive contempt sanctions are the only available option, and that the prospect of daily fines finally will lead to improvements in conditions that were first mandated by this Court some twelve years ago.
41. This month John deJongh took office as the Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands. He has named Vincent Frazier as his Attorney General designee. Under Federal Rule 25(d)(1), Governor deJongh is automatically substituted as a named defendant in this action, as will be Attorney General-designee Frazier upon confirmation, and, as will be the BOC director whom the Governor chooses to appoint. The fact that these officials were not involved in the acts and omissions that have led this Court to hold the Government in contempt does not immunize them from being the subject of contempt sanctions. These officials are bound by the requirements of the Agreement, and this Court's remedial orders. They will ultimately be responsible for ensuring the Defendants' compliance, and are obligated to meet all of the commitments made by their predecessors during this case, and must suffer the consequences of the Government's past failures.
42. However, the Court is mindful that a new administration has recently been elected in the Virgin Islands, and that Governor de Jongh must be given the opportunity to succeed where his four predecessors have failed; namely, in bringing the Bureau of Correction, the CJC, the CJC Annex, and the Anna's Hope forensic facility into compliance with the Agreement, this Court's remedial orders, and constitutional standards.
43. This Court therefore concludes that it will stay the imposition of contempt sanctions at this time to allow the parties to meet to discuss the status of this

case. This Court shall retain the option of imposing sanctions-upon motion by Plaintiffs or sua sponteshould the new administration fail to demonstrate in short order real demonstrable progress towards compliance. To this end, this Court will order the Defendants to produce in sixty days a comprehensive progress report documenting their efforts to comply with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's remedial orders with which they have been held in contempt. The Court's staying of contempt sanctions shall have no effect on the Court's consideration or disposition of Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Temporary Health Care Receiver (dkt.454), which has been fully briefed and is awaiting a decision.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds Defendants in contempt of the following provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's remedial orders: A. Settlement Agreement provisions IV.N.1-4. (medical charts); B. March 22, 2006 Order provisions 1 (Annex medical staff), 3 (health care staffing progress report), 5 (health care records clerk), 10 (NGRI transfers), 11 (Jonathan Ramos transfer); C. October 5, 2004 Order (construction of the forensic unit); and D. July 19, 2004 Order provisions 1 (NGRI transfers), 2 (forensic facility), and 3 (completion and reopening of the Annex). An appropriate Order follows. The Order also sets forth the manner in which the Court will resolve the matter of contempt sanctions.
ORDER FINDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT
*31 The Court having reviewed the submissions regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Hold Defendants in Civil Contempt for Their Violations of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Remedial Orders, and Defendants' Motion to Modify the Court's March 22, 2006 Order, which are incorporated by reference herein, and based on the record in this case; and
The Court having been involved with this case since its inception in 1994;
It appearing that Plaintiffs' counsel has filed with the Court and provided Defendants' counsel with a copy of its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law respecting these motion; and

It further appearing that Defendants have not filed or entered its own Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the time date for doing so having passed; and
The Court having carefully and thoroughly considered Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, adopts them as more fully set forth in the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated this date; and
For the reasons set forth in the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED and Defendants Motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are hereby held in contempt of the following provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's remedial orders: A. Settlement Agreement provisions IV.N.1-4. (medical charts); B. March 22, 2006 Order provisions 1 (Annex medical staff), 3 (health care staffing progress report), 5 (health care records clerk), 10 (NGRI transfers), 11 (Jonathan Ramos transfer); C. October 5, 2004 Order (construction of the forensic unit); D. July 19, 2004 Order provisions 1 (NGRI transfers), 2 (forensic facility), and 3 (completion and re-opening of the Annex).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall submit a progress report to this Court and to Plaintiffs describing their efforts to comply with the abovelisted provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's remedial orders. Defendants shall include as exhibits to their progress report any and all documents that relate to their compliance efforts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of this order Plaintiffs shall arrange for Dr. Metzner to conduct a follow-up expert inspection. Following Dr. Metzner's inspection, this Court shall set this matter for a hearing to consider the imposition of contempt sanctions, as well as any other pending matters.
The Court finds that the foregoing relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct

the violation of Plaintiffs' federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs' federal rights. This Order shall have no effect on the parties' existing rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement and previous Orders of the Court except as expressly set forth herein.
*32 SO ORDERED.
D.Virgin Islands,2007. Carty v. DeJongh Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 817607 (D.Virgin Islands)
END OF DOCUMENT

 
 957 F.Supp. 727 (1997)
Lawrence CARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Alexander A. FARRELLY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 94-78.
District Court, Virgin Islands, D. St. Thomas and St. John.
January 30, 1997.
7238901 *728 *729 *730 *731 Benjamin Currence, St. Thomas, USVI, Marjorie Rifkin, National Prison Project, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Alva A. Swan, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI, for Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections.
Maureen Phelan Cormier, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, St. Thomas, USVI, for Government of the Virgin Islands.
John Schumann, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for United States.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................____ II. THE PLRA AND ITS REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING CONSENT
DECREES .......................................................____ III. FINDINGS REGARDING CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AT THE
CJC ...........................................................____ A. Population ..................................................____ B. Shelter, Physical Plant, and Environmental Health ...........____ C. Fire Safety .................................................____ D. Medical Care ................................................____ E. Mental Health ...............................................____ F. Corrections and Security ....................................____ G. Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act .............____ H. Religious Freedom ...........................................____
732 *732
I. Legal Access ................................................____ J. Mail, Telephone, and Visitation .............................____ K. Miscellaneous Provisions Regarding Expansion of the CJC .....____ IV. THE AGREEMENT: APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AT THE CJC ..........................____ V. DEFENDANTS ARE IN CONTEMPT OF THE COURT'S ORDERS ...............____
A. Orders to Enforce the Agreement .............................____ B. Order to Pay Attorneys' Fees ................................____ VI. MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT ..................................____ VII. REMEDIES .......................................................____ VIII. CONCLUSION .....................................................____

OPINION
BROTMAN, District Judge, Sitting by Designation:
Before this court are two related motions pertaining to the Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties on October 12, 1994 to remedy unconstitutional conditions at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Plaintiffs' motion is twofold and seeks (1) an order holding defendants in civil contempt of the Settlement Agreement and imposing sanctions for defendants' continued failure both to abide by the terms of the Agreement and, ultimately, to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at the CJC; and (2) an order granting further relief to compel the defendants to pay court-ordered attorneys' fees in the amount of $105,000. Defendants, in turn, have moved to modify the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), based on alleged unforeseeable changed circumstances that prevent their compliance with the Agreement.[1]
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This action commenced in June 1994, when plaintiffs 0907 a group of pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates confined in the CJC 0907 filed a class action Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction challenging alleged unconstitutional, inhumane, and dangerous conditions of confinement at the CJC.[2] Plaintiffs requested that the court close the CJC because of the extreme overcrowding that has spawned many of the alleged constitutional violations. On October 12, 1994, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement").[3] This Agreement obligates the defendants to remedy conditions at the CJC, and establishes specific requirements and deadlines to effect this remedy for the safety and security of prisoners and staff at that facility. In particular, the Agreement provides guidelines governing the following: 1) Population,[4] 2) Shelter, Physical Plant, and Environmental Health, 3) Fire Safety, 4) Medical Care, 5) Mental Health, 6) Corrections and Security, 7) 733 Compliance *733 with Americans with Disabilities Act, 8) Religious Freedom, 9) Legal Access, 10) Mail, Telephone, and Visitation, and 11) Miscellaneous Provisions regarding expansion of the CJC. Subsequent to the Agreement, the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and ordered defendants to compensate the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation in the amount of $155,000. To date, defendants have paid $50,000 of that award.
To monitor compliance with the Agreement, the court appointed a Special Master and reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Special Master on a regular basis.[5] Both plaintiffs and defendants have had opportunity to lodge objections to all Special Master reports.
In light of defendants' continued non-compliance with both the Agreement and the court's orders in this matter, plaintiffs filed a motion to show cause why the defendants should not be held in civil contempt. At the same time, plaintiffs requested an order for further relief with respect to unpaid attorneys' fees. As noted previously, an evidentiary hearing took place on November 7 and 8, 1996 to address these issues. During these proceedings, the court heard testimony about and placed into evidence various documents and photographs illustrating the conditions at the CJC. In addition, because the defendants' motion was cast initially as one to terminate the Consent Decree in light of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), Pub.L. No. 104-134, §§ 801 et seq., 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996), the court heard argument regarding the constitutionality of the PLRA.[6]
Based on the testimony taken and the evidence submitted at the hearing, the court finds that the conditions at the CJC presently do not meet minimal, constitutional standards. Further, the court finds that subjecting CJC prisoners 0907 both pre-trial detainees and sentenced inmates 0907 to the currently unremedied conditions at the CJC violates their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.[7]
The court also recognizes its obligation to evaluate plaintiffs' claims under "`objective indicia' of contemporary standards of decency". Union County Jail Inmates, 713 F.2d at 999 n. 22 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346-47, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2398-2400, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)). The Constitution contemplates, however, that a court's judgment will bear on the constitutionality of a given punishment. See Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021,

1024 (3d Cir.1988) (quotations omitted). Nevertheless, the court notes that its findings do not represent "merely the subjective view" of either the Special Masters or this court, see id.; rather, the conclusions are based on (1) objective evaluations of recognized experts in particular fields related to the issues at bar; see Court Exh. 3, 734 Apps. *734 D, F-J; (2) case law accounts of similar disputes 0907 representing a history of prison litigation such as the present; and (3) evidence, both testimonial and documentary, presented by the parties in formal court proceedings in this matter.
In light of the court's findings and cognizant of the Agreement whereby the defendants bound themselves to establishing constitutional conditions of confinement at the CJC, the court finds that the defendants are in civil contempt of both the Agreement and court orders to enforce its terms. To that end, the court has also examined the Agreement and concludes that its terms are narrowly tailored to address the constitutional violations suffered by the plaintiffs. Further, the court finds that the Agreement extends no further than necessary to correct the clear violations of plaintiffs' federal rights under the Constitution. As such, the Agreement comports with the requirements of section 802(b)(3) of the PLRA and continues to bind all parties to its terms.
II. THE PLRA AND ITS REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING CONSENT DECREES
A court may not terminate prospective relief if it determines that "prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of a Federal right." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(b)(3) (West 1997). See also Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 369 (4th Cir. 1996). More precisely, if a court makes written findings as to the current conditions in a prison subject to a consent decree and declares that the relief provided by the decree is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of that Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation, then the PLRA does not require the court to terminate the prospective relief, even if the decree had been previously granted or approved in the absence of such written findings. Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F.Supp. 1362, 1364 (W.D.Mich.1996).
Recognizing the current posture of the matter at hand 0907 that is, since the defendants no longer seek to terminate the Agreement, but rather ask the court to modify its terms 0907 this court will not address the argument regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of the PLRA or any of its relevant provisions.[8] Because the PLRA allows the court to make specific findings even after a consent decree has been granted and approved, because these findings will enable the court to uphold the Agreement, and, indeed, because both plaintiffs and defendants in this matter desire ultimately to attain the goals set forth in the Agreement, the court can "avoid the constitutional question" and need not decide whether the PLRA's provision authorizing a court to terminate a consent decree is unconstitutional. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 108 S.Ct. 1392, 1397-98, 99 L.Ed.2d 645 (1988) (stating courts need not confront constitutional issues if not necessary to resolve issue); Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 15 S.Ct. 207, 39 L.Ed. 297 (1895) (stating "elementary rule" that court must construe statutes reasonably to uphold their constitutionality).
III. FINDINGS REGARDING CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AT THE CJC
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on those convicted of crimes.[9] Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 296-97, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2322-23, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). This standard applies when prison inmates suffer deprivation during imprisonment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 735 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). While the Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons," *735 Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349, 101 S.Ct. at 2400, it does require that prisons provide "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Id. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. To that end, denial of medical care, dehumanizing conditions, exposure to pervasive risk of assault, severe overcrowding, and unsanitary conditions all violate contemporary standards of decency. Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 426 (3d Cir.1990). And while "prison conditions" as a catch-all category do not create "a seamless web for Eighth Amendment purposes," where the individual conditions "have a

mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of ... identifiable human need[s]" the conditions violate the Eighth Amendment. See Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304, 111 S.Ct. at 2327.
In determining whether the conditions at the CJC fall below the minimum constitutional standards, the court must evaluate a broad range of factors to view the totality of the circumstances. Tillery, 907 F.2d at 426; Peterkin, 855 F.2d at 1025-26. Under this approach, the court can determine that "the totality of conditions ... deprive[s] inmates of the minimal civilized measures of life's necessities." Id. at 1024 (quotation omitted). To so hold, the court examines objective factors 0907 food, shelter, medical care, sanitation, safety, the physical plant, education or rehabilitational programs, length of confinement, out-of-cell time 0907 weighs all the evidence, and concludes, "instance by instance, whether the condition in question withstands Eighth Amendment scrutiny." Id. at 1025, 1027.
The plaintiffs' grouping of the extensive list of constitutional violations as well as the structure of the Agreement designed to remedy each category of problems provide an appropriate framework for the court's analysis. The in seriatim discussions of the individual areas of concern, then, together serve as the broad basis for the court's ultimate finding that the conditions of confinement at the CJC do indeed fail to meet constitutional requirements.
A. Population
Overcrowding of inmates in correctional facilities can lead to violence among prisoners, breakdowns in classification systems, deterioration of the physical condition of the prison, and other safety hazards. When overcrowding causes such adverse effects, the overcrowding is unconstitutional. Tillery, 907 F.2d at 427; Vazquez v. Carver, 729 F.Supp. 1063, 1069-70 (E.D.Pa.1989). Similarly, overcrowding which requires prisoners to sleep on mattresses on the floor on a consistent basis violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Newkirk v. Sheers, 834 F.Supp. 772 (E.D.Pa. 1993).
The population of the CJC far exceeds the facility's maximum population capacity.[10] The individual, 72-squarefoot prison cells consistently house four times as many inmates as they were designed to accommodate.[11] Often, five or six persons have been housed in a single cell. (Court Exh. 3, at Table 4.) Where a cell houses more than two individuals, those who do not sleep in a bed sleep on mattresses on the floor, often with their heads against a toilet. (Tr. at 63, 76.) As a result, it is not uncommon for one inmate to urinate on another during the night, causing both increased tension and violence among the prisoners as well as unsanitary conditions in the cells. (Tr. at 76-77.)
Considering the applicable legal principles, see U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tillery, 907 F.2d at 427; Newkirk, 834 F.Supp. at 772; Vazquez, 729 F.Supp. at 1069-70, the court must conclude that prisoners at the CJC are housed under unconstitutional conditions.
B. Shelter, Physical Plant, and Environmental Health
736 In keeping with the totality of circumstances analysis, this court next considers all *736 factors that bear on the nature of the shelter provided for the CJC inmates. Union County Jail Inmates, 713 F.2d at 999. Generally, sanitation is one of the most basic human needs. Peterkin, 855 F.2d at 1027. In particular, the state of disrepair of the facilities (including plumbing, heating, ventilation, and showers) and the effect that substandard conditions have on the inmates' sanitation and health informs whether the prison provides an inhabitable shelter for Eighth Amendment purposes. Id. at 1000-01 & n. 30. Inadequate ventilation, for instance, increases the risk of disease transmission and contributes to a finding of unconstitutional conditions. Tillery, 907 F.2d at 423; Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169, 174 (3d Cir.1988). Conditions that generate infestation of vermin also do not comport with minimal civilized measures concerning a person's basic welfare. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 188 (3d Cir.1993). Inoperable plumbing systems contribute to both the risk of conveying waterborne disease and vermin infestation, and thus implicate constitutional violations. Tillery, 907 F.2d at 423-24.
Correctional officers may be held liable for failing to correct unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Oliver v. Thornburgh, 587 F.Supp. 380, 382 (E.D.Pa.1984). Where prison officials are aware of unsanitary conditions and

inadequate ventilation, but nonetheless do not remedy these wrongs, the officials disregard excessive risk to inmates' health and safety and exhibit punishable deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1978-79, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
The conditions of the CJC physical plant and its effect on the environmental health of the prisoners evince serious, constitutional violations. Cf. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 352, 101 S.Ct. at 2402 (sordid, deplorable prison conditions subject to scrutiny under Eighth Amendment). The CJC lacks a preventive plant maintenance system 0907 its roof leaks;[12] light fixtures and hot water heaters for inmate showers are non-functional;[13] mattresses are soiled, damaged, and not exchanged regularly; drinking water is not chlorinated consistently and the cistern is not clean. (Court Exh. 3, at 23-25, App. H.)
The ventilation system at the CJC also does not function properly and contributes to the breeding and spreading of disease. (Court Exh. 3, at Apps. I, J; Court Exh. 9.) Air in the prison cells is fetid and odorous, smelling of sweat and unwashed human bodies. (Tr. at 84.) The cells are dark and windows sealed to exclude all natural light. (Tr. at 77.) Shower areas leak, due to cracked, broken, and missing tiles. This, in turn, causes the inmates' cells to flood, soaking mattresses and personal belongings. (Tr. at 88, 149.) The mattresses themselves are torn and unsanitary, a result of routine failure to sanitize and replace them. (Court Exh. 9, at 3; Tr. at 289.)
The CJC also does not have comprehensive institutional housekeeping, kitchen maintenance, and sanitation plans, or adequate vermin control programs. (Court Exh. 3, at 23-25, Apps. H, I; Court Exh. 9, at 2; Tr. at 87.) These deficiencies pose an "immediate threat to the health and safety of both [CJC] staff and inmate[s]." (Id.; Tr. at 162.) Rodents and cockroaches infest the entire facility, including the housing, kitchen, and medical areas, and expose the inmates to disease and other harm. Several inmates have been bitten by rats. (Tr. at 84, 107, 146-47.) Prisoners maintain collections of roaches in their cells, and have stored them in containers filled up to three inches deep with live roaches gathered in just one night. (Pl. Exh. 1, at 15A; Tr. at 85.)
Defendants acknowledge the facility's structural and environmental shortcomings and have failed to remedy them. (Court Exh. 3, App. C; Tr. at 192, 267, 305.) Predicated on the deliberate indifference standard and the principles governing the physical and environmental conditions of prisons, the court finds that these conditions fail to meet constitutional standards.
737 *737 C. Fire Safety
Failure to provide functional fire safety systems subjects prisoners to life-threatening conditions. Tillery, 907 F.2d at 424; Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 874 F.2d 147, 154 (3d Cir.), judgment vacated on other grounds, 493 U.S. 948, 110 S.Ct. 355, 107 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989) (remanding to Third Circuit which, in turn, vacated as moot original order closing jail because of stipulation to remedy conditions). At the CJC, cell locking devices, manual alarm systems, smoke dampers, and heat detectors are inoperable, all of which together poses a security risk during a fire emergency. (Court Exh. 3, at 23-25, 37, App. H.) Indeed, the building itself cannot adequately protect the occupants during a fire. (Pl. Exh. 7, at 11-15; Court Exh. 3, App. C; Tr. at 229.)[14] As such, the fire safety provisions do not withstand scrutiny under Eighth Amendment principles.
D. Medical Care
States must provide treatment for prisoners' serious medical needs. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 303, 111 S.Ct. at 2326-27; DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1005-06, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989); Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103-04, 97 S.Ct. at 290-91. These needs must not necessarily be life-threatening; pain medication for an injured wrist, for example, constitutes a "serious medical need," Yosuf v. United States, 642 F.Supp. 415 (M.D.Pa.1986), as does a need to treat an ulcer, White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 109 (3d Cir.1990), or the need for medication to control blood pressure. Id.[15]
Knowing failure of a correctional system to provide a minimum level of necessary medical service subjects prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment. See Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1509 (11th Cir. 1991); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 699 F.Supp. 1137, 1146 (W.D.Pa. 1988). That is, the law punishes deliberate

indifference of prison officials who know of and disregard excessive risks to inmates' health and safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. at 1978-79. Thus, while society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care, a prison official who does not attend to serious medical needs of an inmate violates that inmate's constitutional right. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 1000, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103-04, 97 S.Ct. at 290-91).
Providing inadequate medical staff effectively denies inmates access to diagnosis and treatment and constitutes deliberate indifference. Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d at 762. Similarly, lack of screening or inadequate screening of incoming prisoners exposes prisoners to unreasonable health risks; deliberate indifference to such risks constitutes punishable behavior. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2481-82, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993); Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 595 F.Supp. 1417, 1442 (D.N.J. 1984), modified, 695 F.Supp. 759 (D.N.J. 1988), amended in part and clarified in part, 717 F.Supp. 268 (D.N.J.1989). Further, failure to refer prisoners requiring medical care from an outside specialist to such providers also constitutes deliberate indifference. Inmates of Allegheny County v. Pierce, 612 F.2d at 762. Finally, exercise is a basic human need protected by the Eighth Amendment. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304-05, 111 S.Ct. at 2327-28. In a facility that locks down its prisoners for long time periods, the law thus requires officials to permit at least minimal out-of-cell recreation or exercise.
Medical care provided at the CJC is inadequate. The health care coordinator and mental health worker responsible for the CJC attend to inmates' needs infrequently. (Court Exh. 3, at 41.) One on-site nurse and one 738 on-site medical doctor and two part-time nurses service the 168 to 190 prisoners *738 housed at the CJC. (Id.) [16] Sick call is administered by prison security staff instead of medical staff, and prison records do not indicate that inmates are seen promptly as needed. (Tr. at 91.) Inmates injured on a weekend sometimes do not receive medical attention until the following weekday. (Tr. at 90.) Similarly, the defendants either do not transport to outside treatment facilities 0907 such as the infirmary at Golden Grove or the hospital facilities in St. Thomas 0907 those prisoners who require specialized medical attention, or give preferential treatment only to those inmates who require emergency care.[17] (Court Exh. 3, at 58; Court Exh. 4; Court Exh. 9, at 3-4; Pl. Exh. 4, at 7.)
In addition, the facility does not maintain adequate equipment for medical emergencies despite notice of the need for specific items such as a crash cart, oxygen, and airways. (Court Exh. 3, at 44; Tr. at 90, 152, 213.) Such equipment is critically important considering the high frequency of violent incidents requiring significant medical attention: several inmates have been beaten into comas and many have sustained serious injuries in violent assaults. See infra secs. III.E.-F. CJC staff also do not distribute regularly the necessary personal hygiene items such as toothpaste and sanitary napkins; rather, they issue them selectively in order to discipline inmates. (Court Exh. 2; Court Exh. 3, at 53; Court Exh. 9, at 2; Tr. at 151-52.)
Inadequate intake health evaluations also contribute to the substandard medical care provided to the prisoners. Newly admitted inmates are not screened consistently to identify serious diseases such as tuberculosis, mental illness, substance abuse, or suicide risk. (Court Exh. 3, at 50-51, 53; Court Exh. 9, at 4; Tr. at 92-93.) PPD tests, while administered, are not read regularly within the requisite timeframe. (Tr. at 94-95.) Worse, newly admitted, non-screened inmates are incarcerated together with the general population in open-barred "lock-down" cells, exposing inmates, staff, and others to unidentified disease. (Court Exh. 3, at 53; Court Exh. 4, at 24-27; Court Exh. 5, at 14; Court Exh. 9, at 3; Tr. at 93-94.)[18] Further, inmates who demonstrate unusual behavior indicative of mental illness are not hospitalized for diagnosis; rather, they are sometimes separated into separate cell clusters or locked down into solitary confinement. (Court Exh. 3, at 53.) Inmates who suffer from identifiable medical conditions such as high blood pressure, hypoglycemia, and diabetes do not receive special diets necessary in light of their illnesses. (Court Exh. 9, at 5; Tr. at 109.)[19]
Finally, the defendants fail to offer access to the outdoors to all inmates. A portion of the prison population, then, consistently remains confined in an overcrowded environment with inadequate ventilation for long time periods, sometimes up to two weeks. See supra section III.B; Tr. at 118. While male inmates may partake in outdoor recreation on the roof of the CJC for 60 to 90 minutes, five days per week, females receive access to outdoor recreation infrequently and only at the whim of individual officers. (Tr. at 117-18.)

Defendants acknowledge that they provide inadequate medical care and agree with the findings of the experts to that effect. (Court Exh. 9; Tr. at 216.) Defendants' conduct with regard to plaintiffs' medical needs thus clearly violates constitutional standards and subjects the prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment.
E. Mental Health
Failure to house mentally ill inmates apart from the general prison population also violates the constitutional 739 rights of both groups. See Tillery v. Owens, 719 F.Supp. *739 1256, 1303-04 (1989), aff'd, 907 F.2d 418 (1990).
Commingling the two populations increases the level of tension among all prisoners and endangers the wellbeing of the mentally ill who suffer from retaliation. Id. Moreover, prisoners with psychiatric conditions are entitled to treatment by qualified, professional mental health staff. Id. at 1302-03. Indeed, lack of a mental health facility can support a court's decision to close the jail. Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 874 F.2d at 153.
Mental health services at CJC do not exist. The facility does not have on-site mental health staff to identify systematically and regularly those prisoners with mental illnesses. (Court Exh. 3, at 62, App. C, App. I at 2; Tr. at 214-15, 284.) As a result, prison staff, otherwise unqualified to assess properly mental illness, identify inmates who require mental health services. (Court Exh. 3, at 62; Tr. at 100.) Even then, however, these inmates do not receive proper care. The Bureau of Corrections medical director works in St. Croix, is available only for telephone consultations, and prescribes medication for the prisoners via telephone without first examining the patient or reviewing the medical chart. (Court Exh. 3, App. I, at 5.) Inmates are not transferred to local hospitals in emergency situations. (Court Exh. 3, at 63.)[20] Generally, logbooks cataloguing the status of mental health referrals are not maintained. (Id.)
Instead of segregating the mentally ill inmates from the general population, the CJC attempts to house the mentally ill together in clusters, often four to five inmates per cell.[21] Cluster 3, the formally designated holding cell for mentally ill pretrial detainees, is filthy and overcrowded. (Court Exh. 3, at 63.)[22] Acutely psychotic inmates, housed in inhumanely close quarters, are extremely aggressive and dangerous, both to themselves and others, and engage in extreme violence. (Court Exh. 3, App. I at 10; Tr. at 99.) Between March and November 1996, two inmates were beaten into comas and suffered severe, permanent neurological damage as a result of inmate-to-inmate[23] violence. (Tr. at 82, 163, 169. See also infra section III.F.) Indeed, the majority of inmate assaults occurs in Cluster 3, where inmates frequently beat each other and, in turn, are beaten by correctional staff. (Tr. at 167, 284.) Moreover, correctional staff taunt the mentally ill inmates in Cluster 3, "rewarding" inmates by throwing cigarettes at them after instructing them to pull down their pants and hold their crotch, crawl across the floor, or do push-ups. (Tr. at 103.)
The CJC also lacks segregation cells for inmates who require restraints, seclusion, or close observation. (Court Exh. 3, at 63, App. I at 11; Court Exh. 9, at 2.) To control disruptive mentally ill inmates, the defendants either lock down the prisoners with as many as four cellmates, (Tr. at 99.), or lock individual inmates into the "attorney visiting room," sometimes for time periods of three to six days. (Tr. at 101, 269-71, 273-74; Pl. Exh. 11-12.) The attorney visiting room, however, is isolated completely from the staff and central patrol area, and does not have a toilet. (Tr. at 102.) Mentally ill inmates impounded in the attorney visiting room are given a plastic container in which to urinate. (Tr. at 101, 269-70.) One inmate who was locked in the room for six days had to urinate and defecate on the floor. (Tr. at 102.)
The abominable treatment of the mentally ill inmates shows overwhelmingly that defendants subject inmates to dehumanizing conditions punishable under the Eighth Amendment.
F. Corrections and Security
740 Prison officials must implement a classification system that separates dangerous *740 inmates from others; otherwise, such officials deliberately disregard a substantial risk to the prisoners' basic safety and security. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-46, 114 S.Ct. at 1981-84; Barnes v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 415 F.Supp. 1218

(D.V.I. 1976). When overcrowding and the commingling of mentally ill inmates with the general prison population contributes to inmate-to-inmate violence, moreover, failure to remedy the situation constitutes deliberate indifference. Ryan v. Burlington County, 708 F.Supp. 623, 633-35 (D.N.J.), aff'd, 889 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir.1989).
In general, prison officials must monitor the inmates and confiscate weapons to ensure prisoners' health and safety. Tillery, 719 F.Supp. at 1256, 1276. Officials must protect prisoners from each other, as the Eighth Amendment forbids knowing disregard of excessive risk to the inmates' health and safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-46, 114 S.Ct. at 1981-84; Frett v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 839 F.2d 968, 978 (3d Cir.1988). In addition, when prison officials themselves maliciously and sadistically use force, their acts implicate the Eighth Amendment and violate contemporary standards of decency. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S.Ct. at 1000.[24] Finally, officials may not use restraints on mentally ill inmates as a matter of course; rather, they may restrain them only under special circumstances.
The CJC does not house inmates according to an objectively based classification system.[25] (Tr. at 242, 295, 318.) It also does not maintain separate housing facilities for violent inmates; instead, officials rely on group lock downs to discipline the inmates. (Court Exh. 3, at 66-67; Tr. at 157. See also supra section III.E.)[26] Moreover, prison officials do not monitor regularly the overcrowded cell areas through on-site rounds. (Court Exh. 9, at 5; Tr. at 82-83; 288.) Consequently, warring "posses" or gangs have developed, (Tr. at 318), and violent incidents are rampant: Ludrig Larsen, a Cluster 3 inmate who is incarcerated at the CJC because he did not take his psychotropic medication, was hospitalized after a brutal fight with another inmate. (Tr. at 164, 169.) Oliver McTavious, another Cluster 3 inmate, was beaten into a coma by one of his cellmates after McTavious drank water out of, bathed in, and washed his hair in the toilet and threw the toilet water onto his cellmate. (Tr. at 164, 166-67.)[27] Still another Cluster 3 inmate named Ramos was attacked by a fellow prisoner who slashed Ramos's eye with a sharpened pen to the point that the eye required stitches. (Tr. at 164-66.) Pretrial detainee Thomas Lindsey's throat was slashed on October 30, 1996 by an inmate who should have been on "lockdown" but was not. (Tr. at 290, 322.) And pretrial detainee Leslie Demming set himself on fire. (Tr. at 322.)
In response to the inmates' violence, corrections officers routinely employ excessive force. (Court Exh. 9, at 5.) Indeed, the defendants lack a comprehensive "Use of Force" policy and procedure. (Court Exh. 3, at 74, App. J.) [28] Consequently, control over "agitated" prisoners often involves the use of batons. (Tr. at 167.) Two female inmates, Donna Murray and Christine Charles, were restrained by correction officers and then beaten with a baton. The beating left welts on Murray's buttocks. According to an incident report, Charles, a psychotic inmate, 741 was rude and disrespectful of the officers, who subsequently handcuffed and beat her. (Tr. *741 at 172-74.) In other incidents, after restraining inmates with handcuffs, correction officers beat prisoners with a baton until the inmates were on the floor, crying, and bruised with numerous welts on their thighs. (Tr. at 175-76; see also Tr. at 167.)
Altogether, defendants' knowing failure to remedy serious shortcomings in CJC corrections and security measures does not protect the prisoners' basic needs of safety and security.[29] Thus, the defendants' conduct with respect to this aspect of the conditions of confinement also fails to meet minimal constitutional requirements.
G. Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits public entities from discriminating against qualified disabled individuals by "exclud[ing them] from participation in or ... den[ying them] the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of [the] public entity." See 42 U.S.C.A. § 12132 (West 1995). Correctional facilities are public entities falling under the dictates of the ADA. See Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 455-56 (9th Cir.1996) (inmate states cognizable claim under ADA).
The defendants have not complied with the ADA. (Court Exh. 3, at 82.) Prison officials house non-mentally ill inmates together with the mentally ill in Cluster 3. Inmate Hodge, who uses a cane but does not otherwise suffer from mental illness, was placed in Cluster 3 because officials regarded his cane as a security threat. (Tr. at 81.)

Such action subjects the inmate to unnecessary and unwarranted risk of personal injury and does so for the sole reason of his disability. Thus, defendants violate the ADA.
H. Religious Freedom
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., forbids the government from imposing a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion without compelling justification. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb-1 (West 1994). The law applies to prisons and actions involving inmates. Allah v. Menei, 844 F.Supp. 1056, 1062 n. 18 (E.D.Pa.1994). Thus, prison officials may not curtail inmates' access to religious services or religious counselling.
Officials at the CJC do not allow pretrial detainees to attend religious services. (Court Exhs. 4-6; Tr. at 154, 295.) While the CJC has established written policies and procedures to provide religious programs to inmates and to allow inmates to groom themselves in accordance with their religious beliefs, it is unclear whether these programs have been implemented. (Court Exh. 3, at 81.) In the past, prison officials have not accommodated all inmates' desire to participate in religious services. (Court Exhs. 4-6.)
Defendants have not proffered a compelling reason for their failure to provide pretrial detainees access to religious services. Thus, defendants impermissibly burden the detainees' right to exercise freely their religion.
I. Legal Access
Prison officials must provide inmates with meaningful access to courts to enable inmates to challenge their criminal charge, conviction, or conditions of confinement. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1496, 1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). Meaningful access includes adequate law libraries and sufficient time to consult legal sources. Tillery, 719 F.Supp. at 1281-82; Benjamin v. Potter, 635 F.Supp. 243 (D.V.I. 1986), aff'd, 838 F.2d 1205 (3d Cir.1988).
The law library at the CJC lacks recent volumes of legal reference materials and is not comprehensive. (Court Exh. 3, at 72.) At times, defendants allow library access on an ad hoc basis and only to sentenced inmates. 742 (Court Exh. 4, at 34 & Exh. B at *742 10.)[30] This practice violates the inmates' right to meaningful access to the courts.
J. Mail, Telephone, and Visitation
Prisoners also must be afforded reasonable access to telephones. Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 565 F.Supp. 1278, 1284 (E.D.Pa.1983). Unreasonable restrictions on telephone access may violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments, id., or impede meaningful access to courts. See Tucker v. Randall, 948 F.2d 388, 390-91 (7th Cir.1991); Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F.Supp. 1368, 1386 (W.D.Pa.1978). Penal institutions may censor outgoing legal mail only in the interest of prison security, institutional order, or rehabilitation. Todaro v. Bowman, 872 F.2d 43, 49 (3d Cir.1989) (requiring substantial government interest).
Plaintiffs contend that defendants restrict the number of telephone calls an inmate may make. Further, they claim that they must present to correctional officers outgoing legal mail in unsealed envelopes. (Compl. at ¶¶ 118-19.) CJC procedures or policies with regard to telephone access are absent from the record. Id.; see also Court Exh. 4, at 34. Inmates' rights to attorney-client privacy with regard to written correspondence are not being abridged, however, and stamps are provided to indigent inmates. (Court Exh. 3, at 81.) Thus, this court finds that defendants' conduct with regard to the inmates' mail, telephone, and visitation rights meets minimal requirements.

K. Miscellaneous Provisions Regarding Expansion of the CJC
Reviewing the facts supporting the court's conclusions with respect to the population level at CJC, the court finds that the provisions in the Agreement acknowledge the potentially fortuitous relationship between the overcrowded conditions and the availability of both a separate Annex 0907 or Halfway House 0907 and the second floor of the CJC building. That is, the available space proximate to the CJC could help remedy the problems created by the unconstitutional conditions within the CJC. To that end, while the defendants have attempted to utilize the space available on the second floor of the CJC building,[31] they have not occupied the space for institutional purposes. The Government of the Virgin Islands 0907 in particular the judiciary and the police 0907 owns, but does not occupy, the facility which remains vacant on the second floor, nor makes it available to correct the unconstitutional space violations. (Tr. at 209, 226-27, 249.)
IV. THE AGREEMENT: APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AT THE CJC
Principles of federalism require a federal court to allow state and local governments to resolve state and local disputes wherever possible, so long as such resolution does not implicate federal laws. To that end, courts must "formulate the least intrusive means to correct [an alleged] constitutional harm." Tillery, 907 F.2d at 425 (citing Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757-58, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977)). In the context of an institutional reform consent decree, courts may adjudge whether prison conditions meet constitutional standards, but should defer to local government administrators to implement the agreement purporting to achieve and maintain such standards. See id.
The findings of fact set forth herein support the legal conclusion that the present conditions of confinement at the CJC violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Agreement purports to remedy these violations. Moreover, its terms are necessary to remedy the problems that plague the CJC, as set forth in 743 plaintiffs' complaint and as proven at the proceedings *743 before this court.[32]Cf. James v. Lash, 949 F.Supp. 691, 693 (N.D.Ind.1996) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3) as requiring finding of current or ongoing violation of federal right to determine that relief provided by consent judgment remains necessary).
The court recognizes the autonomy of the local government to remedy a local problem, albeit a local problem with grave, constitutional implications. To that extent and in consideration of the factual findings of this opinion, the court has reviewed the Agreement and, as previously indicated herein, finds that it comports with the principles of the PLRA: it is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation.
V. DEFENDANTS ARE IN CONTEMPT OF THE COURT'S ORDERS
A. Orders to Enforce the Agreement
On October 13, 1995, the court ordered the defendants to house inmates on the unused second floor of the CJC building to alleviate the excessive overcrowding at the jail. On October 17, 1995, the court entered another order to enforce the Agreement entered into by the parties in this matter. This order demanded that defendants comply with the terms of the Agreement to effectuate necessary population reduction at the CJC and raise the then substandard conditions of confinement to a constitutional minimum. At present, the CJC population remains excessively high; thus, the facility remains exceedingly overcrowded.[33] To date, the second floor of the CJC building has not been utilized. The conditions of confinement at the CJC also continue to fall far short of very basic, minimum habitability. More important for purposes of plaintiffs' present motion, defendants have not made adequate efforts to remedy the critical issues they must face, both under orders of the court and according to the agreement to which they bound themselves.

Plaintiffs ask this court to hold defendants in contempt of court. See Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276, 110 S.Ct. 625, 632, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990) (court can invoke civil contempt power to enforce its orders); Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1333 (3d Cir.1995). Plaintiffs must prove contempt by clear and convincing evidence. Robin Woods Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir.1994). To preclude a finding of contempt, in turn, the defendants must demonstrate 0907 not by mere assertions but by presenting evidence 0907 that they have taken "all reasonable steps" toward compliance. Harris, 47 F.3d at 1341-42. Mere good faith efforts do not suffice. Robin Woods, 28 F.3d at 399; Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142, 148-49 (3d Cir.1994). See also McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191, 69 S.Ct. 497, 499-500, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949) (finding of contempt appropriate even if failure to comply with court order not intentional); Robin Woods Inc., 28 F.3d at 399 (willfulness not element of civil contempt; good faith not defense). Indeed, evidence of good faith is relevant only to gauge the extent of contempt sanctions. Harley-Davidson, 19 F.3d at 148. See also infra sec. VII. for discussion of contempt sanctions.
Defendants acknowledge both familiarity with and necessity for the terms of the Agreement. Defendants also admit that they never fully complied with the court orders enforcing these terms and that they knowingly violated the orders. (Tr. at 199-201; 208-09, 263.) Defendants have participated in ongoing efforts to monitor and improve the living conditions at the CJC, and concur with the findings of the Special Master and other experts who have evaluated this matter. Thus, considering the substance and tenor of experts' findings that conditions at the CJC do not meet minimal requirements, defendants have acknowledged these shortcomings but have not actually remedied them.
744 In specific, defendants have not devised a classification system categorizing inmates according *744 to certain factors to both aid in their segregation of inmates and assist in an ultimate plan to reduce the CJC population. (Court Exh. 3, App. D, J.) Nor have defendants transferred any CJC prisoners to other correctional facilities to alleviate the serious overcrowding at the CJC. (Tr. at 239.)[34] Indeed, defendants have never reduced the CJC population to 97 inmates.[35] As recently as September 1996, the CJC housed 202 inmates. (Pl.Exh. 5.) In sum, defendants have not made any meaningful progress toward reducing the inmate population.
Within the CJC facility, too, defendants have not complied sufficiently with the requirements set forth in the Agreement. For instance, mentally ill pretrial detainees remain housed in the grossly overcrowded conditions of Cluster 3. (See Court Exh. 3, App. I.) Shelter, physical plant, and environmental problems persist, as evidenced by photographs of the CJC taken on a recent tour of the facility in which both parties' counsel, the Special Master, and Magistrate Judge Geoffrey Barnard participated.[36] As of October 1996, the roof and hot water heater had not been repaired. (Court Exh. 3, at 5; Tr. at 305.) Lack of security measures still permit violent assaults to occur 0907 on the very day of the tour in which Judge Barnard participated, pretrial detainee Thomas Lindsey's throat was slashed by an inmate. (Tr. at 290, 322.) Altogether, these conditions provide clear and convincing evidence that defendants have not complied with the court's order and are, thus, in contempt.
Moreover, to the extent that defendants have improved some of the conditions of confinement, the court cannot characterize these isolated efforts as "all reasonable steps," see Harris, 47 F.3d at 1341-42, toward achieving compliance. For instance, the defendants exterminated the kitchen and guard areas and had the water facility tested in October 1996. (D.Exhs. 2, 8.) Such effort is commendable at first blush, but loses its effect in the absence of a showing that the defendants furnish such treatment on a regular basis for the entire facility. Similarly, while defendants allege to have sought bids for the roof repair, no vendor was ever contracted or actual work performed. And while the facility keeps on file a manual, "Management of Offenders with Mental Health Problems," see D.Exh. 7, there is no evidence to suggest that defendants implement a particular policy regarding appropriate control over mentally ill inmates.
Defendants contend that their non-compliance is justified 0907 and the charge of contempt precluded 0907 by an absolute inability to effect the required change in light of both monetary and environmental constraints.[37] Defendants argue that unforeseen weather-storms caused an unexpected financial crisis of such proportion that the coffers of the government could not sustain the costs required to implement the Agreement. In addition, the defendants contend that the Bureau of Corrections itself maintains a five million dollar debt that paralyzes the

Bureau's ability to relieve the overcrowding by transferring inmates to other facilities which, in turn, would charge the Bureau for such transfers.
Insufficient financial means, however, do not "justify the ... perpetuation of constitutional violations." Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 392, 112 S.Ct. 748, 764, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992). In the context of prison litigation in which plaintiffs allege unconstitutional conditions of confinement, "lack of financing is not a 745 defense to the failure ... to provide minimum constitutional *745 standards in [the] operation of a ... jail." Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 699 F.Supp. at 1146. Moreover, the testimony of defendant York indicates that the defendants do not suffer from a complete lack of financing.[38]
Defendants' attempt to excuse their non-compliance by suggesting that hurricanes and other severe weatherstorms were unforeseeable catalysts of an economic crisis is similarly unavailing. Hurricanes and other inclement weather are certainly foreseeable in the Virgin Islands. Moreover, the defendants' failure to comply with the terms of the Agreement predates Hurricane Marilyn and other storms that have passed through the Virgin Islands to date. In June 1995 already, Magistrate Judge Resnick found that defendants were not in substantial compliance with the Agreement. And on October 17, 1995, this court determined that "the Defendants have substantially failed to comply with many provisions of the Consent Decree."
Thus, the evidence shows and the court finds that all defendants are in contempt of the court's orders to enforce the Agreement.
B. Order to Pay Attorneys' Fees
Pursuant to this court's order dated October 5, 1995, defendants were directed to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees in the amount of $155,000 to satisfy plaintiffs' Motion and Supplemental Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses through July 14, 1995. Because defendants had already remitted to plaintiffs $50,000 pursuant to an earlier court order dated March 30, 1995, the October 5 order directed defendants to pay the balance ($105,000) to plaintiffs' counsel within sixty days. To date, defendants have not paid the outstanding balance; thus, since December 5, 1995, defendants have been in continuing violation of the court's order.
Plaintiffs ask this court (1) to find defendants in contempt of the court order to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees; and (2) to compel defendants to comply with the October 5 order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 70. That rule provides an equitable remedy for non-performance of a judgment for specific acts, and does not apply ordinarily to enforcement of monetary judgments.[39]See Arnold v. BLaST Intermediate Unit 17, 843 F.2d 122, 128 n. 11 (3d Cir.1988). However, in exceptional cases such as this one, "where state intransigence precludes the enforcement of [a money] judgment through [other] procedures," a court will compel payment pursuant to Rule 70. Id.
Defendants' knowing and continued non-compliance with the court's October 5 order warrants a finding of civil contempt. Defendants have not paid plaintiffs more than $50,000 of court-ordered fees; they have not appealed effectively to other sources that might generate the fiscal capacity to help them comply with the court's order. (Tr. at 329.)[40] In fact, defendants have chosen not to pay the court-ordered fees despite court orders and repeated requests by plaintiffs to recover their funds. (Tr. at 325, 329, 333.) While defendants contend that they lack the resources to satisfy the judgment, evidence of sizeable appropriations and payments for other purposes belie such an assertion. (Tr. at 334-35.) Defendants thus appear unwilling to comply with this court's judgment and 746 order. In such an instance, "federal courts are not *746 reduced to issuing [judgments] against state officers and hoping for compliance." Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir.1980) (quoting Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2573, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978)) (emphasis added).
VI. MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT
Defendants ask this court to modify the Agreement because of "unforeseeable and unbudgeted financial setbacks" caused by extreme inclement weatherstorms. Defendants assert that they have made a good faith effort to comply with the Agreement, especially with those terms of the Agreement that did not strain significantly the defendants' budget for the CJC. Defendants submit, however, that their ability to fulfill all terms of the

Agreement was frustrated by unforeseeable circumstances. Indeed, defendants state that they can neither reduce the population at the CJC nor provide psychiatric evaluation, care, or treatment to CJC inmates according to the terms of the Agreement without fiscal assistance from the Virgin Islands legislature. Thus, they contend that modification of the Agreement is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1).[41]
In Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, the Supreme Court provided guidance in determining whether to modify a consent decree. According to Rufo, "a party seeking modification ... bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree." Id. at 383, 112 S.Ct. at 760. Circumstances that the parties anticipated at the time they entered into the agreement will not support later modification of the decree. Id. If the movant establishes a significant change, however, he must also show that compliance with the original decree is "more onerous," "unworkable," or "detrimental to the public interest" in light of the changed circumstance. The court, then, must also determine that the proposed modification "is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance." Id.
Defendants' reliance on Small v. Hunt to argue that this court should modify the Agreement is inapposite. In Small, the court modified a consent decree similar to the one in this case, based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) and a finding that there had been a significant change in factual circumstances. Small, 98 F.3d at 796-97. The court's holding, however, was supported by additional finding that, at the time the state of North Carolina sought modification of the decree, it had complied with almost all provisions of the decree other than the one it asked the court to modify. Id. at 793. Indeed, the Small court noted throughout its opinion the numerous and significant accomplishments the state had achieved in implementing the decree,[42] stating that since the time of the decree, "the state has been operating a secure and humane prison system, substantially above minimum constitutional requirements." Id.
Defendants in the present matter appeal to this court under far different and less compelling circumstances. Their compliance with the terms of the Agreement, while avowedly attempted in good faith, has been marginal at best. 747 Repeated critical evaluations *747 by the Special Masters and supplemental post-decree complaints regarding continued constitutional violations evince little, if any, improvement in the conditions of confinement at the CJC. Indeed, the evidence produced before the court in November 1996 demonstrates the opposite and supports a finding that, to date, the CJC is not a humane prison and does not provide minimum constitutional living conditions. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that defendants have even attempted to effect systemic change by advocating for legislative assistance and support in implementing the terms of the Agreement, as the North Carolina defendants did in Small. See supra n. 33.
Finally, the fact that severe weatherstorms occurred and allegedly caused a significant financial crisis does not itself establish a significant change in circumstances to warrant modification of the Agreement. According to the Agreement, the parties acknowledged and contemplated the occurrence of certain happenings at the time they committed themselves to the Agreement. To that end, the parties anticipated substantial increases or decreases in the cost of complying with the Agreement. (Agreement at 1-2.) The parties also agreed that "[a] condition or eventuality within the contemplation of the parties shall not be grounds for seeking an equitable modification [of the Agreement] under F.R.C.P. 60(b)(5)." Id. Thus, both under the Rufo standard and according to the terms of the Agreement itself, the reasons proffered by defendants to modify the Agreement cannot support such modification at the present time.[43]
VII. REMEDIES
The court may impose fines in conjunction with a civil contempt finding. These fines may be payable to the complainant as compensation caused by defendants' noncompliance. Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 868 (3d Cir.1990). Alternatively, the fines may be payable to the court. Id. The latter fines may be avoided if defendant complies with the court order 0907 or, in this case, the Agreement. See id. In the context of prison litigation and corresponding consent decrees, courts have imposed substantial fines for failure to comply with orders to remedy prison overcrowding and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 901 F.2d 1191, 1200 (3d Cir.1990) ($25,000 fine); Morales-Feliciano v. Parole Board of the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 887 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1046, 110 S.Ct. 1511, 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990).
A court may also require the contemnor to perform affirmative acts, even acts not required by the initial consent decree. See In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litigation, 689 F.2d 1150, 1159 (3d Cir.1982). In the context of prison litigation, courts in this circuit have ordered affirmative acts such as early release of inmates to achieve court-ordered prison population reductions. Essex County Jail Inmates v. Amato, 726 F.Supp. 539 (D.N.J.1989); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 573 F.Supp. 454 (W.D.Pa.1983).
Plaintiffs ask this court to fine defendants in amount of $200 per day for every day the CJC population exceeds the court-ordered capacity. Plaintiffs request an additional $100 fine for every day defendants do not comply with each provision of the Agreement. Such fines would help defray the cost of post-judgment monitoring of defendants' compliance with this court's order.
748 Plaintiffs also request that this Court order the release of each CJC prisoner who is *748 within one year of his maximum release date.[44] In addition, plaintiffs ask this court to enjoin defendants from admitting to CJC pretrial detainees whose bail is set at less than $5,000 or who have been charged only with violation of immigration laws.
Finally, plaintiffs request that the court order defendants to pay plaintiffs' court-ordered attorneys fees in the amount of $105,000, plus interest and fines for every day defendants violate the court's order.[45]
To the extent that defendants have not stated a position as to the amount and type of sanctions the court should apply, the court will defer ruling on the appropriate remedy applicable in this matter. Defendants claim to have exercised good faith in complying with the Agreement and the orders to enforce same. As noted previously, good faith does not affect this court's determination that defendants are in civil contempt for defying the court's orders. See supra sec. V. However, evidence of good faith may affect the court's calculation of contempt sanctions that it will impose on defendants. See Harley-Davidson, 19 F.3d at 148.
VIII. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the defendants are in contempt of court orders entered to enforce the Agreement between the parties in this matter and the court order to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees. The court also denies the defendants' motion to modify the Agreement. An appropriate order follows. That order also sets forth the manner in which the court will determine the appropriate sanction to apply in this matter.
ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before the court on two related motions: (1) the motion of the defendants, Alexander A. Farrelly, et al., to modify the Settlement Agreement in this matter pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); and (2) the motion of the plaintiffs, Lawrence Carty, et al., requesting the court to hold defendants in civil contempt and impose sanctions for failure to comply with this court's orders regarding the Settlement Agreement and related attorneys' fees;
The court having held an evidentiary hearing on November 7 and 8, 1996 on plaintiffs' and defendants' motions;
The court having considered the submissions of the parties; and
For the reasons set forth in the court's opinion of this date;
IT IS on this 29th day of January, 1997;
ORDERED that defendants' motion to modify the Settlement Agreement is DENIED; and IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to hold defendants in civil contempt is GRANTED; and IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that defendants shall pay the balance of the previously awarded counsel fees in the amount of $105,000 to the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation by March 1, 1997; and IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that, plaintiffs having already advised this court as to the sanctions they demand, defendants shall serve this court and plaintiffs' counsel by February 20, 1997 with their position regarding the amount and type of contempt sanctions the court should impose, with plaintiffs to file their reply thereto by March 10, 1997; and IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the issue of contempt sanctions shall be heard on April 1, 1997 at 9 a.m. at the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
[1] Defendants filed their motion and supporting papers as a Motion to Terminate the Consent Agreement. At the onset of an evidentiary hearing held on November 7 and 8, 1996, the defendants asserted that they do not seek to terminate the Agreement; rather, they request a modification of the Agreement. In view of this change, the Court ordered that defendants submit a Motion to Modify the Consent Decree. The present opinion and order therefore treat the defendants' request as one to modify, not terminate, the Agreement. To that end, the court need not reach the legal issues raised by the Motion to Terminate.
[2] Plaintiffs named as defendants the Governor of the Virgin Islands, the Director of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections, the Warden and Acting Assistant Warden of the CJC, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, and the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections. All defendants were sued in their official capacity.
[3] During the course of this litigation, the parties and the court have also referred to this Agreement as a Consent Decree. The court's analysis proceeds with the understanding that the "Settlement Agreement" and the "Consent Decree" dated October 12, 1994 are the same document, reached by consent of all parties and representing their agreement to settle the dispute. This Agreement was entered as a final order by the court on December 7, 1994.
[4] The Agreement provides that defendants would reduce the CJC population to 97 inmates by April 1, 1995. It also provides that defendants would move some prisoners to the Halfway House facility, or "Annex".
[5] Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Resnick served as the Special Master from December 1994 to April 1996. Since then, Darlene C. Grant, Esq. has served as the Special Master in this matter, and has filed three reports detailing her findings and recommendations regarding the CJC. During his tenure as Special Master, Judge Resnick also filed a special master report which this court adopted on October 17, 1995.
[6] On October 1, 1996, the court granted the motion of the United States to intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) on the issue of the constitutionality of the PLRA. As a result, the attorney from the Department of Justice participated in the evidentiary hearing and stated to the court the position of the United States with respect to the PLRA; that is, to the extent applicable to the present matter (and only if the court reaches the constitutional question, see infra sec. II), the United States defends the constitutionality of the PLRA. Defendants adopted the position of the United States in urging the court to uphold the automatic termination provisions of the PLRA. (Tr. at 43, 48.) Plaintiffs, in contrast, claimed that these provisions are unconstitutional. See infra sec. II for further discussion of disputed PLRA provisions and requirements.
[7] The court recognizes that the allegations of the pre-trial detainees must fall under a different analytic rubric than those of the sentenced inmates. See Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984, 992 (3d Cir.1983) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1871-72, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (due process standard governing pre-trial detainees requires query whether totality of conditions causes excessive privations and hardship)). Because of its finding that the conditions violate the Eighth Amendment, however, the court can conclude simultaneously that the due process standard applicable to pre-trial detainees has been violated as well. Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3d Cir.1979).
[8] The position of the United States is consistent with this resolution in that the United States defends the constitutionality of the PLRA's automatic termination provisions insofar as the proceedings require the court to

resolve this issue. (Tr. at 17-18; see also supra n. 6.) As noted herein, the posture of the present dispute does not now demand scrutiny of these provisions.
[9] The Eighth Amendment applies to the states (and, in this matter, to the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands) through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 1420, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962).
[10] The defendants house an average of 168 to 190 prisoners in a jail designed to hold 51 short-term detainees. (Tr. at 63.) The Agreement requires defendants to reduce the population to 97 inmates.
[11] While the cells were originally designed for one inmate, the CJC refers to them as two-man cells, doublecelling inmates and providing appropriate sleeping facilities for two persons.
[12] As a result, water leaks into the kitchen and housing areas. (Court Exh. 3, at 5, App. J; Tr. at 149-50.)
[13] The lack of hot water affects not only the inmates' inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene but also their inability to clean their plastic eating utensils. (Tr. at 84.)
[14] The prison occupies only the third floor and roof of the CJC building; floors one and two are unoccupied except for one portion used by the police as a 911 station. The fire alarm system, however, operates only on the third floor and roof area. (Tr. at 227, 229.)
[15] The district court has the discretion to determine the factual question of whether a medical need is "serious." West v. Keve, 571 F.2d 158, 162 n. 6 (3d Cir.1978).
[16] The two part-time nurses work only on weekends and, even then, only report to duty sporadically. (Court Exh. 3, at 41; Tr. at 90, 152.)
[17] Moreover, CJC transportation staff, not medical staff who would otherwise evaluate a particular prisoner's medical needs, exercises the discretion to carry out requests for hospital appointments. (Court Exh. 3, at 58.)
[18] Defendants attribute this policy to the population problem at CJC. The Warden testified that "the jail is full, full, we cannot do it, just don't have any room." (Tr. at 295.)
[19] Inmates also do not always receive clean eating utensils for each meal. (Tr. at 84, 110.)
[20] Mental health beds at the local hospital are unavailable for the sole use of inmates. (Court Exh. 3, at 64.)
[21] Approximately 10% of the CJC population is maintained on psychotropic drugs, while an even greater number of prisoners requires mental health care. (Court Exh. 9, at 6; Tr. at 96.)
[22] Mentally ill prisoners are not always segregated from the general population. (Court Exh. 3, at 63, App. I at 10; Tr. at 81.) Some are commingled with other, non-mentally ill inmates in other cells and clusters. (Court Exh. 3, at 63.)
[23] The court notes that there is an equally prevalent phenomenon of violence inflicted on prisoners by CJC correctional officers. See infra sec. III.F.
[24] Similarly, officials may not subject pretrial detainees to excessive force used maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. Williams v. Mussomelli, 722 F.2d 1130, 1133 (3d Cir.1983).
[25] While the CJC does separate male from female inmates and pretrial detainees from sentenced inmates, (Tr. at 155), it does not further classify these groups according to traditional security classifications of minimum, medium, and maximum. (Tr. at 156.)
[26] The absence of a classification system applies equally to the general prison population and to the mentally ill inmates.
[27] After this incident, inmate Rygal Watley, who had beaten McTavious so severely, was placed in a cell with a different inmate whom Watley proceeded to injure to the point of bleeding. (Tr. at 167.)

[28] Assistant Warden George testified that inmates are restrained "to save somebody else['s] life." (Tr. at 286.)
[29] Defendants admit that they do not segregate violent inmates from others according to a classification scheme. They assert that they cannot do so because of the overcrowded conditions. (Tr. at 242, 295, 318-19.)
[30] Library sign-in logbooks indicate that few inmates use the facility. Over a period of four months, 20 inmates had signed the logbook. (Tr. at 120.)
[31] The Bureau of Corrections has asked architects, engineers, and designers to assess the area in terms of necessary security measures and electrical and plumbing needs. (Tr. at 209.)
[32] Defendants themselves agree with these conclusions. (Tr. at 194.)
[33] In September 1996, the CJC housed 202 pre-trial detainees and sentenced inmates. (Pl.Exh. 5.)
[34] Defendants argue that they have not transferred inmates to the Golden Grove correctional institution on St. Croix because of a Consent Decree with population restrictions governing that facility. The court recognizes the catch-22 implications of the scenario presented by defendants; however, it must also note and find that defendants knowingly violate the Agreement governing the CJC to comply with other requirements.
[35] Between January 1995 and October 1996, the average daily population ranged from 169 to 194. (Pl.Exh. 5.)
[36] These photographs were admitted as evidence at the hearing on November 7 and 8, 1996. (See Pl. Exh. 1.)
[37] Defendant Elwood York, Director of the Bureau of Corrections testified that "[t]here are things and people who control things outside of our powers." (Tr. at 260.)
[38] Significant amounts of money from, for example, the Interior Fund 0907 under the control of the Department of Justice, have not been expended to comply with the court's orders. (Tr. at 234-35.)
[39] Fed.R.Civ.P. 70 provides, in pertinent part, "If a judgment directs a party to ... perform any ... specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court.... The court may also in proper cases adjudge the party in contempt."
[40] Defendants did take preliminary steps to pay plaintiffs in December 1995. (Pl. Exh. 17; Tr. at 326.) After learning, however, that the court-ordered fees could be paid from an existing fund without special legislative appropriation, they did nothing further and, more importantly, did not pay the attorney fees. Defendants suggested that that existing fund could not support plaintiffs' judgment in light of other judgments that had allegedly already attached to the fund. (Tr. at 328.) After learning this, however, defendants made no further efforts to pay plaintiffs with monies from other sources. (Tr. at 329.)
[41] Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part, "the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[.]"
Defendants rely primarily on Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789 (4th Cir.1996) to support their motion for modification. The court notes that Small construes Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5). Indeed, in their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Modification of Consent Decree, plaintiffs argue against modification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5). That rule provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment when "the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application[.]" Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5). For purposes of the present motion, however, the distinction is immaterial by virtue of the court's finding with regard to modification.
[42] To comply with the consent decree, the Small defendants (1) effected a state enactment of a prison cap; (2) appropriated $500 million dollars to construct new prisons; (3) expanded and created non-institutional rehabilitative programs to enable the supervised release of inmates and (4) effected the enactment and accelerated implementation of legislation regarding sentencing. Id. at 792. See also id. at 793 (noting North Carolina spent nearly $500 million dollars to comply with decree before seeking modification).

[43] Because defendants have not established a significant change that would warrant modification of the Agreement, the court need not reach the second prong of Rufo to evaluate whether defendants' proposed modifications are "suitably tailored to the changed circumstance." See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 391, 112 S.Ct. at 763-64 . Indeed, defendants merely propose that the court extend the deadline to implement the population cap to December 1, 1997. The court notes, however, that defendants propose in their Supplemental Motion for Modification of Consent Decree four solutions to help remedy the matter before the court. Although phrased as proposed modifications of the Agreement, the defendants' suggestions in fact represent proposed directives that the court would issue to enforce the existing Agreement. To the extent that Fed.R.Civ.P. 70 permits the court to direct compliance with a judgment of a specific act, the court will consider defendants' proposals and, where appropriate, incorporate them in its order.
[44] The court notes that 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3) restricts its power to issue an order releasing prisoners and establishes several prerequisites to doing so.
[45] Pending before this court, in addition to the motions addressed in this opinion, are two separate motions relating to reasonable attorneys' fees. The court will address Plaintiffs' Second and Third Supplemental Applications for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs in a separate order. At present, however, the court notes that failure to pay additional court-approved attorneys fees will expose defendants to additional contempt citations and sanctions.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 986 F.Supp. 933 (1997)
Lawrence CARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Roy L. SCHNEIDER, M.D., et al., Defendants.
No. CIV. A. 94-78.
District Court, Virgin Islands, D. St. Thomas and St. John.
December 2, 1997.
934 *934 Benjamin Currence, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., Marjorie Rifkin, National Prison Project, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Office of the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands by Gina Harrison, Dept. of Justice, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., Special Counsel to the Attorney General, Julio A. Brady, Attorney General of Virgin Islands, Dept. of Justice, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for Defendants.
OPINION ON SANCTIONS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
BROTMAN, District Judge, Sitting by Designation:
Presently before the court is the sanctions component of civil contempt proceedings. On January 29, 1997, this 935 court found the *935 defendants in the above-captioned matter in contempt of court orders relating to a
Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties in October 1994 to remedy unconstitutional conditions at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Plaintiffs have requested, inter alia, that this court fine the defendants for their non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement and court orders enforcing same.[1] After holding an evidentiary hearing on sanctions on April 1, 1997 in St. Thomas and upon consideration of the parties' submissions and the reports from the Special Master in this matter, the court herein concludes for the present time the sanctions phase of the contempt proceedings.
I. INTRODUCTION
In its comprehensive Opinion of January 29, 1997, this court catalogued the nature and extent of the unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the CJC. The court need not recount here the unseemly and, indeed, shocking details that justified its findings that, in almost all respects, the defendants not only had violated CJC inmates' constitutional rights but also had ignored the terms of the Settlement Agreement to which they had agreed. By the latter action, the defendants violated court orders; thus, this court held the defendants in civil contempt. Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727, 745, 748 (D.Vi. 1997).
To lend context to the subsequent discussion of sanctions, the court will recapitulate briefly the contours of the Settlement Agreement and the defendants' failure to comply with its terms. Such backdrop will help illustrate the progress, if any, defendants have made in remedying the severe and complex problems that they face at the CJC.
II. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DEFENDANTS' NONCOMPLIANCE
In June 1994, a group of pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates confined in the CJC filed a class action Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction challenging alleged unconstitutional, inhumane, and dangerous conditions of confinement at the CJC. Plaintiffs requested, inter alia, that the court close the facility due to

extreme overcrowding which, in conjunction with other factors, created the unconstitutional conditions of which plaintiffs complained.

In October 1994, the parties entered into the previously referenced Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), also referred to as the "Consent Decree." The terms of the Agreement obligate the defendants to achieve compliance with minimal constitutional standards within a specific time frame. The Agreement categorizes the problematic conditions so as to facilitate compliance, similarly, this court's subsequent findings in Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727 corresponded to the various categories set forth in the Agreement.[2] In specific, this court found that the defendants consistently had failed to remedy the unconstitutional conditions in every category outlined in the Agreement except "Mail, Telephone, and Visitation." More important for purposes of the present discussion, this court found the defendants in contempt of the October 17, 1995 court order to enforce the Agreement.[3]

At present [(in January 1997)], the CJC population remains excessively high; thus, the facility

936

remains exceedingly overcrowded.... *936 The conditions of confinement at the CJC also continue

to fall far short of very basic, minimum habitability. More important ... defendants have not made

adequate efforts to remedy the critical issues they must face, both under orders of the court and

according to the agreement to which they bound themselves.

Id. at 743.

III. DEFENDANTS' POST-CONTEMPT ACTIONS

Once holding a party in contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order, the court must afford the contemnor an opportunity to purge himself of the contempt. United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828-29, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2558, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994). Similarly, evidence of good faith may affect the court's calculation of contempt sanctions. Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142, 148 (3d Cir.1994). In the present case, the defendants have been afforded many opportunities to comply with court orders to remedy the conditions of confinement at the CJC. Certainly they have had the opportunity to "purge" the contempt through compliance since this court's January 29, 1997 Opinion and Order. Indeed, the extent, to which they have done so will inform the amount and type of sanctions this court will impose.

A. The April 1, 1997 Hearing on Sanctions

To the extent that, at the time of the court's opinion and order of January 29, 1997, the defendants had not stated a position as to the amount and type of sanctions the court should apply, the court afforded notice and an additional opportunity for the defendants to respond to the court's findings and plaintiffs' request for sanctions at a hearing in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. on April 1, 1997. At that hearing, plaintiffs reiterated their call for a lost of sanctions, citing defendants' intransigence over a period of two and a half years in failing to meet a two-year-old deadline for compliance with the terms of the agreement. The defendants, in turn, acknowledged their noncompliance and, as on past occasions, blamed their inaction on a "severe financial crisis" of the Virgin Islands government.
At the hearing, Attorney General Brady 0907 a named defendant 0907reported to the court that the defendants were in the process of devising a "short-term action plan" in an effort to comply with the terms of the Agreement. In specific, the Attorney General outlined five government initiatives aimed at reducing the CJC population and improving the conditions of confinement. First, the Attorney General's office would coordinate with the United States Attorney's office to review on a periodic basis the status of pretrial detainees awaiting trial in an effort to release certain eligible prisoners from incarceration. Second, the government would work toward improving the physical structure of the prison and the halfway house by soliciting specialists and contractors to estimate the cost of needed repairs; as of April 1, 1997, however, there was no funding to implement any proposed changes or to pay any contractor. Third, the Attorney General would petition a special session of the Virgin Islands Legislature (1) to activate a seven-person parole board in order to begin the process of reviewing prisoners

eligible for parole,[4] and (2) to amend existing legislation authorizing the Attorney General to send CJC prisoners to off-island detention facilities. Similarly, the Attorney General's office would work together with the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands to ensure that appropriate probation measures are in place to provide for review of released inmates. Finally, the Attorney General would contact the Virgin Islands National Guard to arrange for the transfer of CJC prisoners to off-island facilities in order to reduce cost and allay security concerns associated with such transfers.[5]
937 *937 B. Post-Hearing Developments
During the months following the April 1, 1997 sanctions hearing, the court has maintained a close watch over the defendants' progress in following through with their proposed initiatives and the degree to which such progress has brought defendants into compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Periodic reports to the court from Darlene C. Grant, Esquire, the court-appointed Special Master in this matter, reveal a series of efforts to improve conditions of confinement at the CJC. For instance, the roof is being repaired. Letter from Darlene Grant to Judge Brotman (July 7, 1997), at 3-4 [hereinafter "July 7 Letter"]. Further, the Bureau of Corrections transferred all female inmates from the CJC to the Halfway House Annex; this created an empty cluster at the CJC to help alleviate overcrowding. Letter from Darlene Grant to Judge Brotman (June 10, 1997), at 1 [hereinafter "June 10 Letter"]. At the Annex, the defendants repaired provisionally the damaged roof by patching it with two layers of tarp. Id. While the court acknowledges 0907 as the defendants must also 0907 that structural damage to the Annex's roof requires additional remedial measures, the court must also recognize the success of this short-term effort. Similarly, the court notes approvingly that the defendants have gained cooperation from the Territorial Court in placing on bail many female detainees who would otherwise be incarcerated at the CJC. Id.[6]
With respect to the proposed legislative measures described at the April 1, 1997 hearing, the defendants reached a significant milestone toward compliance with the Agreement when the Virgin Islands Legislature passed legislation to authorize the Attorney General to transfer inmates to detention facilities located in the mainland United States. Id. at 2. More important, the defendants have used the legislation as a vehicle for tangible progress in reducing the population of the CJC. On July 24, 1997, thirty inmates were transported from St. Thomas to a detention facility in Arizona.[7]
Also, an additional twenty-four inmates were transferred from St. Thomas to Golden Grove, the correctional facility in St. Croix, Virgin Islands.[8] As a result, the inmate population at the CJC has been reduced to 83 persons as of July 24, 1997. Letter from Darlene Grant to Judge Brotman (July 24, 1997), at 1 [hereinafter "July 24 Letter"].[9] The Agreement requires the defendants to reduce the population to 97 inmates. Thus, the defendants are in compliance with this portion of the Agreement.
As this court recognized in its previous opinion in this matter, the overcrowding at the CJC is the proverbial "bad seed" that has engendered many of the related constitutional violations. Carty, 957 F.Supp. at 732, 735 ("Overcrowding of inmates in correctional facilities can lead to violence among prisoners, breakdowns in classification systems, deterioration of the physical condition of the prison, and other safety hazards."). Incidents of inmate-to-inmate violence, such as the one in which inmate Oliver MacTavious was beaten into a coma by a 938 fellow prisoner, derived directly from the overpopulation of the CJC *938 and the defendants' failure both to segregate inmates and to monitor overcrowded cells.[10]Carty, 957 F.Supp. at 740. By targeting the source, the defendants have solved the immediate population problem and have also made possible their compliance with other terms of the Agreement in a more expedited fashion. For instance, the defendants can now segregate more readily according to a classification system the inmates currently housed at the CJC. See July 24 Letter, at 3. While the court does not suggest that the defendants have achieved compliance with the portion of the Agreement governing Corrections and Security, see Carty, 957 F.Supp. at 739-40 ("Prison officials must implement a classification system that separates dangerous inmates from others"); see also id. at 740 & nn. 25-26 (noting CJC does not house inmates according to classification system), it recognizes that during recent months, the defendants have begun to implement a classification system. See July 7 Letter at 3.[11] Again, the

population reduction should facilitate defendants' full and forthwith compliance with corrections and security measures required by the Agreement.
Despite the defendants' achievements, persistent problems continue to plague the CJC. Inmates continue to issue complaints about medical care, nutritional value and portion size of food, and other concerns. June 10 Letter, at 2; see also July 7 Letter at 2 (characterizing manner of food delivery as inhumane, unsanitary); id. at 3 (noting inadequate medical care and mental health services). Occasionally the physical plant fails to provide running water to cells for extended time periods. June 10 Letter, at 2. Extermination treatment and water testing still does not occur appropriately0907that is, on a regular basis. July 7 Letter at 3; see also Carty, 957 F.Supp. at 744 . The CJC also continues to lack formal disciplinary procedures other than "lockdowns." July 7 Letter, at 2. Similarly, CJC staff do not receive sufficient training to perform their duties; as a result, low morale contributes to defendants' non-compliance with the Agreement Id. at 3-4. At the Halfway House Annex, fire escapes and extinguishers are inadequate. Moreover, the facility lacks a sprinkler system, smoke or fire detectors, and appropriate cell locking devices. July 24 Letter, Attachment 1, at 1. With respect to this court's previous findings concerning defendants' non-compliance with the terms of the agreement involving religious freedom, legal access, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, there is no evidence to suggest that defendants have improved conditions of confinement in regard to these categories of the Agreement. Thus, the defendants must continue to address all of these and other deficiencies to achieve compliance with the Agreement.
As a final note, the court observes that a lack of funding does not serve as an acceptable excuse for defendants' non-compliance, especially since many of the problems which the defendants face do not require inordinate financial expenditures. Providing access to religious services to honor the inmates' and detainees' right to exercise freely their religion does not cost money; it requires effort. Similarly, providing all inmates meaningful access to the outdoors and to the library and complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act should not involve significant costs. Finally, many of the problems contributing to non-compliance in the areas of "Shelter, Physical Plant, and Environmental Health" and "Fire Safety" could be solved at a low cost: Painting, cleaning, 939 installing smoke detectors, repairing plumbing, exterminating on a regular basis, chlorinating the water 0907all *939 do not impose significant financial burdens on the defendants.
IV. SANCTIONS
A. The Law0907 General Power, Discretion, and Limitations
A court has the "inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders through civil contempt." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958); Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1535, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966). To that end, the law affords courts great and sound discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction for contempt. Robin Woods Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir.1994). A court uses its discretion and judgment based on its understanding of the case and the contemnor, particularly with respect to the nature of prior compliance or noncompliance. United States v. Tennessee, 925 F.Supp. 1292, 1303 (W.D.Tenn.1995). The contemnor's intent to remedy the situation is relevant in gauging how severe a sanction is necessary. United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) ("UMWA").
The contempt power and the discretion to impose sanctions, however, have limits. Compensatory sanctions must not exceed the actual loss suffered by the party that was wronged.[12]Elkin v. Fauver, 969 F.2d 48, 52 (3d Cir.1992). A coercive civil sanction must employ "[t]he least possible power adequate" to achieve future compliance.[13]Gregory, 896 F.2d at 37 (quoting Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 110 S.Ct. 625, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990)). Moreover civil contempt sanctions should be tailored so that they do not harm unduly any broader public interests. Elkin, 969 F.2d at 52. In devising a remedy against governmental defendants as 0907 in this case0907the court must also take into account the interest of the state and local authorities in managing their own affairs. Allegheny County, 901 F.2d at 1198.[14]

When fashioning a sanction to secure compliance, a court considers "the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired." UMWA, 330 U.S. at 304, 67 S.Ct. at 701. A court should not impose sanctions that are so excessive so as to be punitive. Instead, the court should select the least intrusive sanction that the court determines will coerce the contemnor to comply. Spallone, 493 U.S. at 276, 110 S.Ct. at 632. Determining the relative intrusiveness of different possible sanctions is a common sense inquiry. See e.g., Hutto v. Finney, 437 940 U.S. 678, 691, 98 S.Ct. *940 2565, 2573-74, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (fine less intrusive than imprisonment).
In the context of prison litigation and corresponding consent decrees, courts have imposed substantial lines for failure to comply with orders to remedy prison overcrowding and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Allegheny County, 901 F.2d at 1200 ($25,000 fine); Morales-Feliciano v. Parole Bd. of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 887 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1046, 110 S.Ct. 1511, 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990) (series of substantial monetary fines). Courts have also required the contemnor to perform affirmative acts such as early release of inmates to achieve court-ordered prison population reductions. Essex County Jail Inmates v. Amato, 726 F.Supp. 539 (D.N.J.1989); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 573 F.Supp. 454 (W.D.Pa. 1983).
B. Appropriate Sanction at the Present Juncture
The significant reduction of the CJC inmate population evidences, at long last, a genuine intent to remedy the conditions of confinement. Cf. UMWA, 330 U.S. at 304, 67 S.Ct. at 701 (intent informs severity of sanction). Defendants' actual follow-through on several of the initiatives outlined by Attorney General Brady at the April 1, 1997 sanctions hearing as well as on-going cooperative efforts of the defendants, Special Master Grant, and outside parties such as the United States Marshals Service and the Virgin Islands National Guard suggest to the court that the defendants' remedial measures taken to date are the first of many necessary and forthcoming steps towards global compliance with the Agreement.[15]
In light of this conclusion, and cognizant of the socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors pertaining to the Virgin Islands, the court finds that monetary contempt sanctions would affect drastically the public interest and, perhaps more importantly, would impede progress and thwart the defendants' continuing efforts to remedy the conditions of confinement at the CJC. Cf. Elkin, 969 F.2d at 52 (sanctions should not harm unduly public interest). Put another way, the court finds that a monetary fine would not coerce the defendants to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at the CJC. Cf. UMWA, 330 U.S. at 304, 67 S.Ct. at 701 (court to consider probable effectiveness of sanction). Indeed, a fine would only compound the defendants' difficulties in remedying the violations and purging themselves of the contempt finding. See also United States v. Tennessee, 925 F.Supp. 1292, 1300 n. 10 (W.D.Tenn.1995) (noting public policy concerns and potentially counterproductive effect of fines against governmental entities and officials).
Recognizing the magnitude of defendants' recent accomplishments and the great efforts undertaken to address the matter, the court, nonetheless, is ever mindful of the tardiness of defendants' compliance efforts and the dilatory pace with which the defendants responded to court orders entered as early as October 1995. The defendants must continue to strive toward remedying the constitutional violations that were not affected 0907 and thus not cured0907by the commendable developments described above. While the court would like to bring to a conclusion this matter in which all parties0907plaintiffs and defendants alike 0907seek to raise to a constitutional minimum the conditions of confinement at the CJC, the defendants are still a long way from reaching that point. The court notes that the citizens of the Virgin Islands "bear the human costs of operating a degraded prison 941 system which is below minimum standards and does not afford rehabilitative *941 opportunities for those who eventually will return to live among us," Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 448 F.Supp. 659, 674 (D.R.I.1978), this cost, if unaddressed, looms as burdensome as a monetary fine that likely would be borne indirectly by the same citizens.
Finally, the court cautions that while it has determined that monetary contempt sanctions are inappropriate at this juncture, a failure to maintain the momentum generated by defendants' recent achievements 0907and a

corresponding failure to achieve compliance with the substantive terms of the Agreement in the near future 0907will affect the court's response to prospective motions for relief that may be brought by the plaintiffs.
ORDER ON SANCTIONS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
THIS MATTER having come before the court on plaintiffs' motion to impose contempt sanctions on defendants for failure to comply with this court's orders regarding the Settlement Agreement in this matter and related orders concerning attorneys' fees;
The court having held a hearing on sanctions in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. on April 1, 1997;
The court having inspected the CJC and Halfway House Annex on October 27, 1997;
The court having held a formal hearing on October 27, 1997 and an informal conference on October 28, 1997 where the status of the facilities and the defendants' compliance efforts were discussed;
The court having considered the submissions of the parties; and
For the reasons set forth in the court's opinion of this date;
IT IS on this 26th day of November, 1997;
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to impose monetary sanctions on defendants is DENIED.
[1] Plaintiffs also request that the court (1) order the release of each CJC prisoner who is within one year of his maximum release date; (2) enjoin defendants from admitting to the CJC pre-trial detainees whose bail is set at less than $5,000 or who have been charged only with violation of immigration laws, and (3) require the defendants to establish a twelve-bed psychiatric unit at the Roy L. Schneider Hospital in St. Thomas for purposes of treating mentally ill CJC inmates.
[2] The guidelines in the Agreement govern (1) Population, (2) Shelter, Physical Plant, and Environmental Health, (3) Fire Safety, (4) Medical Care, (5) Mental Health, (6) Corrections and Security (7) Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, (8) Religious Freedom, (9) Legal Access, (10) Mail, Telephone, and Visitation, and (11) Miscellaneous Provisions regarding expansion of the CJC.
[3] That order required defendants to comply with the terms of the Agreement, to achieve a population reduction at the CJC, and to raise substandard conditions of confinement to a constitutional minimum.
[4] Attorney General Brady represented that, as of April 1, 1997, approximately 20 CJC inmates had been identified as eligible for review by a parole commission.
[5] Attorney General Brady also advised the court that Governor Roy L. Schneider's overall plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions of confinement included the construction of a new jail and the interim construction of emergency temporary shelters. The court noted, however, that the government had previously proposed as a solution the construction of a new jail but had not, to date, followed through with such a plan. More important, the court emphasized the need for immediate action, made possible by identifying short term solutions that would ultimately also, contribute to the long term goals.
[6] The court also applauds the Virgin Islands Legislature's re-activation of the Parole Commission and its cooperation in helping the defendant's remedy the unconstitutional conditions at the CJC. Cf. Inmates of the Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 901 F.2d 1191, 1198 (3d Cir.1990) ("Allegheny County") (recognizing interest of local government to manage own affairs).
[7] In apparently keeping with the initiatives outlined at the April 1, 1997 sanctions hearing, Attorney General Brady enlisted the services of the United States Marshal Louie T. McKinney, the Territorial Marshal, and the National Guard to assist with and provide secure transportation of the inmates. July 24 Letter, at 1.

[8] Forty inmates from Golden Grove were transferred to the Arizona detention facility. This made available the bed space to house the twenty-four inmates transferred to St. Croix from St. Thomas.
[9] This figure includes seven sentenced inmates and '76 pre-trial detainees at the CJC. The Halfway House Annex houses an additional twelve inmates. Id.
[10] The court notes that MacTavious died on July 21, 1997 at the Roy L. Schneider Hospital after being in the coma he sustained at the CJC for thirteen months. Eunice Bedminster, Inmate Who Was Beaten Dies in Coma, The Daily News, July 29, 1997, at 3. With proper population control, segregation, and appropriate monitoring of the inmates, the defendants can ensure that similar incidents with such tragic consequences do not occur again.
[11] The court notes that the Clerk of the Court for the District Court of the Virgin Islands has provided for the jail two computers to assist defendants in their classification efforts. Moreover, the reports generated by the Special Master can serve as a starting point if 0907 not a blueprint0907for classifying CJC inmates. Defendants thus have at their disposal everything necessary to achieve compliance with this component of the Agreement.
[12] Compensatory sanctions seek to compensate the complainants through the payment of money for damages caused by past acts of disobedience. Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 545 F.2d 1336, 1344 (3d Cir.1976). A compensatory sanction must not exceed the actual damages incurred by the offended party and it must be based on evidence of a complainant's actual loss Gregory v. Depte, 896 F.2d 31, 34 (3d Cir.1990). Thus, for example, fines may be payable to the complainant as compensation caused by defendants' noncompliance. Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 868 (3d Cir.1990). Alternatively, the court may exercise its equitable power and order that the sanction be used to remedy the problems underlying the contempt finding. Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986).
[13] Coercive sanctions aid the plaintiff by bringing a defiant party into compliance with a court order; they assure that a potentially contumacious party adheres to the court order by setting forth in advance the penalties the court will impose if the party deviates from the path of obedience. Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 545 F.2d 1336, 1344 (3d Cir. 1976); Gregory v. Depte, 896 F.2d 31, 36 (3d Cir.1990) (Becker, J., concurring). Coercive civil contempt sanctions are conditional sentences which permit the contemnor to relieve himself from all sanctions through compliance. United States v. North, 621 F.2d 1255, 1263-64 (3d Cir.1980). Thus, the penalty is usually either (1) a jail sentence of indefinite duration, which the contemnor may avoid by agreeing to comply with the underlying order, or (2) a fine triggered by future violations of the underlying order. Gregory, 896 F.2d at 37.
[14] The defendants in this matter, all sued in their official capacity, are the Governor of the Virgin Islands; the Director of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections; the Warden and Acting Assistant Warden of the CJC, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I; the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands; and the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections.
[15] Very recently, on October 27 and 28, 1997, the court inspected the CJC and Halfway House Annex. This inspection was followed by a formal hearing and an informal conference dealing with, among other things, the status of the facilities and defendants' compliance efforts. The court is greatly encouraged by what it saw and heard from the defendants, especially the information that the Virgin Islands Department of Corrections has recently hired a new director, Gerald V. Enos. His extensive background in the corrections field should provide him with the leadership skills to effect those improvements yet to be completed and bring the CJC and Halfway House Annex to the constitutional level required by the Consent Decree. The five voluminous reports prepared by the Special Master, as well as the expert reports attached thereto, should be of great assistance to him. The court urges him to review them.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 144 F.Supp.2d 395 (2001)
Lawrence CARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Charles W. TURNBULL, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV. A. 94-78.
District Court, Virgin Islands, St. Thomas Division.
June 4, 2001.
396 *396 Eric Balaban, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Benjamin Currence, St. Thomas, USVI, for Plaintiffs.
Richard Schrader, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Virgin Islands Department of Corrections, Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI, for Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON CONTEMPT MOTION
BROTMAN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court, on its own motion, for consideration of whether Defendants should be held in civil contempt of a settlement and related Court orders that were designed to remedy unconstitutional conditions at the Criminal Justice Complex and Annex in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, testimony presented at the December 20, 2000, contempt hearing, and other matters of record, the Court herein issues findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Defendants' compliance with the settlement provisions and subsequent Court orders.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Background
1. The plaintiffs in this case, pretrial detainees and inmates at the Criminal Justice Complex ("CJC"), filed a class action complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction on June 20, 1994, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the jail. Plaintiffs named various Virgin Islands officials, including the governor, attorney general, director of the Bureau of Corrections ("BOC"), and the CJC's warden and assistant warden, as defendants.
2. The parties signed a Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") on October 12, 1994, which this Court entered as an order on December 7, 1994. The Agreement requires Defendants to make specific improvements, by dates certain, in the following aspects of operations and conditions at the CJC: (a) population; (b) shelter, physical plant, and environmental health; (c) fire safety; (d) medical care; (e) mental health; (f) corrections and security; 397 (g) compliance with the Americans with Disabilities *397 Act; (h) religious freedom; (i) legal access; and (j) mail, telephone, and visitation.
3. To monitor compliance with the Agreement, the Court appointed a Special Master, who held hearings, conducted inspections, and produced reports on conditions at the CJC and Defendants' efforts to satisfy the terms of the Agreement. The last Special Master's term of service ended June 30, 1999.[1]
4. Plaintiffs filed a contempt motion on January 11, 1996, alleging that Defendants had failed to comply with the Agreement and two related orders the Court had entered in October 1995.[2] Defendants filed a cross-motion to

modify the Agreement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), on the basis of unforeseen financial setbacks resulting from extreme weather in the Virgin Islands. Following a hearing on the parties' motions on November 7-8, 1996, the Court issued a comprehensive decision denying Defendants' motion and holding Defendants in contempt. Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727, 743 (D.Vi.1997) (Carty I). The Court found that "[t]he conditions of confinement at the CJC ... continue to fall far short of very basic, minimum habitability .... [and] defendants have not made adequate efforts to remedy the critical issues they must face, both under orders of the court and according to the agreement to which they bound themselves." Id.
5. On April 1, 1997, the Court held a separate hearing on Plaintiffs' request for contempt sanctions. In a subsequent opinion, the Court declined to order monetary sanctions against Defendants, crediting the Virgin Islands government's post-hearing efforts to alleviate overcrowding at the CJC, and reasoning that monetary sanctions would not coerce Defendants to comply with the Agreement. Carty v. Schneider, 986 F.Supp. 933, 937-41 (D.Vi. 1997) (Carty II). The Court noted that "while ... monetary sanctions are inappropriate at this juncture, a failure to maintain the momentum generated by defendants' recent achievements 0907 and a corresponding failure to achieve compliance with the substantive terms of the Agreement in the near future 0907 will affect the court's response to prospective motions for relief that may be brought by the plaintiffs." Id. at 941.
6. Between 1997 and 1999, medical and environmental health experts and the Special Master documented serious continuing hazards at the CJC and its new halfway house facility, commonly referred to as the "Annex." On October 21, 1999, the Court sua sponte ordered Defendants to appear for a hearing on December 9, 1999, to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their failure to comply with the Agreement. At the 398 hearing, Defendants agreed to take concrete steps to *398 address several of the more dangerous conditions at the CJC.
7. Since the date of the contempt hearing, the Court has held status conferences roughly once a month to track Defendants' compliance with the Agreement and remedial orders.[3] Additionally, pursuant to an order of the Court, Defendants have provided Plaintiffs with monthly documentation related to their compliance with the Agreement.
8. On August 2, 2000, this Court, accompanied by the Virgin Islands attorney general, BOC director, the warden and assistant warden, and counsel for both parties, conducted a tour of the CJC and Annex, followed by a hearing. The Court admonished Defendants that the deadlines for satisfying the terms of the Agreement had long since passed, and that it would consider ordering contempt sanctions in the event of continued non-compliance. The Court then entered a remedial order, requiring Defendants to make specific improvements, by dates certain, in the areas of fire safety and security, Annex construction, legal access, maintenance, environmental health, personal hygiene, and recreation. (See Order of Sept. 7, 2000.)
9. On the basis of subsequent status conferences, the Court has entered additional remedial orders with respect to specific aspects of CJC operations. (See Order of Nov. 27, 2000 (fire evacuation plans and interdepartmental memorandum of understanding regarding roles in emergencies); Order of Sept. 20, 2000 (medication distribution)).
B. Compliance with the Court's Orders
10. On October 17, 2000, the Court entered a scheduling order setting this case for a contempt hearing on December 20, 2000. At that hearing, the Court heard testimony from the environmental health and medical experts, jail and Government officials, and representatives of the U.S. Marshal's Service. The Court also received into evidence the declarations of fourteen prisoners at the CJC and Annex, signed in the week preceding the hearing.
11. Although the contempt matter was before the Court on its own motion, the Court relied on Plaintiffs' counsel, which has had the lead monitoring role in this case since the departure of the Special Master, to identify those areas of compliance for which a contempt finding might be appropriate. Thus, this opinion treats solely with the aspects of CJC and Annex operations raised by Plaintiff.[4]

12. On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, as well as the entire record of the case,[5] the Court 399 makes the following determinations regarding Defendants' compliance with the Agreement and *399 subsequent
remedial orders.[6]
Shelter, Physical Plant, and Environmental Health
13. The Agreement requires Defendants to establish a comprehensive preventive maintenance plan for all mechanical systems and the physical plant by January 1, 1995. (Agreement ¶ II.11.)[7] To execute this plan, the Agreement further requires Defendants to hire two full-time-equivalent workers qualified to perform maintenance work on all major mechanical systems by April 15, 1995. (Id. ¶ II.13.) In the area of environmental health, Defendants are required to provide personal hygiene articles to prisoners at the time of admission, and to reissue such items as needed, by January 1, 1996. (Id. ¶¶ II.35, II.37.) Defendants must replace damaged or soiled mattresses by April 15, 1995 (id. ¶ II.6), and establish a mattress exchange program for new admissions by December 1, 1994 (id. ¶ II.7.)[8]
14. In 1997, the Court held Defendants in contempt of the Agreement's shelter, physical plant, and environmental health provisions. See Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 735-736, 744-45. The Court noted: "The CJC lacks a preventive maintenance program0907its roof leaks; light fixtures and hot water heaters for inmate showers are non-functional; mattresses are soiled, damaged, and not exchanged regularly .... The ventilation system at the CJC does not function properly .... [and][s]hower areas leak ...." Id. at 736 (footnotes and citations omitted). The Court also found that "CJC staff ... do not distribute regularly the necessary personal hygiene items such as toothpaste and sanitary napkins; rather, they issue them selectively in order to discipline inmates." Id. at 738. Post-contempt conditions with respect to preventive maintenance, hygiene articles, and mattresses are described in paragraphs 15-27, infra.
15. Preventive Maintenance: James Balsamo, Plaintiffs' environmental health expert, inspected the CJC and Annex in May 1998, and found that both facilities continued to suffer from a litany of environmental problems, including "inadequate ventilation, inadequate hot water in showers and lavatories ... improperly functioning toilets and lavatories, inadequate insect and rodent control, inadequate lighting, a lack of preventive maintenance due to staffing shortages, [and] a lack of overall health and safety policies, procedures, practices, and training." (James J. Balsamo, Jr., Environmental Health and Safety Survey of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Annex on May 22, 1998, at 1 [hereinafter Balsamo, May 1998 Report].[9])
16. Through 1999, Mr. Balsamo's inspections found that Defendants had neither instituted a preventive maintenance program nor hired additional staff to supplement the efforts of the one maintenance worker at the 400 CJC and Annex. (See *400 James J. Balsamo, Jr., Environmental Health and Safety Survey of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Annex on February 5, 1999, at 14-16 [hereinafter Balsamo, February 1999 Report];[10] James J. Balsamo, Jr., Environmental Health and Safety Inspection of the St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Criminal Justice Complex Annex on November 5, 1999, at 19-20 (filed Dec. 3, 1999) [hereinafter Balsamo, November 1999 Report].) As a result, the same environmental hazards Mr. Balsamo had documented in his May 1998 report persisted at the jail. (See Balsamo, February 1999 Report, supra, at 1; Balsamo, November 1999 Report, supra, at 1.)
17. During the December 9, 1999, show-cause hearing, Defendants again agreed to hire additional maintenance staff. Over the next eight months, however, Defendants failed to do so, despite repeated prodding by the Court and Plaintiffs' counsel.[11]
18. On August 2, 2000, this Court conducted a tour of the CJC and Annex, followed by a hearing. On the basis of the evidence of continuing repair and maintenance problems, the Court ordered Defendants to hire two additional full-time-equivalent maintenance workers for the CJC and Annex and implement a preventive maintenance program by October 2, 2000. (Order of Sept. 7, 2000, ¶ 5.)

19. Mr. Balsamo inspected the CJC and Annex again in November 2000 (see James J. Balsamo, Jr., Environmental Health and Safety Inspection of the St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Criminal Justice Complex Annex on November 10, 2000, at 7 (filed Dec. 15, 2000) [hereinafter Balsamo, November 2000 Report]), and the parties stipulated to his maintenance findings at the December 20, 2000, contempt hearing (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 9:19-25). As of the last inspection, the CJC and Annex still had only one maintenance worker 401 between them. (Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 29, 42.)[12] As a result of this staffing shortage, *401 Defendants had yet to implement a comprehensive preventive maintenance plan at the CJC and Annex. (Id. at 29.) The CJC and Annex also continued to be plagued by physical plant and environmental problems, including: (a) faulty control panels, which prevent staff from knowing whether inmates are securely locked in their cells (id. at 30); (b) broken pipes in the kitchen (id. at 13); (c) faulty temperature gauges in the kitchen's freezer and refrigerator, which can result in food spoilage (id. at 14); (d) a broken and potentially dangerous electrical plug on the kitchen's meat slicer (id. at 15); (e) poor lighting in the cells (id. at 27, 37); (f) inoperable sinks, showers, and water fountains (id. at 29, 35, 38); (g) poor air circulation (id. at 28, 34); (h) unscreened windows at the Annex, which allow insects and rodents to enter (id. at 34); (i) holes in the Annex food storeroom, which have allowed rodents to get into the food supply (id. at 39); and (j) unsealed utility and water pipes in the food storeroom, which have allowed water to leak onto the food supply (id. ); and (k) dangerous electrical wiring in the Annex laundry and shops (id.).[13]
20. Hygiene Articles: In March 1998, the Special Master found that Defendants neither provided hygiene items to new prisoners nor maintained an adequate floor stock of such supplies. (Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 6 at 40, 41 (Mar. 25, 1998).)
21. Through 1999, prisoners did not receive items such as shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, or toothbrushes unless they paid for them, and the jail did not keep an adequate supply of these items for distribution. (Balsamo, February 1999 Report, supra, at 16; Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 7 at 36 (Apr. 8, 1999); Balsamo, November 1999 Report, supra, at 21.)
22. Following its August 2, 2000, hearing and tour, the Court ordered Defendants to immediately begin providing inmates with hygiene items at admission and to keep an adequate floor stock of such articles so that they could be dispensed as needed. (Order of Sept. 7, 2000, ¶ 7.)
23. As of Mr. Balsamo's November 10, 2000, inspection, the only personal hygiene items prisoners regularly received were soap and toilet paper; all other hygiene items had to be purchased from the jail's commissary or shipped to the prisoner from family or friends. (Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 32 (observing that toothbrushes are provided "sometimes").)[14]
24. By the time of the contempt hearing on December 20, 2000, at least some inmates had received bags 402 containing deodorant, shampoo, a comb, a toothbrush, and toothpaste.[15] These distributions followed *402
Warden Agnes George's memorandum to staff, about two weeks prior to the hearing, directing that personal hygiene packages be provided to inmates each Wednesday upon request. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 75:16 to 78:23 (testimony of Warden George).) However, Warden George could not say whether all or even most prisoners had been informed of the new policy. (See id. 78:11-16 (stating that she did not verify whether officers had followed her instruction to post the new policy).)
25. Mattresses: The Special Master reported in March 1998 and April 1999 that Defendants had replaced damaged and soiled mattresses and established a mattress exchange program for new admissions. (Special Master Compliance Report No. 6 at 27 (Mar. 25, 1998); Special Master Compliance Report No. 7 at 21 (Apr. 8, 1999)). However, the Court continued to receive reports from Plaintiffs' counsel that cracked and torn mattresses were still in use. (Pls.' Objections to Special Master Compliance Report No. 6 at 7 (Apr. 13, 1998) (documenting observations from counsel's October 1997 and March 1998 tours); Pls.' Objections to Special Master Compliance Report No. 7 at 4 (Apr. 14, 1999) (noting observations from November 1998 and April 1999 tours).)

26. Following the Court's own tour of the CJC and Annex on August 2, 2000, during which the poor condition of the mattresses was evident, the Court again ordered Defendants to replace damaged mattresses and institute the mattress exchange program. (Order of Sept. 7, 2000, ¶ 8.)
27. As of the contempt hearing on Dec. 20, 2000, damaged mattresses were still common at the CJC and Annex. (See, e.g., Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, ¶ 3 (estimating that half of the mattresses inspected by Plaintiff's counsel between December 15 and 20, 2000, were torn); Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 32 (reflecting that Mr. Balsamo observed several torn mattresses during his November 2000 inspection).) Defendants aver that a mattress exchange program is in place and that the remaining soiled or damaged mattress were replaced when a shipment of mattresses was received in January 2001. (Defs.' Prop. Findings at 5.) However, the longstanding nature of the problem, along with the fact that so many mattresses were in poor condition as late as December 2000, suggest that exchanges are not sufficiently regularized.
Fire Safety
28. The Agreement requires the Defendants to take the following steps, among others, regarding fire safety at the CJC and Annex: (a) provide working heat and smoke detectors throughout the CJC building[16] and Annex; (b) install a manual fire alarm system; (c) provide fire-rated enclosures of the kitchen, stairways, and utility shafts; (d) implement an emergency evacuation plan and conduct quarterly fire drills for each shift; (e) train staff in fire evacuation and emergency procedures; and (f) provide a sufficient number of staff with keys to unlock doors in the event of an emergency. (Agreement ¶¶ III.1 to III.21.) The Agreement sets a January 1, 1996, deadline for implementing most of these measures.[17]
403 *403 29. In 1997, the Court held Defendants in contempt of the fire safety provisions of the Agreement, finding that "cell locking devices, manual alarm systems, smoke dampers, and heat detectors are inoperable, all of which together poses a security risk during a fire emergency," and that "the building itself cannot adequately protect the occupants during a fire." Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 737.
30. Upon touring the CJC and Annex in May 1998, Mr. Balsamo concluded that "[d]ue to a lack of fire safety training, fire drills, fire equipment replacement parts and supplies, fire detection, alarm, and suppression equipment service and maintenance contracts, and written policies and procedures of which all staff are knowledgeable, this facility is a serious threat to the life safety and health of the inmates and staff." (Balsamo, May 1998 Report, supra, at 1.)[18] When Mr. Balsamo toured the CJC and Annex again in February 1999, he found essentially the same problems. (See Balsamo, February 1999 Report, supra, at 1-6, 17-18, 20.)
31. In April 1999, the Special Master found that Defendants had failed to comply with the bulk of the fire safety provisions of the Agreement, and made eleven specific recommendations for improving fire safety at the jail, the first of which was that Defendants correct the deficiencies Mr. Balsamo had identified in his reports. (See Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 7 at 44-45 (Apr. 8, 1999).)[19]
32. When Mr. Balsamo conducted another inspection of the CJC and Annex in November 1999, he found no changes in fire safety conditions since his two previous inspections. (See Balsamo, November 1999 Report, supra, at 1.) He concluded his report by stating that he "fear[ed] for the lives of the inmates should a fire break out in either of these facilities." (Id. at 28.)
33. During the December 9, 1999, show-cause hearing, Defendants agreed to hire a fire safety contractor to make the necessary repairs at the CJC and Annex. Over the next eight months, the Court and Plaintiffs' counsel repeatedly pressed Defendants to finalize a contract and make repairs, while Defendants continued to give the impression that work would begin promptly.[20]
404 *404 34. Following the Court's August 2, 2000, hearing and tour, in which it was apparent that the fire safety deficiencies remained, the Court ordered Defendants to make all necessary repairs to the fire safety systems at both facilities by November 1, 2000. (Order of September 7, 2000, ¶ 1.)

35. The Court entered another order on November 27, 2000, requiring Defendants to (a) immediately submit fire evacuation plans for the CJC and Annex; and (b) submit a memorandum of understanding, describing the roles of the police and fire departments and the BOC in the event of an emergency, by December 4, 2000. (Order of Nov. 27, 2000, ¶¶ 1, 2.) The Court received the evacuation plans on December 1, 2000, and the memorandum of understanding on December 27, 2000.
36. In the report on his November 10, 2000, inspection of the CJC and Annex, Mr. Balsamo noted that fire safety conditions remained substantially the same as in his 1999 inspections (Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 2-12) and stated that "[t]he lack of [corrections officers], the obvious deficiencies in the `emergency key plan,' inadequately trained officers, an inoperative fire detection and alarm system, inadequate numbers of fire drills, and the evacuation plan deficiencies lead me to conclude that the inmates [sic] life and safety are severely threatened" (id. at 7). At the December 20, 2000, contempt hearing, the parties stipulated to Mr. Balsamo's fire safety findings (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 9:19-25), which are set forth more specifically in paragraphs 37-40, infra.
37. As of Mr. Balsamo's last inspection on November 10, 2000, the fire alarm and detection systems were still in poor and unreliable condition. (Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 2-4, 35-36.) Several indicators on the fire alarm control panels were malfunctioning (id. at 2, 35), and the control panel in Unit B of the Annex had been deactivated (id.). A number of smoke and heat detectors in both facilities were missing, broken, or ineffective. (Id. at 2,3, 35.) ADT, the fire services contractor, had inspected the fire detection systems and proposed repairs. (Id. at 2, 35; see also Defs.' Prop. Findings Ex. D (letter of Dec. 18, 2000, from ADT to Assistant Attorney General Schrader).)[21] However, no repair work had been done, and Mr. Braslow concluded that Defendants had not earmarked sufficient funds for the added cost of purchasing replacement parts, which are necessary for maintaining fully functioning alarm and detection systems. (Id. at 3, 35.) Defendants assert that repairs to the fire 405 detection systems in the CJC and Annex have since been completed. *405 While they have provided evidence that ADT planned to make the repairs in January 2001 (Defs.' Prop. Findings Ex. D), they have supplied no documentation of completed work.
38. As of the last inspection, the fire suppression systems at the CJC and Annex were also inadequate. (Id. at 4-6, 36.) Security and maintenance staff did not inspect and repair fire extinguishers; one extinguisher was inoperable, and the tamper seals on two others had been broken. (Id. at 4-5, 36.) The CJC was not equipped with smoke-resistant barriers and self-closing smoke doors, which are critical to a safe evacuation in the event of a fire. (Id. at 8.) The CJC kitchen was not equipped with an effective fire suppression system, and the existing system did not receive regular maintenance. (Id. at 5-6.) Additionally, problems still existed with the electronic locking mechanisms on cell and exit doors. One cell could not be opened with the emergency key, meaning that the door could not be opened in the event of a loss of power. (Id. at 11.) Officers also had difficulty opening other doors with emergency keys, which suggested that some keys may be defective.
39. As of the last inspection, corrections officers were not trained in fire safety and evacuation procedures or in the use of extinguishers and other fire safety and detection equipment. (Id. at 5-10, 36.) The facilities remained understaffed, jeopardizing the safety of inmates in emergency situations. (Id. at 8-9.) Additionally, officers were not equipped with easily recognizable emergency keys that would enable them to swiftly evacuate prisoners. (Id. at 11.)
40. As of the last inspection, fire drills were not conducted regularly or according to policy. (Id. at 6, 36.) The Agreement and the facility's own fire evacuation plan both require that drills be conducted in all areas, on all shifts, at least once per quarter. The fire drill records from the past year showed that only a single fire drill was performed on either the evening (4 p.m. to 12 p.m.) or overnight (12 p.m. to 8 a.m.) shifts, and that only one drill each was conducted during the first and third quarters. (Id. at 6.) At the CJC, prisoners are taken to the roof of the building during drills, with the apparent expectation that in the event of a fire they would be evacuated by helicopter. (Id. at 7.) However, the CJC fire plan contains no reference to helicopters,[22] and no arrangements for this mode of evacuation could be produced. (Id. at 7, 9.) At the Annex, prisoners are evacuated to a construction area containing items that could be used as weapons. (Id. at 36.)

Medical Care: Medication Distribution
41. The medication section of the Agreement's medical care provisions requires Defendants to implement the following measures by December 1, 1994:(a) ensure that newly admitted prisoners in need of medications receive them promptly, even if that means transporting them to the hospital; (b) have inmates' prescriptions filled at the pharmacy and returned to the jail within twenty-four hours; (c) ensure that medications are distributed only to the patients for whom they are prescribed; and (d) discard all expired drugs. (Agreement ¶¶ IV.F.)
406 *406 42. In its January 1997 contempt decision, the Court found that Defendants had violated the medical care provisions of the Agreement but did not specifically cite problems with medication distribution. See Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 737-38.
43. In March 1998, however, the Special Master noted that "[v]endors are not delivering orders for medication to the CJC due to delinquent payments or no payments being made for outstanding invoices." (Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 6 at 58 n. 67 (Mar. 25, 1998).)
44. Charles Braslow, M.D., a correctional health care expert, inspected the jail on behalf of the Special Master on May 22, 1998. Dr. Braslow found that "[t]he medication procurement system, primarily filling prescriptions at local pharmacies, is inadequate for reliably providing prescribed medications for inmates." (Letter of June 6, 1998, from Dr. Braslow to Special Master Grant at unnum. 1, appended to Response to Pls.' & Defs.' Objections to Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 6 (June 10, 1998).) He noted seventy-one instances in the three weeks prior to his visit in which prescribed medications were not administered because they were "out-ofstock" and concluded that the "potential for harm in such situations is obvious." Id. Dr. Braslow recommended that Defendants "develop[ ] ... a contractual relationship with a pharmacy or pharmacies which will insure the timely availability of prescription medications for inmates." Id. at unnum. 2.
45. By March 1999, when Dr. Braslow again inspected the CJC, the facility had not arranged a medication contract, and the jail's flawed procurement system had resulted in "persistent lengthy periods when inmates are denied prescribed antipsychotic medications because the medications are `out of stock' ...." (Charles A. Braslow, M.D., Report on Health Care Services at CJC, St. Thomas, March, 1999, at 1, appended to Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 7 (Apr. 8, 1999).) Explaining the consequences of these failures, Dr. Braslow warned:
I cannot overemphasize the seriousness of these lapses. Psychotic patients deteriorate when not given their medications and develop behaviors which may be of serious detriment to themselves and to others. Failure to provide these prescribed medications, particularly given the duration of this case and my specific identification of the issue in May 1998, is unconscionable.
Id. at 1.
46. Reporting on his inspection of the CJC on December 2, 1999, Dr. Braslow noted "some improvement" in the medication procurement system, but found that Defendants had nonetheless failed on several occasions to provide prisoners with necessary medication for infections and chronic conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes. (Charles Braslow, M.D., Evaluation of Healthcare Services at the Criminal Justice Complex, St. Thomas, USVI, December 2, 1999, at 2 (filed Dec. 7, 1999) [hereinafter Braslow, December 1999 Report].)
47. Over the next eight months, both the Court and Plaintiffs' counsel repeatedly urged Defendants to resolve the problems with distribution of medications and enter into a long-term procurement contract.[23]
407 *407 48. During a July 13, 2000, status conference, the Court instructed the parties to devise a joint stipulation on a medication procurement contract with Darby Pharmaceutical, the jail's private vendor, that would require Defendants to make periodic, "up-front" payments to Darby. (Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, Ex. G at 2 (Plaintiffs' counsel's follow-up letter).) Plaintiffs submitted a proposed stipulation to Defendants on July 27, 2000, but never received a response. (Balaban Decl. of Mar. 10, 2001, Ex. B (Plaintiffs' proposed procurement

stipulation); id. Ex. C at 2 (letter from Plaintiffs' counsel to Court noting that Defendants had not responded to the proposal).)
49. Because Defendants apparently could not agree by stipulation to enter a long-term procurement arrangement by stipulation, the Court on September 20, 2000, ordered Defendants to (a) conduct a utilization review of medications prescribed to CJC and Annex prisoners in order to determine the amount of quarterly payments to be made to Darby, and (b) to provide the Court with a copy of the procurement agreement with Darby by October 20, 2000. (Order of Sept. 20, 2000, ¶ 1.)
50. Defendants have provided the Court with a copy of the contract they submitted to Darby for review. (See Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, Ex. 1.) They have yet to submit a final agreement, however, as required by the Court's order. Although Defendants held discussions with Darby about finalizing a contract (see Defs.' Prop. Findings Exs. J, K (letters to Darby from Assistant Attorney General Paul Paquin)), the process has apparently been indefinitely delayed by Darby's institution of a moratorium on contracts (see id. Ex. L (letter to Darby from Mr. Paquin seeking written confirmation of moratorium)).
51. While Defendants have made strides in improving distribution of medications at the jail (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 108:21-24 (testimony of Dr. Braslow)), the lack of a procurement contract continues to present an unacceptable risk of interruptions in medication, particularly with respect to prisoners requiring anti-psychotic drugs (id. 108:15 to 109:24).
Mental Health
52. The Agreement requires Defendants to have a system in place by January 1, 1995, for referring prisoners in need of emergency mental health intervention to either St. Thomas Hospital or to Community Mental Health ("CMH"). (Agreement ¶¶ V.1, V.2.) The Agreement further mandates that beds for inmates requiring hospitalization be made available at St. Thomas Hospital by November 1, 1994. (Id. ¶ V.6.). Additionally, the Agreement requires Defendants to establish mental health cells for prisoners in need of restraints, seclusion, or observation by December 1, 1994. (Id. ¶ V.5.)
53. In 1997, the Court held Defendants in contempt of the mental health provisions the Agreement, finding that acutely mentally ill prisoners were not housed away from others at the CJC, and that prisoners were not transferred to St. Thomas Hospital in emergency situations, since the hospital's mental health unit did not maintain beds for the sole use of prisoners. Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 739 & n. 20, 744-45. The Special Master 408 noted in *408 August 1997 that the shortage of beds for mentally ill CJC inmates was due in part to the fact that as many as half of the hospital's mental health beds were occupied by patients who had been committed to hospitalization by a court. (Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 5 at 83 (Aug. 28, 1997).)
54. In March 1998, the Special Master again found that hospital beds were not being provided for CJC prisoners, but noted that the jail's psychiatrist and other Government officials were meeting to devise alternative placement options, outside the jail, for severely disturbed CJC prisoners. (Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 6 at 74, 75 (Mar. 25, 1998).) The record does not reflect that these meetings produced any progress toward a solution for housing mentally ill CJC prisoners.
55. Through 1999, the Special Master and Dr. Braslow found that beds at St. Thomas Hospital were still unavailable to severely mentally ill prisoners. (Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 7 at 77 (Apr. 8, 1999); Braslow, December 1999 Report, supra, at 5.) Dr. Braslow recommended that the Government develop a long-term plan for increasing the number of available inpatient beds for acutely mentally ill prisoners, possibly by building a long-term observation unit for patients committed to hospitalization by a court. (Id.)
56. As of the December 20, 2000, contempt hearing, Defendants continued to house acutely disturbed prisoners in need of hospitalization at the CJC. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 124:6 to 126:8 (testimony of Dr. Braslow).) Defendants also continued to house those with chronic mental health problems 0907 including at least one patient who had been adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity 0907 at the CJC, rather than at a secure facility where they might receive

appropriate treatment. (Id. 124:13-18, 125:8 to 126:4.) The problem of chronic care has proven particularly intractable because there is no facility for providing such care in the Virgin Islands. (Id. 124:13-18.)
57. Attorney General Stridiron stated at the contempt hearing that the hospitals of the Virgin Islands, including St. Thomas Hospital, are private entities which cannot be forced to accept prisoners from BOC facilities. The Court notes, however, that the hospitals receive Government funding and fall under the jurisdiction of the Virgin Islands Government Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation ("Health Facilities Corporation"), which is a "public entity of the Government of the Virgin Islands." 19 V.I.C. § 245(a), (b), (c) (2000). The Health Facilities Corporation has the power to "manage, operate, superintend, control, and maintain the hospitals and health facilities of the Government." 19 V.I.C. § 244(e) (2000). The directors of the corporation are appointed by the governor. 19 V.I.C. § 243(b) (2000).
Corrections and Security: Recreation
58. Among the corrections and security provisions of the Agreement is a requirement that Defendants begin to provide prisoners with a minimum of three hours of outdoor recreation each day, seven days per week, by April 1, 1995. (Agreement at ¶ VI.B.1.)
59. In 1997, the Court held Defendants in contempt of the recreation requirement, finding that male prisoners were given only 60 to 90 minutes of recreation, five days per week, while female prisoners "receive access to outdoor recreation infrequently and only at the whim of individual officers." Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 738.
409 60. In the three years following the contempt finding, CJC and Annex prisoners *409 continued to be denied the prescribed amounts of outdoor recreation.[24]
61. On September 7, 2000, the Court modified the three-hour recreation requirement in the Agreement, on the basis of Defendants' representation that there were an insufficient number of officers at the CJC and Annex to provide three hours of daily recreation. (Order of Sept. 7, 2000, ¶ 9.) The Court ordered Defendants to provide prisoners with two hours of recreation, five days a week, while allowing Plaintiffs to revisit the issue once the CJC and Annex were fully staffed. (Id.)
62. Recreation logs submitted to the Court show that prisoners at the CJC received two hours of recreation on most days in the months of September, October, and November 2000. (See Dec. 20, 2000, Pls.' Ex. 5.) For the Annex, the only log among the submitted materials that covers a period after the Court's modification of the recreation requirement is from November 2000. That log shows that prisoners on most days received one hour of recreation, although on some days they received substantially more. (Id.) A number of Annex prisoners testified in their declarations that they received recreation of about an hour a day for only two or three days a week (Mario Emanuel Decl. ¶ 2; Jones Decl. ¶ 5; Maddox Decl. ¶ 5; Weekes Decl. ¶ 6), but these recollections also include practices in place before the Court's Order of September 7, 2000. Some Annex prisoners, fearing for their own safety, refuse to participate in the recreation because it is provided in an abandoned construction area containing many items that could be used as weapons. (Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 36 (Mr. Balsamo reporting on dangerous condition of the recreation and fire evacuation area); Mario Emanuel Decl. ¶ 2 (stating that he refuses to take recreation because the area is hazardous); Maddox Decl. ¶ 5 (same).)
Legal Access
63. The Agreement requires Defendants to implement policies and procedures ensuring the right of prisoners to have access to the courts by January 1, 1995. (Agreement ¶ IX.A.) Among the specific legal access provisions of the Agreement are requirements that by April 1, 1995, Defendants provide prisoners with access to legal supplies as well as a law library with relevant and up-to-date court rules, practice treatises and constitutional, statutory, and case law materials. (Agreement ¶ IX.D.)[25]
64. In 1997, the Court held Defendants in contempt of the Agreement's legal access provisions. Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 741-42, 744-45. The Court specifically found: "The law library at the CJC lacks recent volumes of legal

410 reference materials *410 and is not comprehensive. At times, Defendants allow library access on an ad hoc basis and only to sentenced inmates." Id. at 741.[26]
65. In the three years following the Court's contempt finding, both the Special Master and Plaintiffs' counsel continued without success to press Defendants to improve the jail's law library.[27]
66. Following its August 2, 2000, hearing and tour, which included an inspection of the library, the Court ordered Defendants to improve the holdings and install a computer and printer in the library. (Order of Sept. 7, 2000, ¶ 10.) The Court also ordered Defendants to provide prisoners with paper, typewriters, and other supplies related to legal matters. (Id.)
67. At the December 20, 2000, contempt hearing, Defendants stipulated that CJC and Annex inmates still did not have access to an adequate law library for researching issues related to their convictions, the calculation of their sentences, and the conditions of their confinement. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 7:13-8:20.) The law library did not yet contain up-to-date and complete sets of research volumes such as the Virgin Islands Code and Federal Reporter. (Id.) Nor was there an operable computer available to prisoners for legal research. (Id.) Subsequent to the hearing, Defendants have submitted an invoice showing that the BOC's librarian in February 2001 ordered a number of volumes for the CJC library. (Defs.' Prop. Findings Ex. I.)[28]
68. Evidence introduced at the contempt hearing suggests that inmates may also not be receiving regular access to the existing, inadequate law library. The log book shows only six visits to the library since August 2000 (see Dec. 20, 2000, Pls.' Ex. 7), and several prisoners stated in their declarations that they have been denied access to the library (see Charles Decl. ¶ 3; Colburne Decl. ¶ 3; Jones Decl. ¶ 2; Weekes Decl. ¶ 2).
69. Finally, as of the contempt hearing, prisoners still had to purchase their legal supplies from the commissary. ( See Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, ¶ 2 (documenting purchases of legal supplies such as pen, paper, notepad, and envelopes from the commissary during November and December 2000); Carmona Decl. ¶ 3 (prisoner stating that legal supplies must be purchased from the commissary); Phillips Decl. ¶ 3 (prisoner stating that he purchased supplies from the commissary to write a letter to his attorney after his request for a stamp was denied).)
Telephones
70. The Agreement requires Defendants to institute policies allowing prisoners reasonable and equitable access to telephones by January 1, 1995. (Agreement ¶ X.E.) Relatedly, among the legal access provisions of the 411 Agreement is a requirement that Defendants ensure prisoners' *411 ability to make confidential telephone calls to their attorneys by January 1, 1996. (Id. ¶¶ IX.B, IX.C.)
71. Through 1997 and 1998, telephones in the prisoner housing clusters of the CJC were in operable. (See, e.g., Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 4 at 130 (Mar. 28, 1997); Balsamo, May 1998 Report, supra, at 11.) In his May 1998 inspection, Mr. Balsamo observed that prisoners were able to make phone calls only when officers assigned to their housing clusters "loaned" them the cluster control cage phone to them. (Balsamo, May 1998 Report, supra, at 11.)[29] By November 1999, Defendants had activated the phones in the housing clusters; however, only one cluster's phone could be used at any one time. (Balsamo, Nov. 1999 Report, supra, at 20.)
72. When the Court toured the CJC and Annex on August 2, 2000, it found that the telephones in the housing clusters had been removed, and that prisoners were now provided with access to a telephone on two designated days per week. Following the hearing held after the tour, the Court ordered Defendants to install telephones in each housing cluster of the CJC and Annex by November 1, 2000. (Order of Sept. 7, 2000, ¶ 4.)
73. At the December 20, 2000, contempt hearing, Defendants stipulated that they had not yet installed phones in the housing clusters per the Court's order. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 8:22 to 9:7.) Director Magras testified that a Puerto Rico vendor had visited the jail in October 2000 to determine whether the company could install telephones in the housing clusters. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 69:22 to 71:13.) Defendants aver in their Proposed Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law that review of the vendor's subsequent contract proposal has been delayed by language difficulties. (Defs.' Prop. Findings at 3.)[30]
74. As of the contempt hearing, then, prisoners of each cluster were still provided telephone access on two designated days per week, and each prisoner was restricted to two telephone calls per week. (Id.)[31] Although the phones were supposed to be available and activated for prisoners' use between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m., in practice the phones often were not activated until the afternoon, resulting in added difficulty for prisoners trying to reach their attorneys. (See Carmona Decl. ¶ 2; Francois Decl. ¶ 2; Weekes Decl. ¶ 3.) Inmates stated in their declarations that if they called their attorney, and the line was busy or the attorney was either unavailable, they 412 could not place another call until the next designated phone day. (See Carmona *412 Decl. ¶ 2; Francois Decl. ¶ 2; Weekes Decl. ¶ 3.) Two inmates also reported that they were not allowed to make phone calls on their cluster's day, despite having signed up to call their attorneys. (See Francois Decl. ¶ 2; Turner Decl. ¶ 5.) Additionally, until recently, prisoners who had been appointed defense counsel who live off-island could not call their attorneys free of charge. (See Buchanan Decl. ¶ 5; Colburne Decl. ¶ 2.)[32]
Security Systems
75. Although the jail's security systems are not covered by specific provisions of the Agreement, their condition falls within the Agreement's broad concern for "the safety and security of prisoners and staff." (Agreement at unnum. 1.) In light of ongoing problems with various security devices at the CJC and Annex, the Court on September 7, 2000, ordered Defendants to make all necessary repairs to the devices by November 1, 2000. (Order of Sept. 7, 2000, ¶ 1.)
76. Defendants have had notice of faulty security systems at the CJC and Annex since May 1998, when Mr. Balsamo found that the clusters' electronic control panels were inoperable, certain electronic locking mechanisms on emergency exit and cell doors were faulty, officers were not equipped with radios or body alarms, and the CJC's intercom system had been deactivated. (Balsamo, May 1998 Report, supra, at 4-5, 11, 15.)
77. When Mr. Balsamo toured the facility again in February and November 1999, he noted the same security problems, and also found that about half of the 30 security camera monitors in the CJC's main control room were not functioning. (Balsamo, February 1999 Report, supra, at 5-6, 15-16; Balsamo, November 1999 Report, supra, at 7, 20.) The Court entered its Order of September 7, 2000, after touring the facility in August 2000 and finding that security problems persisted.
78. As of Mr. Balsamo's findings in November 2000, to which the parties stipulated at the December 20, 2000, contempt hearing (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 9:19-25), few, if any, repairs had been made: problems remained with some locking mechanisms, particularly in the event of power loss (Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 11); the electronic control panels for cell doors were unreliable, meaning that officers could not know for certain whether inmates were secured in their cells (id. at 30); the intercom system was turned off because of excessive noise (id. at 31, 43); and three-quarters of the security camera monitors in the CJC's main control room were out of order ( id. at 31).
Annex Construction
79. In September 1997, Defendants entered into a Cooperative Agreement Program ("CAP") agreement with the U.S. Marshal's Service to house federal detainees in BOC facilities in exchange for a per diem payment for each detainee as well as $1,329,000 to renovate the CJC Annex so that detainees could be housed there. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 149:14-19 (testimony of Marshal's Service grant specialist Jim Wilmer)).[33] In 1999, the Marshal's 413 Service *413 disbursed approximately $1 million to the Government of the Virgin Islands for Annex renovations. ( Id. 150:6-15.)

80. In 1997, Defendants executed a contract with F & G Construction Co. ("F & G") for renovation of the Annex. F & G's Frank Buholz began working at the Annex under the contract in April 1998. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 12:19 to 13:11 (testimony of Frank Buholz).)
81. Mr. Buholz experienced repeated delays in receiving payment for his work, and as a result, he was sometimes unable to purchase supplies; renovations thus slowed while he awaited payment from the Government. (Balsamo, February 1999 Report, supra, at 11; Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 30:3-4.) Delays in the renovations allowed dangerous conditions at the Annex to persist, and the unfinished construction created its own hazards. ( See, e.g., Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 6 at 24 (Mar. 25, 1998) (noting that "deplorable conditions" continued at the Annex despite the fact that the CAP funds were available to remedy the situation); June 1998 Special Master Report at 3 (expressing "foremost concern [with] the health and safety of inmates in the facility during [the] renovation"); Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 36 (noting dangerous condition of recreation and emergency evacuation area due to unfinished construction).)
82. Despite Defendants' assurances in February 2000 that the Annex renovation would be completed within 90 days (Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, Ex. B at 2 (letter of Feb. 26, 2000, from Assistant Attorney General Schrader)), no work occurred over the next few months as the Government and F & G discussed payment (id. Ex. D at 3 (follow-up letter summarizing Apr. 18, 2000, conference during which Attorney General Stridiron agreed to meet with F & G to determine what payments were necessary); id. Ex. G at 4 (follow-up letter summarizing July 13, 2000, conference during which the attorney general agreed to pay the $86,000 requested by F & G, and noted that the work could be completed after the public works commissioner signed off on a revision to the contract with F & G)).
83. During the Court's August 2, 2000, tour of the CJC and Annex, Mr. Buholz stated that the project could be completed within 90 days of his receipt of the $86,000 payment. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 13:25 to 14:9, 21:9-15 (testimony of Frank Buholz).) Mr. Buholz understood from Attorney General Stridiron that the money would arrive within two weeks. (Id. 15:1-12.) On the basis of this information, the Court ordered Defendants to complete construction of the Annex by November 1, 2000. (Order of Sept. 7, 2000, ¶ 3.)
84. Shortly after the August 2, 2000, hearing, Mr. Buholz and his partner, Geraldo Rivera. had several meetings with Director Magras and Assistant Attorney General Paul Pacquin, who had been assigned to negotiate and draft a contract for the completion of the Annex renovation. (See Tr. 18:5-14, 23:13-16 (testimony of Mr. Buholz); id. 37:2-5 (testimony of Assistant Attorney General Pacquin).) Defendants insisted that executing a new contract, rather than revising the original contract, was necessary because the six-month term of the 1997 contract had long since expired. (Id. 41:22 to 42:5.) Toward the end of August, the Government presented a contract proposal 414 to Mr. Buholz, *414 along with documents needed to approve the contract 0907 including F & G's articles of incorporation, business license, and certificate of good standing. (Id. 37:6-18.)[34]
85. On September 8, 2000, after Mr. Buholz had apparently missed two scheduled meetings with Mr. Pacquin, Mr. Buholz informed Mr. Pacquin that the scope of work to be performed under the new contract needed to be revised to reflect the work left to be done at the Annex under the terms of the original contract. (Id. 41:1-21.) Mr. Buholz also raised questions concerning the existence of change orders under the original contract and the computation of the amount of money the Government had retained for disbursement to F & G upon completion of the Annex project. He told Mr. Pacquin that he would find supporting documentation and get back to him later that day on both issues, but Mr. Pacquin did not hear from him. (Id. 41:12 to 42:14.)
86. Mr. Buholz missed another meeting with Mr. Pacquin on September 11, 2000, and over the next few days Mr. Pacquin tried twice to reach the contractor. Mr. Pacquin and F & G had no further contact until November 2000. ( Id. 42:5 to 43:10.) Meanwhile, Mr. Buholz apparently ceased work at the Annex on September 11, 2000. (Id. 13:12-20.)
87. On November 2, 2000, Mr. Pacquin received a call from Director Magras, who had Mr. Rivera with him, and the parties reached an agreement on all issues, except the scope of work to be performed under the new contract still had to be resolved. (Id. 43:7 to 44:3.) The group agreed that they, along with an official from the Department of Public Works, would conduct a walk-through at the Annex to determine what work needed to be

completed. (Id. 44:7-17.) However, on the day scheduled for the walk-through, the public works official canceled. (Id.) As of the contempt hearing on December 20, 2000, then, a contract had not been finalized, and no work was being done at the Annex. (Id. 19:23 to 20:1.)
88. Defendants aver in their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the Governor signed a new Annex construction contract on April 17, 2001. (Defs.' Prop. Findings at 5.) However, they have provided no documentation of such an agreement with F & G; nor has the Court received word that renovation work at the Annex has resumed.
89. Through their continued failure to renovate the Annex, Defendants run the risk of being held in breach of the Marshal's Service CAP agreement, which would lead to a substantial loss of revenue and threaten Defendants' ability to comply with the Agreement and the Court's orders.
90. The Marshal's Service has indicated that it would defer holding Defendants in breach of the agreement if the funds it disburses to the Government were deposited in a segregated fund earmarked solely for BOC operations, and controlled by the director of corrections, the attorney general, and the commissioner of finance. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 160:16 to 161:9, 165:9 to 167:7 (testimony of District of the Virgin Islands Marshal Conrad Hoover).)
415 *415 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Legal Standard
1. A court has "inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders through civil contempt." Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276, 110 S.Ct. 625, 632, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990) (quoting Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1535, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966)).
2. To hold a defendant in contempt, the court must find that (1) a valid court order existed; (2) the defendant had knowledge of the order; and (3) the defendant disobeyed the order. Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1326 (3d Cir.1995) (Harris I); Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 871 (3d Cir.1990). Willfulness is not a necessary element. Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142, 148-49 (3d Cir.1994).
3. Contempt must be proved by "clear and convincing evidence," and where there is ground to doubt the wrongfulness of the conduct, the defendant should not be held in contempt. Robin Woods Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir.1994).
4. A defendant may escape contempt by establishing "that it could not possibly comply with the court's order despite making all reasonable efforts to do so." Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1333, 1341 (3d Cir.1995) ( Harris II). Mere good faith efforts are insufficient. Robin Woods, 28 F.3d at 399; Harley-Davidson, 19 F.3d at 148-49; Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 743.[35]
5. Defendants do not challenge the validity of the Agreement, which the Court entered as an order on December 7, 1994, or the validity of the Court's remedial orders of September 7, 2000 (fire safety, Annex construction, legal access, maintenance, environmental health, hygiene, and recreation), September 20, 2000 (medication distribution), and November 27, 2000 (fire evacuation plans). Nor do Defendants claim ignorance of any of their Court-ordered responsibilities, the neglect of which subjected them to a finding of contempt in 1997 and a second, ongoing contempt hearing since December 1999. Thus, the only element of contempt the Court need consider is Defendants' efforts to comply with the orders.
B. Defendants' Compliance Efforts
6. The evidence set forth in the Findings of Fact clearly and convincingly establishes Defendants' continued disobedience of the Court's orders, as summarized in paragraphs 7-11, infra.

7. Defendants have yet to hire additional maintenance workers, effect numerous repairs, or establish a preventive maintenance program. (Findings of Fact ¶ 19.) Hygiene articles were not distributed free of charge until the eve of the December 2000 contempt hearing (id. ¶ 24), and the evidence suggests that Defendants' mattress exchange program is either inadequate or nonexistent (id. ¶ 27).
8. Additionally, the safety of staff and inmates remains a grave concern, since Defendants have not upgraded the fire detection and suppression systems (id. ¶ 37, 38), do not train staff in emergency procedures (id. ¶ 39), and do not conduct regular fire drills (id. ¶ 40). Defendants have not made the necessary repairs to malfunctioning security devices, which poses a further safety risk. (Id. ¶ 78.) Defendants have also endangered the lives of 416 inmates by failing to secure a long-term pharmaceutical contract that would eliminate *416 gaps in providing medication. (Id. ¶ 51.)
9. Defendants have yet to provide prisoners at the CJC and Annex with an adequate law library and the necessary legal supplies (id. ¶¶ 67-69); moreover, inmates continue to have difficulty communicating with their attorneys because they do not have adequate telephone access (id. ¶ 74.)
10. Finally, renovation of the Annex has been indefinitely delayed, threatening to cut off funds from the Marshal's Service that are desperately needed to help remedy the jail's myriad problems. (Id. ¶ 89.)
11. With respect to only two of the issues raised by Plaintiffs does the Court find that Defendants substantially complied with the Court's orders. First, inmates appear to be receiving recreation in amounts close to the two hours per day, five days per week mandated by the Court's September 7, 2000, order. (Id. ¶ 62.)[36] Second, Defendants have submitted 0907 albeit somewhat belatedly 0907 the emergency plans required by the Court's November 27, 2000, order. (Id. ¶ 35.)
C. Proffered Defenses
12. Over the nearly seven-year history of this case,[37] Plaintiffs have repeatedly sought to justify their inaction by citing budget constraints. See, e.g., Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 744 (setting forth Defendants' argument that noncompliance was excusable 0907 and a contempt finding precluded 0907 by a financial crisis in the Virgin Islands and the BOC's heavy debt burden). Defendants have argued in this contempt proceeding, for example, that they could not hire maintenance workers, or supply the law library with computers and more books, because of delays or failures in securing legislative appropriations. (See Defs.' Prop. Findings at 2, 3.)
13. As the Court noted in Carty I, however, "[i]n the context of prison litigation in which plaintiffs allege unconstitutional conditions of confinement, `lack of financing is not a defense to the failure ... to provide minimum constitutional standards in the operation of a ... jail.'" Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 744-45 (quoting Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 699 F.Supp. 1137, 1146 (W.D.Pa. 1988)). While it is the Government's prerogative to lock up criminals and pretrial detainees in prisons, that power carries with it the duty to provide funds for maintaining those prisons in a constitutional manner. See Battle v. Anderson, 447 F.Supp. 516, 526 (D.Okla.1977). Moreover, the repeated setbacks in renovation of the Annex, which has funding in place, demonstrate that there is more to Defendants' intransigence than a lack of money.[38]
14. Defendants also contend that the actions of third parties have prevented their compliance with certain orders of the Court. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 15-17, infra, these arguments are unavailing.
15. With respect to the Annex, Defendants pin much of the blame for construction delays on Mr. Buholz of F & G 417 Construction. While the evidence certainly *417 reflects that Mr. Buholz missed several meetings and failed to
provide information that might have jump-started the renovations (Findings of Fact ¶¶ 85, 86), it is equally clear that the Government directly contributed to the current state of affairs. Had Defendants timely paid Mr. Buholz prior to 2000, the Annex would long since have been completed. Mr. Buholz would never have stopped work, and the Government's professed need for a new contract likely never would have materialized.[39] Even after the new contract became a stumbling block, construction might have gotten underway had Assistant Attorney General Pacquin attempted to determine whether the Government already possessed F & G's business documentation (

id. ¶ 84 n. 34), or even tried to contact Mr. Buholz in the month and a half before the Court's November 1, 2000, deadline for completing Annex construction (id. ¶ 86). In fine, Defendants' interactions with F & G do not constitute "all reasonable efforts" to finish the Annex construction.
16. Similarly, Defendants cite Darby Pharmaceutical's moratorium on contracts as the reason they have failed to enter a long-term medication procurement agreement. However, Darby's action cannot immunize Defendants from contempt unless the Government exhausted other possibilities. The Government has presented no evidence that, upon learning of the moratorium, it attempted to contract with another medication supplier. The failure to explore this option 0907 or demonstrate that no other supplier was available 0907 precludes a finding that it was impossible to comply with the Court's order.
17. Lastly, Defendants contend that the shortage of beds at St. Thomas Hospital, as well as hospitals' increasing refusal to accept prisoners with chronic mental health problems, makes it impossible for them to comply with the requirement that they hospitalize mentally ill prisoners. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive for two reasons. First, under the statutory scheme governing health care in the Virgin Islands, Defendants clearly exercise some control over St. Thomas Hospital and other medical facilities. (Id. ¶ 57.) The Government has the power, through legislative appropriations and the governor's board appointments, to encourage, if not direct, the expansion of mental health care services in the Virgin Islands. Second, even if the board of the Health Facilities Corporation proved recalcitrant, the Government would still have the option of contracting with an existing facility or constructing a new one to house mentally ill inmates. The defense of impossibility is limited to "physical impossibility beyond the control of the alleged contemnor" and does not include failure to provide the wherewithal to comply. Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 874 F.2d 147 (3d Cir.1989), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 493 U.S. 948, 110 S.Ct. 355, 107 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989), remanded with instruction to vacate as 418 moot, 893 F.2d 33 (3d Cir.1990). While the Government has limited resources, it *418 must realize that the choice to not spend sufficient funds on care for mentally ill inmates 0907 or on other aspects of CJC and Annex operations 0907 exposes Defendants to contempt.
D. Contempt Finding and Sanctions
18. On the basis of the foregoing conclusions of law, the Court finds that Defendants have not made all reasonable efforts to comply with the Court's orders. The Court therefore holds Defendants in contempt of the Agreement and subsequent remedial orders.
19. Having found Defendants in contempt, the Court turns to a consideration of sanctions. "The law affords courts great ... discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction for contempt." Carty II, 986 F.Supp. at 938; see also Robin Woods, 28 F.3d at 399. A court exercises its discretion based on its understanding of the case and the contemnor, paying particular regard to the extent of prior compliance or noncompliance. Carty II, 986 F.Supp. at 938.
20. A court's remedial powers and discretion in fashioning sanctions are not unlimited, however. Spallone, 493 U.S. at 276, 110 S.Ct. at 632. "In selecting contempt sanctions, a court is obliged to use the least possible power adequate to the end proposed." Id.; see also Gregory v. Depte, 896 F.2d 31, 37 (3d Cir.1990). Additionally, in devising a remedy against a governmental defendant, the court must take into account the interest of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs. Spallone, 493 U.S. at 276, 110 S.Ct. at 632; Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977).
21. Sanctions generally take the form of one of two types of fines. Compensatory fines, payable to the plaintiff for damages caused by the defendant's noncompliance, must not exceed the actual loss suffered by the aggrieved party. Elkin v. Fauver, 969 F.2d 48, 52 (3d Cir. 1992). Alternatively, these sanctions may be used to remedy the problems underlying the contempt finding. Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986). Coercive sanctions, imposed to induce compliance, are conditional in that the contemnor must be permitted to avoid them by adhering to the court order. United States v. North, 621 F.2d 1255 (3d Cir.1980).

22. In addition to fines, the court may require the contemnor to undertake affirmative acts, even acts not required by the initial order. In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litigation, 689 F.2d 1150, 1159 (3d Cir.1982).
23. With the foregoing principles in mind, the Court will follow the process set forth in paragraphs 24-26, infra, to determine the sanctions, if any, to be imposed against Defendants.
24. The parties may present their positions as to the specific types and amounts of sanctions that are warranted at the next status hearing on June 5, 2001, in St. Thomas.
25. The Court recognizes that, since the December 20, 2000, contempt hearing and the parties' submission of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Defendants may have complied with more provisions of the Agreement and remedial orders. The Court therefore directs that Plaintiffs' counsel immediately contact Mr. Balsamo to arrange for him to make a thorough environmental health and safety inspection of the CJC and Annex. Plaintiffs' counsel shall also arrange for Dr. Braslow to conduct an evaluation of health care services at 419 the jail. These inspections shall be made within 30 days of the date of this opinion. Mr. Balsamo and Dr. Braslow *419 shall submit to the Court written reports detailing their findings, including the violations that still exist, on or before July 20, 2001.[40]
26. Upon receipt of the experts' reports, the Court will issue an opinion setting forth its determination of sanctions.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court concludes that Defendants are in contempt of the Agreement and subsequent remedial orders. An appropriate order follows. That order also sets forth the manner in which the Court and parties will proceed with regard to sanctions.
ORDER REGARDING CONTEMPT MOTION
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on its own motion for consideration of whether Defendants should be held in civil contempt of the Settlement Agreement and related Court orders;
The Court having held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of contempt on December 20, 2000;
The Court having reviewed the record and the submissions of the parties;
For the reasons set forth in the Court's Opinion of this date;
IT IS this 4th day of June, 2001, HEREBY
ORDERED that Defendants are in civil contempt of the Agreement and related Court orders; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that argument on the issue of contempt sanctions shall be heard during the status hearing scheduled for June 5, 2001, at 11 a.m. at the District Court of the Virgin Islands in St. Thomas; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' counsel shall immediately contact James J. Balsamo, Jr., and arrange for him to make a thorough environmental health and safety inspection of the CJC and Annex within thirty days of this Order; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' counsel shall immediately contact Dr. Charles Braslow and arrange for him to conduct an evaluation of health care services at the CJC and Annex within thirty days of this Order; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Balsamo and Dr. Braslow shall submit to the Court an original and two copies of their written findings, including any violations that still exist, on or before July 20, 2001;[1] and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Balsamo and Dr. Braslow shall also submit to the Court an original and two copies of their respective invoices, directed to the Government of the Virgin Islands, detailing the work they performed and setting forth their expenses in itemized form, on or before July 20, 2001;[2] and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-referenced submissions to the Court be sent to Judge Stanley S. Brotman, Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse Suite 6040, Fourth and Market Streets, Box 1029, Camden, NJ 08102; and
420 *420 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to those persons provided for on the attached service list, the Clerk shall furnish the following persons with a copy of this Order and the accompanying Opinion:
(a) Governor Charles W. Turnbull;
(b) the President and each Senator of the Legislature of the Virgin Islands;
(c) the Chief Judge and each of the Judges of the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands;
(d) Chief Judge Raymond Finch;
(e) Judge Thomas Moore;
(f) Magistrate Judge Geoffrey Barnard;
(g) Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Resnick;
(h) Acting U.S. Attorney for the Virgin Islands David Atkinson;
(i) U.S. Marshal for the Virgin Islands Conrad Hoover;
(j) The Daily News;
(k) The Avis.
[1] Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Resnick served as special master from December 1994 to April 1996, and filed a report, adopted by the Court on October 17, 1995, documenting conditions at the CJC. Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727, 732 n. 5 (D.Vi.1997). Darlene Grant then replaced Judge Resnick, and served as special master until June 30, 1999. During her tenure, Ms. Grant produced seven additional reports on conditions at the CJC and Defendants' efforts to comply with the Agreement.
[2] On October 13, 1995, the Court entered an order directing Defendants to house prisoners on the second floor of the CJC to alleviate the overcrowding in the jail. On October 17, 1995, the Court entered another order finding Defendants in violation of the Agreement, and directing Defendants to comply with the Agreement to reduce the jail population and to "raise the then substandard conditions of confinement to a constitutional minimum." Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727, 743 (D.Vi. 1997).
[3] The Court has treated these monthly status conferences as continuations of the December 9, 1999 contempt hearing.
[4] The following provisions of the Agreement are not at issue in this contempt proceeding: (a) population; (b) the food service and clothing provisions of the environmental health section; (c) medical care, except with respect to medication distribution; (d) corrections and security, except with respect to recreation time; (e) compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (f) religious freedom.
[5] Defendants have also included a number of factual representations, without citation to materials of record, in their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Because these statements constitute, in several instances, the latest information on conditions at the CJC and Annex, the Court references them where relevant. Nonetheless, the Court does not give them the same credence as sworn testimony, documentary evidence, and experts' reports.

[6] For convenience of analysis, the Court will divide its findings largely among the same categories 0907 fire safety, mental health, legal access, and so on 0907 that are utilized in the Agreement.
[7] In addition to requiring implementation of a maintenance program, the Agreement mandates specific remedial actions, including repairs or upgrades to the roof, sinks, light fixtures, hot water heaters, and drinking water system. (Id. ¶¶ II.1 to II.4, II.13.)
[8] Additionally, the Agreement's fire safety provisions include requirements that all foam mattresses be replaced with fire-retardant mattresses by November 1, 1994 (id. ¶ III.6), and that all damaged fire-retardant mattresses be replaced by January 1, 1995 (id. ¶ III.7).
[9] Mr. Balsamo's report is appended to Response to Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Objections to Special Master Report No. 6 (June 10, 1998).
[10] Mr. Balsamo's February 5, 1999, report is appended to Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 7 (Apr. 8, 1999).
[11] See Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, Ex. A at 3 (Plaintiffs' counsel's follow-up letter to February 1, 2000, status conference, reflecting that Director Magras had reported that the Government intended to sign maintenance contracts with private vendors); id. Ex. C at 2 (follow-up letter summarizing March 28, 2000, conference during which Director Magras stated that the CJC would hire two workers directly and that funds had been allocated for one position, but that the hiring process had not begun); id. Ex. D at 2 (follow-up letter summarizing April 18, 2000, conference during which Attorney General Stridiron indicated that there were "no shortcut[s]" to a cumbersome Government hiring process); id. Ex. E at 3 (follow-up letter summarizing June 1, 2000, conference during which (a) Attorney General Stridiron reported that the $13,000 salary provided for the maintenance worker position was too low to attract a qualified candidate; (b) Stridiron pledged to seek an increased salary in a supplemental budget request; and (c) the Court instructed the Government to recruit for the position while the budget request was pending); id. Ex. G at 3 (follow-up letter summarizing July 14, 2000, conference during which the attorney general reported that the job description for the maintenance position had to be revised to allow for a salary increase); id. Ex. H at 3 (follow-up letter summarizing Sept. 20, 2000 conference, during which (a) the attorney general reported that a supplemental budget request for two maintenance positions had not been submitted to the legislature; (b) Director Magras stated that he did not expect the legislature to act on the budget request until at least October; and (c) Magras stated that the BOC had not been recruiting to fill the maintenance worker positions in the meantime).
[12] According to Mr. Balsamo, jail officials told him on November 10, 2000, that one additional maintenance worker had been hired; however, Mr. Balsamo could not find the worker on site. (Id. at 29.) In their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Defendants concede that they have not hired any new maintenance staff and state that, while they have identified candidates for two positions, a request for funding of the positions was not submitted to the Virgin Islands Office of Management and Budget until February 2001. (Defs.' Prop. Findings at 2.)
[13] The environmental problems at the Annex are particularly acute because the jail's sole maintenance worker spends almost all of his time working on necessary repairs at the CJC. (Id. at 29.)
[14] Warden Agnes George testified at the December contempt hearing that prisoners purchased supplies from the commissary because they did not like the brands that were handed out. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 78:4-16.) However, this testimony was inconsistent with her statements that the jail had only in the past few weeks begun to provide hygiene items free of charge. (Id. 75:16 to 78:23, 81:8-10.)
[15] Several inmates stated in their declarations that they had received a kit of hygiene supplies, for the first time since their incarceration, within the past week. (See, e.g., Charles Decl. ¶ 6; Weekes Decl. ¶ 6; Jones Decl. ¶ 4. But see Muiruri Decl. ¶ 3 (stating that he had never been provided with hygiene supplies other than those sent by his family).)

[16] The CJC has three floors, but the jail occupies only the third floor of the building. In Carty I, the Court noted that the CJC's fire alarm system operates only on the third floor and roof area of the CJC building. Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 737 n. 14.
[17] Two provisions came with earlier deadlines: staff were to be trained in emergency procedures by November 1, 1994 (Agreement ¶ III.6); heat detectors were to be installed on the first and second floors, as well as in the basement and the enclosed areas on the roof, by January 1, 1995 (Agreement ¶ III.5.b.)
[18] Among the numerous fire safety deficiencies Mr. Balsamo identified were the following: (a) manual pull alarms and smoke detectors at the CJC and Annex were inoperable or missing (id. at 2, 13); (b) the fire suppression system in the CJC kitchen was not being inspected on a regular basis, and there was no contract providing for such work to be done (id. at 3); (c) staff did not inspect and repair fire extinguishers (id. at 4); (d) officers were not trained in fire safety and evacuation procedures, or in the use of fire safety equipment such as extinguishers (id. at 2-5, 13); (e) CJC staffing levels were insufficient to protect inmates in the event of a fire or other emergency (id. at 4); (f) the CJC was not equipped with fire-rated enclosures (id.); (g) fire drills were not conducted regularly (id. at 3-4, 13); (h) padlocks were being used to lock individual cells in the Annex (id. at 13); and (i) the fire alarm control panel was malfunctioning (id. at 2).
[19] Other, more specific recommendations included: (a) eliminating of the use of padlocks for individual cells and living areas; (b) replacing all defective smoke detectors and establishing a regular maintenance schedule; (c) inspecting fire extinguishers on a monthly basis; and (d) conducting quarterly fire drills for each shift. Id. at 45.
[20] See, e.g., Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, Ex. A at 2 (Plaintiffs' counsel's follow-up letter to February 1, 2000, status conference, reflecting that BOC Director Horace Magras had assured the Court that fire safety repair work would begin by February 5, 2000); id. Ex. B at 2 (letter of February 26, 2000, from Defendants' counsel noting that a contractor, ADT, had received a contract proposal); id. Ex. C at 2 (follow-up letter summarizing March 28, 2000, status conference, during which Director Magras reported that ADT and the Government could not reach an agreement, and that he would meet with another fire safety vendor); id. Ex. D at 2 (follow-up letter summarizing April 18, 2000, status conference, during which Attorney General Iver Stridiron reported that the Government and ADT had reached an oral agreement for repairs, which had been memorialized in a proposed contract, and that the Government had already secured funds for the repair work); id. Ex. E at 1 (follow-up letter summarizing June 1, 2000, status conference, during which Assistant Attorney General Richard Schrader, Jr., reported that the ADT contract had not been finalized due to taxes owed by ADT); id. Ex. G at 1 (follow-up letter summarizing July 13, 2000, status conference, during which Attorney General Stridiron reported that the repair contract was in place, but that no work would begin until the end of the month).
[21] Mr. Balsamo could not determine whether the ADT proposal covered all three floors of the CJC or merely the jail floor. (Balsamo, November 2000 Report, supra, at 2.)
[22] Defendants submitted the fire evacuation plan for the CJC and Annex on December 4, 2000, pursuant to the Court's Order of November 27, 2000. The plan calls for prisoners to be taken to the parking lot outside the CJC building in the event of a full facility evacuation, and contemplates moving prisoners to the roof only in the event of a partial, "vertical" evacuation. (Criminal Justice Complex/Annex Evacuation Plan at unnum. 3-4 (filed Dec. 4, 2000).)
[23] See Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, Ex. C at 1-2 (follow-up letter summarizing March 28, 2000, status conference during which the Court and parties discussed ongoing failures to pay Darby, the pharmaceutical supplier); id. Ex. D at 1 (follow-up letter summarizing April 18, 2000, conference during which Plaintiffs' counsel reported that delayed payments to Darby had resulted in unavailability of medication for mentally ill prisoners); id. Ex. E at 2 (follow-up letter summarizing June 1, 2000, conference during which the Court, observing that Darby refused to fill orders until outstanding balances were paid, suggested that the BOC estimate its monthly pharmaceutical expenses and deposit that amount in an escrow account for Darby).
[24] See, e.g., Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 6 at 88 (Mar. 25, 1998) (finding that Defendants did not provide three hours of daily recreation time); Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 7 at 90 & n. 88 (reporting that CJC inmates received daily recreation time, but that Annex prisoners did not have recreation

time during rehabilitation of the facility); Balsamo, February 1999 Report, supra, at 5 (reporting that a staff shortage had manifested itself in "inmates ... uniformly complaining that they do not get recreation time because the [corrections officers] tell them they don't have enough staff to stay with them."); Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, Ex. B at 2 (letter to Plaintiffs' counsel from Assistant Attorney General Schrader in which Defendants cite manpower and security concerns as the reason for curtailing recreation time).
[25] The Agreement also requires Defendants to ensure prisoners' rights to have confidential communications with their attorneys, through mail, telephone, and visits, by January 1, 1996. (Agreement ¶¶ IX.B, IX.C.) Provision of telephone access at the jail is discussed in the next section.
[26] The Court also noted that library sign-in logbooks showed very few inmates 0907 twenty over a four month period 0907 had actually used the library. Id. at 742 n. 30.
[27] Following the contempt decision, Plaintiffs' counsel provided Defendants with a list of recommended law library holdings compiled by the American Association of Law Libraries. (Balaban Decl. of Mar. 10, 2001, Ex. A (letter of Nov. 14, 1997).) The Special Master noted in 1998 and 1999 that the library's holdings had yet to be updated or improved. (Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 6 at 88-89, 94-96 (Mar. 25, 1998) at 88-89, 94; Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 7 at 90-91, 96 (Apr. 8, 1999).)
[28] The volumes on order are Federal Habeas Corpus, the Virgin Islands Code, Virgin Islands Reports, the Virgin Islands Digest, and the Virgin Islands Court Rules. (Id.)
[29] This practice created a security risk because officers at these times were unable to communicate with other jail staff. (Id.)
[30] Specifically, Defendants report that the vendor submitted its articles of incorporation, business license and certificate of good standing in Spanish; the Virgin Islands government insists that the documents be submitted in English. Thus, the contract remains tied up while the vendor seeks compliant documentation through the Puerto Rico bureaucracy. (Id. at 3-4.)
[31] Shortly before the December 20, 2000, hearing, Warden George issued a memorandum instructing staff and prisoners that prisoners would be permitted to make legal calls upon request. (Dec. 20, 2000, Pls.' Ex. 2; Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 64:25 to 65:5, 66:1-3.) However, there was reason to doubt that the policy had been fully implemented, since several prisoners stated in their declarations that they had not heard of the policy until informed of it by Plaintiffs' counsel. (See Buchanan Decl. ¶ 5; Carmona Decl. ¶ 5; Francois Decl. ¶ 2; Turner Decl. ¶ 6; Weekes Decl. ¶ 3.) Warden George herself testified that she had not made any effort to ensure that the new policy was being followed. (Dec. 20, 2000, Tr. 67:8-10.)
[32] Upon the request of Plaintiffs' counsel in December 2000, Warden George changed the jail's policy to allow free off-island attorney calls. (See Balaban Decl. of Jan. 12, 2001, Ex. M (letter of Dec. 5, 2000, from Plaintiffs' counsel).)
[33] Pursuant to an order of Chief Judge Moore, federal detainees may not be housed in BOC facilities, including the CJC and Annex, because of the deplorable conditions there. In the Matter of Federal Detainers Housed or Lodged in Facilities of the V.I. Bureau of Corr., No. 97-15 (D.Vi. April 2, 1997). In March 1998, this Court advised the attorney general and the Marshal's Service that Judge Moore's order could not be lifted until the BOC demonstrated an ability to manage the inmate population at the CJC "within constitutional limitations." (Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 6 at 5 n. 9 (Mar. 25, 1998).) Thus, Defendants must not only complete the Annex renovation but also comply with the Settlement Agreement before federal prisoners may be housed at the Annex.
[34] Mr. Buholz's failure to provide these documents has apparently been one source of the delay in finalizing a new contract for Annex renovations. Mr. Pacquin concedes, however, that these very documents presumably had already been filed with the Government in connection with F & G's construction contract at the Golden Grove facility on St. Croix. (Id. 46:11 to 47:14.) Although Mr. Pacquin knew that F & G was doing work at Golden Grove, he made no effort to determine whether the documents were already in the Government's possession. (Id.)

[35] Evidence of good faith is relevant only to a court's consideration of what contempt sanctions are appropriate. Harley-Davidson, 19 F.3d at 148; Carty I, 957 F.Supp. at 743.
[36] The safety of Annex prisoners taking their recreation in the construction area remains an issue, however, until Defendants complete the Annex renovation.
[37] The docket reflects that Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on June 20, 1994.
[38] Nonetheless, the Court is acutely aware that progress at the CJC and Annex has been hampered by differing priorities and administrative delays outside the direct control of the BOC and Virgin Islands Department of Justice 0907 realities the Court will consider in the event it imposes contempt sanctions.
[39] Mr. Buholz apparently did some work on the Annex into 1999 and 2000, even though the contract, signed in 1997, was for a six-month term. (Id. ¶¶ 79, 84.) Because the expiration of the contract did not seem to matter before the Government raised the issue in August 2000, Plaintiffs' counsel has argued that a new contract is not necessary. (Pls.' Prop. Findings at 36.) Defendants counter that, whatever Plaintiffs' views of what is necessary, the old contract has expired and Government procedure must be followed to create a new one. (Defs.' Prop. Findings at 7.) The Court takes no position on this dispute, but notes that Defendants' belated insistence on a new agreement blunts their argument that construction delays are primarily the fault of F & G.
[40] In addition to their reports, Mr. Balsamo and Dr. Braslow shall submit to the Court invoices detailing the work performed and listing their itemized expenses. These invoices will form the basis of an order directing Defendants to make payment.
[1] Upon receipt of the experts' reports, the Court will furnish counsel with copies.
[2] The Court will attach these invoices to an order directing Defendants to make payment within ten days of the date of the order. The Court expects that such payment will be timely made.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 In Matter of Federal Detainess Housed of Lodged In..., Not Reported in...

1997 WL 222647 District Court of the Virgin Islands.
IN the MATTER OF: FEDERAL DETAINEES HOUSED OR LODGED IN FACILITIES OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
ON ST. CROIX
No. MISC. 97–0014. | April 25, 1997.

space to help relieve the overcrowded conditions at the St. Thomas Jail, which is the subject of Carty v. Farrelly. Due to the logistical difficulties in transporting federal detainees to and from the Metropolitan Detention Center at Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, for court appearances in either Division of this Court, the United States Marshal has requested that the Order be modified as applied to the Division of St. Croix to allow the occasional, temporary lodging of federal detainees in B.O.C. facilities in St. Croix. Upon due consideration of this request, it is hereby

Attorneys and Law Firms
Julio Brady, Attorney General, Christiansted, VI.
Alva A. Swan, Deputy Attorney General and Acting Director of B.O.C., Chrlte Amalie, VI.
Ronald Parra, Officer in Charge, I.N.S.
Jim A. Hurd, Jr., U.S. Attorney, St. Thomas, VI.
Opinion
ORDER
MOORE, District Judge.
*1 Pursuant to the power and authority vested in the Court under section 24 of the Revised Organic Act, 48 U.S.C. § 1614,1 and upon the recommendation of Darlene C. Grant, Esquire, Special Master in Carry v. Farrelly, Civ. No. 94–78 (Division of St. Thomas & St. John), regarding the general conditions and overcrowded inmate populations at the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections [“B.O.C.”], the Court on April 2, 1997, entered an Order in the Division of St. Thomas and St. John (Misc. No. 97–15) [“Order”] prohibiting the lodging or housing of any person detained under process of the United States Government in any B.O.C. facility. The Order was made applicable to B.O.C. facilities in the Division of St. Croix in order to provide

ORDERED THAT:
The Order entered in Misc. No. 97–15, dated April 2, 1997, is modified to allow the United States Marshal to lodge federal detainees in B.O.C. facilities on St. Croix when required by the logistical difficulties of moving such prisoners between the Virgin Islands and the Metropolitan Detention Center, Guaynabo. This modification applies to detainees required to appear in the Division of St. Thomas and St. John, as well as the Division of St. Croix. The Marshal shall advise the District or Magistrate Judge of the appropriate Division whenever such occasional, temporary lodging of a federal detainee in B.O.C. facilities on St. Croix is required; and it is further
ORDERED THAT:
The Order entered in Misc. No. 97–15, dated April 2, 1997, continues in full force and effect regarding any B.O.C. facility in the Division of St. Thomas and St. John. In other words, this modification does not authorize the temporary lodging of any federal detainee in any B.O.C. facility on St. Thomas.
Parallel Citations
36 V.I. 331
	  

Footnotes

1

The Revised Organic Act of 1954 is codified at 48 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1645 (1995), reprinted in 1 V.I. CODE ANN., Historical

Documents, 73–177 preceding tit. 1 (1995) (as amended)) [“Revised Organic Act”].

	  

1

 
 Carty v. DeJongh, Slip Copy (2010)

2010 WL 2024524 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St.
Thomas and St. John.
Lawrence CARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
John DeJONGH, et al., Defendants.
Civil No. 94-78. | May 18, 2010.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Eric Balaban, Esq., ACLU National Prison Project, Washington, DC, Benjamin C. Currence, Esq., St. Thomas, USVI, for Plaintiffs.
Vincent Frazier, Esq., Attorney General of the V.I., Department of Justice, St. Thomas, USVI, Richard Schrader, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, St. Croix, USVI, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE MENTAL HEALTH AND CORRECTIONS REMEDIES
STANLEY S. BROTMAN, District Judge.
I. Relevant Background and Procedural History *1 On June 20, 1994, Plaintiffs, a class comprised of pre-trial detainees and inmates, filed their class action suit alleging that the conditions in the Criminal Justice Complex (“CJC”) and the Criminal Justice Complex Annex (“Annex”) in St. Thomas, USVI (collectively referred to as “the jail”) were unconstitutional due to inhumane and dangerous conditions that the inmates were subjected to while housed in the jail. Defendants to the suit include various Virgin Islands officials including the Governor, Attorney General, Director of the Bureau of Corrections (“BOC”), the CJC’s Warden and Assistant Warden, and others. Individuals currently filling those roles are as follows:
• John DeJongh is the Governor of the Virgin Islands.
• Vincent Frazier is the Attorney General.

• Julius Wilson is the BOC director. He has held that position since October 1, 2008. The position had been vacant for eleven months prior to his appointment.
• Hilary Herman is the Assistant Director.
• Everette Hansen has been the warden of the CJC and Annex since August 2008 (replacing Agnes George who held that position for eleven years).
The CJC is located on the third floor of the building known as the Alexander Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex. That building also houses the Virgin Islands Police Department on its first and second floors. Pursuant to the Agreement, the CJC’s population is capped at its rated capacity of 97 prisoners. Typically about 80% of those prisoners are pre-trial detainees. Those prisoners who are not pre-trial detainees normally have less than one year remaining on their sentences.
There are seven housing clusters which hold ten to twenty prisoners each. Some are general population hut three hold particular subsets of detainees: Cluster 3 houses-mentally ill prisoners; Cluster 6 houses some, hut not all, new admissions and prisoners in administrative or disciplinary segregation; Cluster 7 houses female prisoners. It should be noted that though Cluster 3 is designated for mentally ill prisoners, the unit sometimes houses prisoners who are not mentally ill and also sometimes mentally ill prisoners are housed in general population.
On October 12, 1994, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”), which this Court entered as an Order on December 7, 1994. Pursuant to the agreement, Defendants are required to make specific improvements relating to the operations and conditions of the jail in order to bring the facility up to minimal constitutional standards. Throughout the subsequent course of this litigation, this Court has issued many remedial orders that would require Defendants to make additional improvements at the jail.
In certain instances, the Defendants have fallen short of their court ordered requirements, requiring this Court to, on four separate occasions, hold Defendants in contempt of the Settlement Agreement:
1. 1997: This Court issued an order stating that Defendants have not made adequate efforts to remedy the conditions at the CJC that were not up to basic habitability standards.1
*2 2. 2001: This Court held Defendants in contempt as to the issues of shelter, physical plant, environmental health, preventative maintenance,
1

Carty v. DeJongh, Slip Copy (2010)
hygiene items, mattresses, fire safety, medication distribution, legal access, telephones, security systems, and Annex construction.2 The Defendants were then required to establish a remedial account to control all funds for the housing of federal detainees in BOC facilities.3
3. 2003: This Court found Defendants in contempt of many provisions of the Agreement and subsequent remedial orders.4 This contempt citation is still in effect, 4. 2007: Subsequent to findings made after analysis of the jail and report by Jeffrey Metzner, M.D., a forensic psychiatrist and expert in correctional mental health care systems, the Court found Defendants in contempt of numerous health care provisions of the Agreement and remedial orders.5 Pursuant to this Court’s order of February 21, 2008,6 Plaintiffs retained corrections expert Steve Martin to make an inspection of the facilities and then prepare an expert report analyzing the management and leadership of the BOC and also the conditions of security and corrections at the CJC and the Annex.
This Court has been supervising the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626 et seq. On January 12, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to terminate the consent degree and remove the court supervision.7 Subsequently, this Court filed a scheduling order setting forth discovery deadlines and a date for a hearing.8 Defendants did not comply with certain deadlines, which lead to this Court ruling that the Defendants would not be permitted to present at the eventual termination hearing anything regarding either evidence contradicting that of the findings of Plaintiffs’ experts or of any remedial efforts taken since the experts’ tour of the CJC and Annex.
Even though Defendants filed a notice to withdraw their motion to terminate,9 this Court still held evidentiary hearings on May 28, 2009 and June 2, 2009 so that Plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Metzner and Mr. Martin could testify. At the hearings, this Court permitted the Defendants to withdraw their motion to terminate. The hearings were concluded by this Court ordering that the parties shall submit briefs regarding Defendants’ compliance thus far and also suggesting what additional remedies should be undertaken to finalize these proceedings and bring the operation of the CJC and Annex up to constitutional standards.10
Management Issues Part of the Settlement Agreement requires that Defendants establish policies and procedures to govern the operation of the jail, most importantly security procedures including instructions on proper

implementation of any security procedures. Defendants have recently begun to show proof of compliance but to date there has been no official audit, to determine the outstanding deficiencies in order to correct them. Defendants must perform an official analysis of the deficiencies and then from that, create a complete and inclusive task list of all deficiencies that must be resolved.
*3 From what this Court has seen, an unofficial, incomplete list of deficiencies can be cobbled together from various sources, but there must be an official accounting of what must be cured in order for real change to occur.
As it stands, the following is a list of examples of alleged deficiencies which in no means shall be considered complete, but rather was compiled from various documents filed by the parties.
• Cellblock and control pan els at both facilities do not function properly
• A cellblock in the Annex has two cells with inoperable locking mechanisms
• Officers in an Annex cellblock had no radios and inoperable phones
• Facilities are operating without a comprehensive and updated operations manual
• No inmate classification system
• No information management system
• No monthly reports
• Lacking a functional record keeping system
• No checks against officer misconduct or alleged use of excessive force
• No effective procedures to control contraband
Other Major Deficiencies (as detailed in Plaintiffs in their Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Defendants’ Compliance with the Mental Health and Corrections Remedies):
• Insufficient Staffing and Training: Housing officers fail to conduct the required fifteen minute checks of housing units; Basic security functions not being carried out; Understaffing resulting in unsupervised units or clusters; Officers often required to work double shifts; No complete staffing plan; Officers provided little or no in-service training.
• Security Systems: No preventative maintenance
2

Carty v. DeJongh, Slip Copy (2010)
programs for mechanical systems and physical plant; Understaffing of maintenance workers; improperly maintained door locking mechanisms, control pan els, and intercom systems; prisoner ability to pop the locks on cell doors; Insufficient closed circuit monitoring system.
• Prisoner Classification: Lack of established objective classification system; no system to separate known enemies; No active management of control of prison population numbers; Inadequate work programs for sentenced and long-term detainees.
• Use of Force and Restraints: Lack of proper use of force policy; Undocumented use of force.
• Management of Special Needs Offenders: Failure to establish protective custody and segregation cells; Insufficient treatment personnel; Limited intake screening; Lack of policies regarding management of special needs offenders; Lack of officer training regarding management of special needs prisoners.
• Prisoner Disciplinary and Segregation Practices: Arbitrary disciplinary system with few procedural protections; Poor documentation of practices; Orientation handbook describing disciplinary process and institutional rules not regularly distributed to prisoners.
• Grievances: Most prisoner grievances do not receive official response; no formal mechanism in place to ensure reliable grievance system.
*4 • Legal Access and Telephones: Inadequate access to law library; Library at CJC does not contain updated volumes; Annex inmates have no access to law library; Limited telephone access to make confidential telephone calls to attorneys.
• Annex Mental Health Staff and Policies: No dedicated mental health staff to service Annex inmates: No policies and procedures in place to identify and exclude mentally ill prisoners.
• Nursing Staffing: Inadequate staffing; Unfilled nursing staff positions.
• Healthcare Staffing Plan: No comprehensive staffing plan; Staffing vacancies.
• Medical Leadership and Policies and Procedures: Inadequate staffing of Health Care Coordinator position; No monthly health care meetings; No mental health services budget; Inadequate hiring process.
• Intake Screening including Screening Form and Management Information System (MIS) and

Screening Process: No revised intake evaluation form; No officer training for completing intake evaluations; No management information system to record intake screening process data; Inadequate mental health evaluation at screening process
• Mental Health Services including Psychiatric Services and Mental Health Specialist: No mental health referral system; Inadequate psychiatric follow-up care; No process for mental health assessments subsequent to disciplinary infractions; Need to hire a master’s level mental health specialist to conduct initial mental health evaluations and continued care.
• Medical Charts: No standardized charting practices; No medical records technician; No computerized medical records system.
• Medical Health Housing: Inadequate housing area for prisoners requiring mental observation.
• Seclusion, Restraints & Suicide Precautions: Inadequate training and precautions for suicide prevention.
• Acute Referrals & Hospitalization: Lack of emergency mental health intervention referrals to outside medical facilities.
• Forensic Facility: Inadequate long range plan/ failure to follow through with fulfilling needs for forensic unit to house mentally ill prisoners.
• Quality Assurance Program: Failure to implement a Quality Assurance program to measure staff performance in delivering health services.
• Medications: No in-house formulary; Inadequate medication administration and monitoring.
• NGRI Inmates: Improper handling and housing of persons who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).
Defendants were to have reached full compliance with the remedial provisions of the 1994 Agreement by January 1, 1996, over fourteen years ago. Despite numerous contempt findings by this Court, Defendants have yet to fully comply. The time for compliance is now. Defendants must take immediate and serious action to improve the conditions of the facilities.
Plaintiffs have done a more than adequate job of detailing the past and present deficiencies at the facilities but what is needed is a conclusive and comprehensive list of remedial tasks that must occur. Rehashing the Defendants’ non-compliance yet once again does nothing to correct the problems. The parties must look to the
3

Carty v. DeJongh, Slip Copy (2010)

present and the future, and begin final resolution of this matter. Defendants’ must produce a comprehensive list of actions that they are and will be performing to efficiently and permanently correct the deficiencies, and then swiftly implement those actions.

II. APPLICABLE LAW *5 The constitutional rights of a prisoner are violated when it can be shown that the prisoner is incarcerated under conditions that pose substantial risk of serious harm to their health or safety and that the officials acted with deliberate indifference to the risks. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839-840, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), Furthermore, unsafe conditions that “pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to [a prisoner’s] future health” may be constitutional violations even if not actual damage has yet occurred. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). Fundamental to the Eighth Amendment is the notion that prisoners are not to be treated as less than human beings. Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 200 (9th Cir.1979) (citing Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 271-273, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (J. Brennan, concurring)) (“The [Eighth A]mendment is phrased in general terms rather than specific ones so that while the underlying principle remains constant in its essentials, the precise standards by which we measure compliance with it do not.”)

Prison inmates have a constitutional right to receive adequate treatment for serious medical conditions, including psychiatric conditions. Colburn v. Upper Darby Township, 838 F.2d 663, 669 (3d Cir.1988). overruled on other grounds by Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). For inmates to establish a constitutional claim for deficient care, they must demonstrate that the prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). The standard of care required is the same for both physical health concerns and mental. Monmouth County Corr, Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834

Footnotes

1

Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727, 743 (D.Vi.1997).

F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir.1987). A serious medical need is an illness or injury that has either been diagnosed by a medical professional or “one that is so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Monmouth, 834 F.2d at 347. A serious medical need is shown by either a professional diagnosis or substantial suffering. See Goodrich v. Clinton County Prison, 214 Fed. Appx. 105, 111 (3d Cir.2007).
III. CONCLUSION This Court concludes that Defendants must once and for all resolve the deficiencies swiftly and fully. On July 15, 2010, Defendants shall submit a detailed progress report to this Court and to Plaintiffs outlining specifically both their present efforts to comply with the provisions of the Agreement and other remedial orders, and also outlining their future course of action to remedy any and all deficiencies. Subsequent to that initial progress report due on July 15th, 2010. Defendants shall update the Court by providing an updated progress report every two months for the next six months, on the following dates:
• September 15, 2010
• November 15, 2010
• January 15, 2011
Finally, by January 15, 2011 the parties shall submit a proposed final Settlement Agreement. The Court will then schedule a final hearing regarding the Settlement Agreement so that this matter may finally come to a close.
*6 The parties are encouraged to work together to craft remedial measures that will respond effectively to identify constitutional violations. All attempts should be made to provide the Court with a joint proposed remedial order that connects the continuing injustices and establishes a time-frame for final termination of the court’s jurisdiction over this matter.11
	  

2

Carty v. Turnbull, 144 F.Supp.2d 395, 399-416 (D.Vi.2001).

3

Ordered October 29, 2001.

4

See Curty v. Turnbull, Civil No. 94-78, (D.Vi. May 28, 2003) (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contempt Motion).

4

Carty v. DeJongh, Slip Copy (2010)

5

Carty v. Turnbull, 2007 WL 817607, (Feb. 27, 2007).

6

Docket No. 542.

7

Docket No. 555.

8

Docket No. 580.

9

Docket No. 602.

10

Docket No. 610.

11

For example, see the procedure filed in Martin Harris v. The City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 824847, 2000 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 15279, 2000 WL 1239948 decided August 30, 2000; and in Ruiz, et al. v. Johnson, et al., Civil Action No. H-78-987, 2001.

WL 737338 (S.D.Tex.), decided June 18, 2001.

	  

5

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 766 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AN]) ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, et Plaintiffs,
V.
JOHN DEJONGH, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 94-78

ORDER Having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval and Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court grants preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement Agreement submitted by Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Notice to All Prisoners submitted by Plaintiffs shall be posted and maintained in all dayrooms/common areas of the Criminal Justice Complex and CJC Annex [collectively, “the Jail”j, along with the proposed Settlement Agreement, that individual copies of the Notice and Settlement shall be given to all prisoners who request them, and to all prisoners who are on Iockdown, or who otherwise do not have ready access to the dayrooms of the Jail. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all prisoners shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to lodge any objections they have with the Settlement with Plaintiffs’ counsel, and that counsel shall respond individually to these objections, and communicate with their clients about

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 766 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 2 of 3

the Settlement during this 30-day period.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 45 days from the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall

submit to the Court all objections to the Settlement, and shall file a Motion addressing the

objections, and whether the Court should approve the Settlement and adopt it as an Order,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Defendants shall have ten days to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Once the Court receives the parties’ pleadings, it shall set this matter for a hearing to determine if

it should approve and adopt the Settlement.

/ SO ORDERED this ‘3Eday of

VT -f , 2013.

ATTEST: GLENDA L. LAKE Clerk of the Court
By: Benjamin Currence Norre Gade 2nd Floor #12 P.O. Box 6143 St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804-6143 340/775-3434 340/774-1001 (fax)
Eric Balaban ACLU National Prison Project 915 lSthSt.,N.W. Seventh Floor Washington D.C. 20005 202/393-4930 202/393-4931 (fax)
Carol Thomas-Jacobs

r,1
Hon.1ANLEY $. BROTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (Sitting by Designation)
2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 766 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 3 of 3
Asst. Attorney General V.1. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General GERS Bldg., 2 nd Floor 34-3 8 Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, USVI 00801 cjacobsdoI .gov.vi Kenrick Robertson Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Design Centre Building 6040 Castle Coakley Christiansted St. Croix, Virgin Islands 00820 krobertson@doj.gov.vi
3

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 1 of 26

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, ET AL., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JOHN DeJONGH, et al.;

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil No. 94-78

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
·I. PARTIES
This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered by and between the Plaintiffs through its counsel, ACLU National Prison Project, and John de Jongh, Jr., I Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. ("Defendants").
II. INTRODUCTION

1. The purpose of this Agreement is to settle the remaining disputes between the parties with respect to Defendants' compliance with the 1994 Settlement Agreement and other Court-ordered remedies [collectively "remedies"] and to remedy any ongoing conditions and operations at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) and the Alva Swan Annex [collectively "the CJC" or "the Jail"] that do not meet constitutional standards.
2. The parties stipulate that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The parties further stipulate and agree and the Court finds that the prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights agreed to by the parties, is the least intmsive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system. Accordingly, the parties agree and represent that the Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).

III. DEFINITIONS

1

"ACLU" shall refer to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the

Plaintiffs in this matter.

1

EXHIBIT A

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 2 of 26
2. "Compliance" is discussed throughout this Agreement in the following terms: substantial compliance, partial compliance, and non-compliance. "Substantial Compliance" indicates that Defendants have achieved compliance with most or all components of the relevant provision of the Agreement. "Partial Compliance" indicates that Defendants achieved compliance on some of the components of the relevant provision of the Agreement, but significant work remains. "Noncompliance" indicates that Defendants have not met most or all ofthe components of the Agreement.
3. "Effective date" shall mean the date the Agreement is signed and entered by the Court.
4. "Defendants" refers to all of the officials in their official capacities who are named as a party to this action.
5. "Facility" or "CJC" or "Jail" refers to the Criminal Justice Complex and the Alva Swan Annex, located in St. Thomas, Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands, or any building that may replace or supplement such facilities in the future as long as this case remains pending.
6. To "Implement" a policy means: the policy has been drafted and disseminated to all staff responsible for following or applying the policy; all relevant staff have been trained on the policy; compliance with the policy is monitored and tracked through audit tools; the policy is consistently applied,; and there are corrective action measures to address lapses in application of the policy.
7. "Prisoners" or "Prisoner" shall be constmed broadly to refer to one or more individuals detained at, or otherwise housed, held, in the custody of, or confined at the CJC.
8. "Train" means to instmct in the skills addressed to a level at which the trainee has the demonstrated proficiency to implement those skills as, and when called for, in the training. "Trained" means a demonstration of staff proficiency.
9. "Use of force" means the application of physical or mechanical measures to compel compliance by an unwilling subject. "Use of force" shall include all force except complaints of minor discomfort from un-resisted handcuffing or un-resisted shackling of prisoners for movement purposes.
10. "Include" or "Including" means "include, but not limited to" or "including, but not limited to."
11. "Psychotropic medication" shall mean any substance used in the treatment of mental health problems or mental illness which exerts an effect on the mind and is capable of modifying mental activity or behavior.
12. "Qualified Medical Professional" means a currently licensed physician, licensed physician assistant, or a licensed nurse practitioner qualified to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 3 of 26
13. "Qualified Mental Health Professional" shall refer to a psychiatrist or psychiatric nurse practitioner, who is currently licensed to provide the services he or she has undertaken to provide;
14. "Qualified nursing staff' shall mean registered nurses and licensed practical nurses currently licensed and qualified to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
15. "Special Management Housing Units" means those units or cells either designated or used for prisoners on lockdown, disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, protective custody, pre-hearing disciplinary or administrative detention, on suicide watch or precautions , or who are mentally ill.
16. "Staff' refers to all persons working at the CJC or providing services to CJC prisoners, whether employed by an agency ofthe Territory or any contractor, and include volunteers at the CJC This excludes all federal law enforcement personnel.
17. "Suicide Precautions" means any level of watch, observation, or measures to prevent suicide or self-harm.
Therefore, the parties stipulate and agree to the following:
IV. SAFETY AND SUPERVISION
A. Classification and Housing of Prisoners
1. Defendants shall actively manage their prisoner population, including seeking pretrial detention alternatives and reduced bails, and offering sentences of time served for prisoners charged with misdemeanor and non-violent offenses. Defendants will develop and implement facility-specific policies that will appropriately classify, house, and maintain separation of prisoners based on a validated risk assessment instmment in order to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm. Such policies will include the following:
a. The development and implementation of an objective and validated system that classifies and appropriately houses detainees and sentenced prisoners as quickly as possible considering among other factors the prisoner's charge, prior commitments, age, suicide risk, history of escape, history of violence, gang affiliations, history of victimization, and special needs such as mental, physical, or developmental disability;
b. Housing and separation of prisoners in accordance with their classification; c. Systems for preventing prisoners from obtaining unauthorized access to prisoners in
other units; d. The criteria and conditions for administrative segregation and protective custody
prisoners, addressing all aspects of their confinement on these statuses, including the timely review of status;
3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 4 of 26
e. The development and implementation of a system to timely re-classify prisoners, as appropriate, following incidents that may affect prisoner classification, such as prisoner assaults and sustained disciplinary charges/charges dismissed for due process violations;
f. The collection and periodic evaluation of data concerning prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, prisoners who report gang affiliation, the most serious offense leading to incarceration, prisoners placed in protective custody, and reports of serious prisoner misconduct; and
g. Regular review of prisoners in segregation to minimize time in segregation, and provision of adequate opportunities for out-of-cell time for prisoners in segregation.
B. Supervision
1. Defendants will take all reasonable steps to protect prisoners from harm, including violence by other prisoners. While some danger is inherent in a jail setting, Defendants will implement appropriate measures to minimize these risks, including development and implementation of facility-specific security and control-related policies, procedures, post orders, and practices that will provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for all prisoners and staff. These policies, orders, procedures and practices shall include measures necessary to prevent prisoners from being exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm by other prisoners or staff and must include the following:
a. Development of housing units of security levels appropriately stratified for the classification of the prisoners in the institution, including single cells for the housing of segregation and protective custody prisoners when appropriate;
b. Post orders that are sufficiently detailed and specific to each security post that remain on post and first-line supervision of corrections officers in each housing unit (at least one officer per unit) based on an assessment of staffing needs;
c. Communication to and from corrections officers assigned to housing units (i.e. functional radios); and
d. Supervision by corrections officers assigned to cellblocks, including any special management housing units (e.g., administrative or disciplinary segregation) and cells to which prisoners on suicide watch are assigned, including conducting of adequate rounds by corrections officers and security supervisors in all cellblocks and in areas of the prison other than cellblocks.
e. Identification and separation of knowable enemies within the prisoner population.
C. General Security
1. Defendants shall remedy all known security deficiencies and hazards at the Jail. The Court's security expmi shall review and address as the expert sees fit the findings in the expert report of Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D. Defendants shall also ensure that all door control panels and other security systems and equipment are readily available to staff and in working order, and that
4

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 5 of 26
they are timely inspected and repaired by qualified staff or vendors. Defendants will also develop and implement adequate facility-specific policies governing operations and security at the Jail. These policies shall contain all adequate and sufficiently detailed procedures necessary to ensure the safety and security of prisoners and staff, including:
a. Uniforms that prisoners and staff are required or permitted to wear and/or possess;
b. Emergency preparedness and response; c. Security, perimeter, and physical plant inspections; d. Staff sexual misconduct, PREA, and discrimination; e. Weapons control and storage and the armory; f. cell extractions; g. key control; h. tool control; i. intelligence/security threat groups; J. searches of staff, visitors and prisoners and shakedowns; k. Identification that staff, and visitors are required to carry and/or display; 1. Requirements for locking and unlocking of exterior and interior gates and
doors, including doors to cells consistent with security, classification and fire safety needs; m. Operation and placement of security cameras and the video monitoring system; n. Procedures for the timely and adequate inspection and maintenance of operational cell and other locks and all security systems and equipment in CJC to ensure locks, equipment and systems are operational and not compromised by tampering; o. A reliable and documented program to identify and appropriately counsel and/or progressively sanction/terminate staff who violate policies, post orders, or practices, engage in inappropriate contact or communications with prisoners, fail to report staff misconduct or use of force they witness, or otherwise fail to carry out their job responsibilities; p. Reliable and documented management presence on the floors and living units at the Jail q. Pre-employment background checks and required self-reporting of arrests and convictions for all facility staff, with centralized tracking and periodic supervisory review of this information for early staff intervention; r. Fonns and other appropriate documentation to report routine and unusual occurrences; and s. Matmer in which prisoners should be secured and escorted, including segregation prisoners and those who pose security risks.
2. Cell checks should be conducted approximately every fifteen minutes from the floor of the housing unit. Supervisors and managers shall check unit atld cluster logs, and document their checks, to ensure that cell checks are being documented appropriately and accurately.
5

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 6 of 26
3. Defendants will require daily officer and supervisor reports on activities during shifts. Shift reports will be turned in at the end of each shift and attached to supervisor's report which is turned into the chief daily.
4. Defendants shall develop and implement an organizational chart for all pers01mel, and retain qualified staff to fill all positions, including management positions. All positions shall have an associated job description. Both the Annex and CJC shall have on-site leadership, in addition to shift supervisors, who shall report to the warden.
D. Contraband
1. Defendants will develop and implement facility-specific policies regarding contraband that are designed to eliminate the presence of dangerous material in the facility. Such policies will include the following:
a. Clear definitions of what items constitute contraband; b. Prevention of the introduction of contraband from anyone entering or leaving
CJC, through processes including prisoner mail and package inspection and searches of all individuals entering the prison, as well as random unannounced staff searches; c. Detection of contraband within CJC, through processes including: (i) supervision of prisoners in common areas, the kitchen, shops, laundry, clinic, and other areas of CJC to which prisoners may have access; (ii) pat down, metal detector, and other appropriate searches of prisoners coming from areas where they may have had access to contraband, such as at intake, returning from visitation or returning from the kitchen, shops, laundry, or clinic; (iii) regular and random searches of physical areas in which contraband may be hidden or placed, such as cells and common areas where prisoners have access (e.g., clinic, kitchen, dayrooms, storage areas, showers); d. Confiscation and preservation of evidence/custody and destruction of contraband; e. Admission procedures and escorts for visitors to the facility; f. Documentation by incident report of all incidents of contraband found at the CJC; documented investigations of all incidents of contraband introduced to the CJC. The investigations shall seek to detennine how the contraband at issue was introduced to the CJC, and shall result in appropriate action being taken against any visitors or staff involved; g. Storage and handling procedures for contraband to preserve the chain of custody and integrity of seized contraband; and h. Public area and cell and unit shakedowns, including supervisor documentation of shakedowns and documentation of results.
E. Shelter/Physical Plant/Environmental Health
1. Defendants shall develop and implement a comprehensive preventive maintenance and repair plan for all mechanical systems and the physical plant. The plan shall require adequate
6

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 7 of 26
documentation of all necessary preventive maintenance tasks and of all repair requests and dispositions. Defendants shall retain at least two FTE maintenance staff to perform preventive maintenance and repairs at the Jail, and Defendants shall retain appropriately trained vendors when necessary to timely repair mechanical systems at the Jail so they are in proper working order. Maintenance staff shall be provided with all necessary equipment and parts to perform their responsibilities.
2. Defendants shall develop and implement a comprehensive kitchen maintenance and sanitation plan. The plan shall require adequate documentation of all necessary maintenance and sanitation tasks.
3. Defendants shall retain sufficient FTE maintenance staffto perform timely maintenance and repairs to all mechanical systems and the physical plant.
4. Defendants shall provide adequate lighting, air circulation, ventilation, cleaning supplies and equipment, and temperatures in the housing units and cells.
5. Defendants shall develop and implement an adequate mattress exchange program. The program shall include documentation of mattress exchanges and distribution, and shall ensure that mattresses that are damaged or potentially not fire retardant are discarded.
6. Defendants shall ensure that prisoners are provided with diets that meet or exceed nationally recognized standards for basic nutrition, and that a qualified nutritionist or dietician shall periodically review and approve the jail's menus. Further, the jail shall document all meals served.
7. Defendants shall ensure that all food service areas and equipment are kept clean and sanitary, and are inspected regularly by the kitchen supervisor and personnel. Defendants shall store, prepare and serve food consistent with applicable health and safety standards. Kitchen personnel shall have all necessary equipment to ensure that kitchen equipment is in proper working order and shall ensure that that food is stored and served at appropriate temperatures. Defendants shall develop and implement a utensil/tool control policy that allows the supervisor to identify readily all missing or in-use utensils or tools.
8. Suitable clothing shall be timely issued to all prisoners, as well as suitable hygiene supplies (toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, deodorant, female hygiene supplies), toilet paper, bedding, pillows, towels, and linens, both at admission and during incarceration. The provision of these items shall be documented by Defendants and countersigned by the receiving prisoner. There shall be a procedure for linen and towel exchange and personal laundry on a weekly basis, at a minimum.
9. Water for showers shall be thermostatically controlled so that the water temperature meets applicable standards.
F. Population
7

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 8 of 26
1. Defendants shall not institute facility-wide lockdowns of prisoners in excess of 72 hours, unless emergency circumstances exit. An emergency is defined as a significant security breach affecting the entire facility, or riot, fire, hurricane, or similar act not caused by defendants. Defendants must notify Plaintiffs' counsel if they intend to extend a lockdown beyond 72 hours, certify the justification for extending the lockdown, and present a plan and timetable for ending the lockdown.
2. No cell at the Jail shall confine more than 2 prisoners. All instances where a cell confines more than 2 prisoners shall be documented.
3. Outdoor recreation must be provided at least one hour per day, six days per week, and must be documented.
4. Prisoners shall not be confined to their cells more than 12 hours per day.
5. Defendants shall implement a comprehensive library system.
6. Jobs shall be made available for sentenced and long-term detainee prisoners.
7. An adequate number of cells shall be established as single cells for special management prisoners, including those who need to be isolated due to health care issues, for segregation, and for protective custody.
8. New admissions shall be isolated from the general prisoner population until they are medically cleared.

G. Incidents and Referrals

1.

Defendants will develop and implement a management information system (MIS) and

specific policies to alert facility management of incidents at CJC so they can take

corrective, preventive, individual, and systemic action. Such policies and MIS will

include the following:

a. Reporting by staff of incidents, including (i) fights; (ii) mle violations; (iii) injuries to prisoners; (iv) suicide/self-hann attempts; (v) shakedowns and cell extractions; (vi) staffing changes (vacancies, new hires, retirements/discharges, overtime); (vii) use of force/restraints; (viii) program participation; (ix) internal investigations and criminal referrals; (x) medical emergencies;
8

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 9 of 26
(xi) contraband; (xii) vandalism; (xiii) fires; and (xiv) deaths of prisoners;
b. Review by senior management of reports regarding the above incidents to determine whether to refer the incident for administrative or criminal investigation and to ascertain and address incident trends (e.g., particular individuals, shifts, units, etc.);
c. Requirements for preservation of evidence; and d. Central tracking of the above incidents.
2. The policy will provide that reports, reviews, and corrective action be made promptly and within a specified period. Defendants shall also continue to utilize log books to record all activity at the Jail.
H. Use of Force by Staff on Prisoners
1. Defendants will develop and implement facility-specific policies that prohibit the use of unnecessary or excessive force on prisoners and provide adequate stafftraining, systems for use of force, supervisory review and investigation, and discipline, criminal referral, and/or re-training of staff found to engage in unnecessary or excessive force. Such policies, training, and systems will include the following:
a. Permissible forms of force along a documented use of force continuum; b. Circumstances under which the permissible fonns of force may be used; c. Impermissible uses of force, including force against a restrained, non-
resisting, or an otherwise secured prisoner, force as a response to verbal threats, and other unnecessary or excessive force; d. Pre-service training and annual competency-based and scenario-based training on pennitted/unauthorized uses of force and de-escalation tactics; e. Training and certification required before being permitted to carry and use an authorized weapon; f. Involvement ofmental health staff(when feasible) to de-escalate incidents involving mentally ill prisoners that may result in use of force; g. Comprehensive and timely reporting of use of force by those who use or witness it, noting specifically the prisoner conduct that resulted in the force incident, the de-escalation tactics used and the prisoner response to same, the specific type/amount of each force technique or restraint used, where on the body the force or restraint was applied, documentation of all injuries by medical staff, and all witnesses to the incident; h. Prohibition on using force that may be medically contraindicated (such as using chemical agents on an asthmatic); i. Supervision and videotaping of planned uses of force, and retention of all videos of use of force incidents for review by Plaintiffs' counsel on request;
9

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 10 of 26

j. Appropriate oversight and processes for the selection and assignment of staff to armory operations and to posts permitting the use of deadly force;
k Prompt medical and mental health evaluation and treatment after uses of force and photographic documentation of whether there are injuries (either of staff or prisoners) resulting from the incident;
1. Prompt administrative review of use of force reports; m. Timely referral for criminal and/or administrative investigation based on
review of clear criteria, including prisoner injuries, report inconsistencies, and prisoner complaints; n. Administrative investigation ofuses of force; o. Central tracking of all uses of force that records: staff involved, prisoner injuries, prisoner complaints/grievances regarding use of force, and disciplinary actions regarding use of force, with periodic evaluation for early staff intervention; p. Supervisory review of uses of force to determine whether corrective action, discipline, policy review or training changes are required; and q. Re-training and sanctions against staff for improper uses of force.

I.

Use of Physical Restraints on Prisoners

1. Defendants will develop and implement facility-specific policies to protect against

unnecessary or excessive use of physical force/restraints and provide reasonable

safety to prisoners who are restrained. Such policies will include the following;

a. Permissible types ofuse of restraints;

b. Circumstances under which various types of restraint can be used;

c. Duration of the use of permitted forms of restraints;

d. Required observation of prisoners placed in restraints;

e. Limitations on use of restraints on mentally ill prisoners, including

appropriate consultation with and approval by a qualified mental health

professional (see section V, below);

f. Appropriate documentation of all use of restraint incidents;

g. Provision of documented timely and appropriate release from restraints for

exams by medical staff, range of motion exercises, offers of

water/nutrition, and use of a bathroom; and

h. Required termination of the use of restraints.

J. Prisoner Complaints
1. Defendants will develop and implement facility-specific policies so that prisoners can report, and facility management can timely address, prisoners' complaints in an individual and systemic fashion. Such policies will include the following: a. A prisoner complaint system with confidential access and reporting, including assistance to prisoners with cognitive difficulties, and the provision of receipts to prisoners filing complaints; b. Timely investigation of prisoners' complaints, prioritizing those relating to safety, medical and/or mental health care; c. Documented corrective action taken in response to complaints leading to
10

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 11 of 26
the identification of violations of any departmental policy or regulation, including the imposition of appropriate discipline against staff whose misconduct is established by the investigation of a complaint, d. Centralized tracking of records of prisoner complaints, as well as their disposition; and e. Periodic management review of prisoner complaints for trends and individual and systemic issues.
K. Administrative Investigations
1. Defendants will develop and implement facility-specific policies so that serious incidents are timely and thoroughly investigated and that systemic issues and staff misconduct revealed by the investigations are addressed in an individual and systemic fashion. Such policies will address the timely, adequate investigations of alleged staff misconduct; violations of policies, practices, or procedures; and incidents involving assaults, sexual abuse, contraband, and excessive use of force. Such policies will provide for: a. Timely, documented interviews of all staff and prisoners involved in incidents; b. Adequate investigatory reports that consider all relevant evidence (physical evidence, interviews, recordings, documents, etc.) and attempt to resolve inconsistencies between witness statements; c. Centralized tracking and supervisory review of administrative investigations to detennine whether individual or systemic corrective action, discipline, policy review, or training modifications are require; d. Pre-service and in-service training of investigators regarding policies (including the use of force policy) and interviewing/investigatory techniques; and e. Disciplinary action of anyone detennined to have engaged in misconduct at the Jail.
L. Institutional Services 1. Defendants will develop and implement a supply distribution schedule that will give time and day of all distribution/services. The schedule will ensure safe and timely provision of laundry services, cleaning supplies, and commissary services
M.. Programs 1. Defendants will develop and implement an orientation program for all new arrivals which will instmct them on institutional operations, and provide them with knowledge of how to receive services-the orientation will include provision of a prisoner handbook that will include all relevant institutional mles, including all disciplinary mles and the disciplinary policy. Each newly arrived prisoner shall countersign a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook, and replacement books shall be provided as necessary. 2. Defendants will provide a core program component for prisoners held in the jail, including AA/NA, ABE/GED, Anger Management and social service assessment.
11

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 12 of 26
N. Staffing
1. Defendants shall retain a sufficient number of custody staff to (a) provide for the safety and security of all prisoners, (b) respond to emergencies, and (c) permit foreseeable staff illness, leave, attrition and training.
2. Defendants shall retain a mutually agreed-upon independent consultant to conduct a staffing analysis and develop a staffing plan for the Jail that will include a relief factor to ensure adequate staffing at all times, and shall thereafter implement the staffing plan, or shall file objections with the Court and present an alternate plan that they believe also ensures adequate staffing. The Court thereafter will set this matter for an evidentiary hearing to determine which staffing plan shall be implemented. If the parties cannot agree on a consultant, they shall submit candidates to the Court to choose a consultant.
0. Fire Life Safety
1. Defendants will protect prisoners from fires and related hazards by providing constitutionally adequate living conditions and fire and life safety systems and procedures. Defendants will develop and implement facility-specific policies regarding the physical plant, emergency preparedness, and fire and life safety equipment and systems, including the following:
a. An adequate fire safety program with a written evacuation plan reviewed by Local Fire authorities, and posted evacuation routes throughout both facilities;
b. Adequate steps to provide fire and life safety to prisoners including maintenance of reasonable fire loads and fire- and life-safety equipment and systems that are routinely inspected (with documented inspections) and timely repaired/replaced by appropriate personnel (including vendors) to include fire alarms and panels, heat and smoke detectors throughout the facilities, an adequate fire suppression system in the kitchen, fire extinguishers and fire safety equipment (including an adequate number of working SCBAs) in each control office and in the Main Control areas of each facility, adequately fire-rated enclosures with self-closing or automatic closing fire doors linked to the main fire detection system; secured sets of working emergency keys identifiable by sight and touch that are at all times available to corrections staff who are trained in their location and use; sprinklers; and smoke detectors-in housing units;
c. Comprehensive and documented fire drills carried out according to applicable professional standards at appropriate intervals in which staff on each shift manually unlock all doors, secure prisoners, escort them to a designated safe area outside the building, and demonstrate competency in the use of fire and life safety equipment and emergency keys that are appropriately marked and identifiable by touch. At a minimum, there shall be one fire drill per quarter per shift, though not every drill must involve the physical evacuation of all prisoners. The local fire and police departments shall participate periodically in drills;
d. Regular security inspections of all housing units that includes checking:
12

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 13 of 26

(i) that cell locks are functional and are not jammed from the inside or

outside of the cell; and

(ii) that all facility locking cell mechanisms are functional;

e. Testing of all staff regarding fire- and-life safety procedures, equipment, and

systems, as well as documented attendance and testing of staff at pre-service, and

annual in-service training on fire safety procedures and equipment;

f.

Reporting and notification of fires, including audible fire alarms;

g. Evacuation of prisoners threatened with harm resulting from a fire;

h. Fire suppression;

i.

Medical treatment of persons injured as a result of a fire; and

J.

Control of highly flammable materials.

V. Medical and Mental Health Care 1. Defendants shall provide timely medical and mental health care consistent with community standards and constitutional requirements, including screening, assessment, treatment, and monitoring of prisoners' medical and mental health needs. Defendants also shall protect the safety of prisoners at risk for self-injurious behavior or suicide, including giving priority access to care to individuals most at risk of harm and who otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion in the target population for being at high risk for suicide..
2. Accordingly, Defendants will develop and implement facility-specific policies consistent with community standards and the current National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) guidelines, including those regarding the following:
a. Adequate and timely intake screenings for medical and mental health needs upon arrival at the Jail, to be conducted by qualified medical and mental health professionals. For prisoners admitted during hours when ~o nurse is available, a specially trained corrections officer shall administer an initial needs survey to identify prisoners who are at risk of medication dismption, or who otherwise have serious medical and/or mental health needs that must be addressed immediately, including those at risk of suicide or self-hann. All prisoners who have positive INS results shall receive timely and appropriate care to address their immediate health care needs, including transfer to a hospital when indicated. Further , all such prisoners shall be seen by the following day by medical staff with credentials appropriate to the acuity of the patient;
b. Comprehensive initial history and physicals and/or follow-up assessments, conducted by qualified medical and mental health professionals within three days of admission;
c. Timely laboratory tests on all new admissions, including PAP smear, urine pregnancy tests, and any other additional tests that are clinically necessary by prisoner. HIV tests shall be timely offered to all prisoners;
d. PPDs shall be implanted within 24 hours of admission, and thereafter tuberculosis screening and management shall be consistent with Centers for Disease Control guidelines; e. Prisoners' timely access to and provision of adequate medical and mental
13

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 14 of 26
health care for chronic and acute conditions, including prenatal care for pregnant prisoners; f. Continuity, administration, and management of medications, that address:
i. timely responses to orders for medications and laboratory tests; ii. continuity of medications for newly-admitted prisoners, or
those prescribed medications while incarcerated; iii. medication administration practices that comply with
applicable professional standards; IV. timely and routine physician review of medications and clinical
practices; v. review for known side and adverse effects of medications,
including contraindications and interactions; and v1. sufficient supplies of medications upon discharge for prisoners
with serious medical and mental health needs; g. Maintenance of adequate medical and mental health records, including
records, results, and orders received from off-site consultations and treatment conducted while the prisoner or detainee is in CJC custody, separate logs documenting all off-site, medical and mental health professional, dental, and hospital appointments; h. Timely and countersigned provision of medically indicated diets; 1. Prisoners' timely access to and the provision of medical and mental health care to prisoners including:
i. adequate sick-call procedures with timely assessment by health care staff with credentials appropriate to the patient's acuity, and physician referral and/or review along with the logging, tracking, and timely responses to confidential requests by qualified medical and mental health professionals. All sick call requests shall be noted in a separate log by date, prisoner name, nature of request, and disposition;
11. an adequate means to track, care for, and monitor prisoners identified with medical and mental health needs;
111. chronic and acute care with nationally accepted clinical practice guidelines and appropriate and timely follow-up care and documented timely periodic monitoring. Patients with chronic conditions shall be seen for follow-up at a frequency dependent on the level of their disease control. All chronic care patients shall be noted by condition on a chronic care list, noting the dates of their chronic care appointments;
IV. adequate measures for providing emergency care, including training of staff: 1) to recognize serious injuries and life-threatening conditions; 2) to provide first-aid procedures for serious injuries and life-threatening conditions, including periodic training in first-aid, CPR, and use of AEDs; 3) to recognize and timely respond to emergency medical and mental-health crises;
14

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 15 of 26
v. adequate and timely referral to specialty and off-site care; adequate and timely diagnostic tests and review and follow-up to test results;
vi. adequate follow-up care and treatment after return from referral for outside diagnosis or treatment;
vii. adequate documentation on a separate log of all off-site or specialist appointments, noting the date of the appointment, prisoner's name, specialist/clinic seen, and disposition;
j. Adequate care for intoxication and detoxification related to alcohol and/or drugs, including determination by a physician of the need for pharmacological care consistent with professional standards, nonpharmacological substance abuse programs for prisoners with addiction problems, the development of treatment plans, and use of flow sheets and appropriate monitoring for detoxifying prisoners;
k. Infection control, including guidelines and precautions and testing, monitoring, and treatment programs;
1. Adequate suicide prevention, including: i. the immediate referral of any prisoner with suicide or serious mental health needs to an appropriate mental health professional; ii. appropriate and timely assessment of all newly admitted prisoners for suicide risk by adequately trained staff
iii. a protocol for constant observation of suicidal prisoners ; IV. timely suicide risk assessment instmment by a qualified mental
health professional within an appropriate time not to exceed 12 hours ofprisoner being placed on suicide precautions; v. timely assessment of all prisoners placed on suicide precautions by a psychiatrist within 24 hours; vi. ensuring that all suicide precaution orders are issued by a psychiatrist, and that none lasts more than 24 hours absent a timely renewal based on a face-to-face assessment by the psychiatrist; vii. readily available, safely secured, suicide cut-down tools; viii. instruction and scenario-based training of all staff in responding to suicide attempts, including use of suicide cutdown tools; ix. instruction and competency-based training of all staff in suicide prevention, including the identification of suicide risk factors; x. availability of suicide resistant cells; xi. protocol for the constant supervision of actively suicidal prisoners and close supervision of other prisoners at risk of suicide, including appropriate documentation of same; xii. procedures to assure implementation of directives from a mental health provider regarding:
1) the confinement and care of suicidal prisoners; 2) the removal from watch; and 3) follow-up assessments at clinically appropriate
15

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 16 of 26
intervals; m. Clinically adequate professional staffing (all with associated job
descriptions) of the medical and mental health treatment programs, as indicated by implementation of periodic staffing analyses and plans. At a minimum, Defendants shall retain
i. a qualified medical director responsible for overseeing the health care program at the Jail, touring the medical facilities and meeting with staff on-site, implementing an adequate quality assurance (QA) and peer review program that reviews the entire continuum of care, and meeting with the Director, Nursing Supervisor, and warden monthly to discuss medical services at the Jail, including the results of all QA and peer review activities;
ii. a designated director of mental health services responsible for overseeing mental health care at the Jail, for developing a budget specific for mental health services, and for implementing a management information system regarding health care caseload and services;
iii. an FTE registered nurse to act as the on-site supervisor of medical services at the Jail;
iv. nursing personnel who will provide on-site services consistent with their training and licensure from at least 9:00am-8:00pm on weekdays and for four (4) hours on weekends;
v. a physician board certified in internal medicine, family medicine, or emergency medicine for at least two (2) hours daily to conduct intake screenings and physical exams, sick call and medical assessments and follow-up exams;
vi. a physician board certified in internal medicine, family medicine, or emergency medicine shall be on call at all times when one is not physically present at the facility. The contact information for this physician shall be disseminated to all staff;
vii. a licensed psychiatrist shall provide on-site services two (2) hours every weekday. A licensed relief psychiatrist shall provide services when the regular psychiatrist is unavailable, and there shall be 24-hour on-call coverage by a psychiatrist;
viii. a master's level FTE mental health counselor shall provide mental health services, including individual and group therapy.
n. Adequate staffing of correctional officers with training to implement the terms ofthis agreement, including how to identify, refer, and supervise prisoners with serious medical and mental health needs; as well as both adequate pre-service and in-service training of all staff and officers in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR);
o. Adequate equipment shall be maintained on-site for management of medical emergencies;
p. Logging of all emergency hospital referrals, noting the date, prisoner name, time leaving the Jail and time ofhospital arrival;
16

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 17 of 26
q. A protocol for periodic assessment ofthe facility's compliance with policies and procedures regarding the identification, handling, and care of detainees and prisoners with serious medical and mental health conditions;
r. Adequate dental care, including preventive and restorative services, that is not limited to extractions;
s. Adequate eye care, including the provision of glasses to those prisoners who need them;
t. A protocol for medical and mental health rounding in isolation/segregation cells to provide prisoners access to care and to prevent decompensation;
u. A prohibition on housing prisoners with serious mental illness in isolation, regular review of prisoners in segregation to minimize time in segregation, and provision of adequate opportunities for out-of-cell time of prisoners in segregation;
v. Review by and consultation with a qualified mental health professional of proposed prisoner disciplinary sanctions to evaluate whether mental illness may have impacted mle violations and to provide that discipline is not imposed due to actions that are the product of symptoms of mental illness;
w. Medical facilities, including the scheduling and availability of appropriate clinical space with adequate privacy;
x. Mental health care and treatment, including: 1. timely, current and adequate treatment plan development and implementation; ii. adequate mental health programs for all prisoners with serious mental illness, including psychosocial rehabilitation services to pnsoners;
iii. development and implementation of memoranda of understanding to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill prisoners in need of inpatient or intermediate care, or those in need of acute stabilization, to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility;
iv. adequate psychotropic medication practices, including monitoring for side effects and informed consent;
v. adequate and timely assessment and treatment by psychiatrists for all prisoners with diagnosed or possible mental illness;
v1. comprehensive correctional and clinical staff training and a mechanism to identify signs and symptoms of mental health needs of prisoners not previously assigned to the mental health caseload;
vii. implementation of specific policies on the use of seclusion or restraints on mentally ill prisoners consistent with professional guidelines that ensure a. that the use/renewal of restraints or seclusion is ordered only by a mental health professional; b. there is timely face-to-face assessment by the mental health professional of a prisoner placed on or renewed for restraints/ seclusion;
17

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 18 of 26
c. that no restraint/seclusion order or renewal last more than 4 hours, and
d. all appropriate medical checks and offers of breaks/nutrition/water/bathroom use are timely and logged;
viii. appropriate housing for mentally ill prisoners in a safe/therapeutic housing area (mental health unit), including the exclusion of mentally ill prisoners from being housed at the Annex who cannot be adequately treated there;
ix. ensuring that the decision to admit or discharge a prisoner from mental health housing is made by a mental health professional based on appropriate clinical criteria;
x. staffing the mental health unit with and adequate number of specially trained corrections staff;
XL regular treatment team meetings involving security and mental health staff over the operation of the mental health unit to devise interventions designed to help the prisoners clinically improve;
xii. appropriate and timely discharge planning, and xm. ceasing to place seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregated
housing or lock-down as a substitute for mental health treatment
VI. Training
1. Defendants will take necessary steps to train staff so that they understand and implement the policies and procedures required by this Agreement, which are intended to meet constitutional standards. BOC will also develop a staff orientation and training program which shall include adequate pre-service (minimum 120 hours), in-service (minimum 40 hours annually) and specialized training necessary for staff to carry out their duties appropriately. Training dates will be established with certified trainers following approved lesson plans. BOC shall implement documentation and accountability measures to ensure that staff complete all required training as a condition of commencing and continuing employment. Defendants shall also use best efforts to find other training and professional development opportunities for staff, including those sponsored by theNational Institute of Corrections (NIC).
VII. Americans With Disabilities Act
1. Defendants shall develop and implement policies and procedures so they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
VIII. Religious Freedom
1. Defendants shall provide meat substitutes for prisoners who observe religious diets, shall offer congregate religious services, and shall allow prisoner to have items necessary to practice their religious beliefs, unless a specific and documented security risk is posed in a specific case.
IX. Legal Access
18

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 19 of 26
1. Defendants shall develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure the right of prisoners to have access to the courts. Prisoners shall have the right to confidential communications with their attorneys and authorized representatives, including telephone calls, correspondence, and contact visits. Prisoners shall be provided legal supplies to exercise their court access rights. Prisoners shall have access to an adequately stocked law library that includes relevant and up-to-date constitutional, statutory, case law materials; applicable court and procedural mles; and practice treatises. Defendants shall develop and implement policies ensuring that prisoners are provided with adequate assistance from adequately trained personnel to effectively exercise their right to court access.
X. Mail, Telephone and Visitation
1. Defendants shall develop and implement policies and procedures ensuring that indigent prisoners have supplies and postage and use of the telephone sufficient to maintain community ties. Prisoner's incoming and outgoing personal mail, but no identified legal mail, may be opened and inspected in the presence of the prisoner. All prisoners will have adequate access to a telephone daily. They shall be permitted to make legal calls free of charge.
XI. Inmate Discipline
1. Defendants will develop and implement policies and procedures that establish a comprehensive system for prisoner discipline. The system shall ensure that prisoners are disciplined or locked down according to established due process procedures, including:
a. all incidents that may result in discipline are documented by incident report; b. discipline is based on a determination of individual responsibility for a mles violation; c. prisoners upon admission are given and countersign for an orientation handbook that notifies them of all disciplinary and institutional mles and the disciplinary process, as well as possible sanctions; d. prisoners who face disciplinary charges are given written notice of the charges, and countersign that they have received notice, within 24 hours; e. prisoners are not locked down before a disciplinary hearing unless there is determination made that lockdown is necessary to preserve facility security; f. prisoners are afforded a hearing by a neutral supervisor within 5 working days of being charged with a violation, absent documented exceptional circumstances requiring an extension of this limit; g. prisoners who by reason of a disability or language barrier cannot participate meaningfully or understand the disciplinary process are provided with assistance for the hearing; h. the prisoner is pennitted to present documentary evidence and witnesses on his behalf; and to confront witnesses, subject to legitimate security restrictions; i. the hearing and disposition are documented, noting the evidence relied upon for the disposition, whether the prisoner was present, the evidence presented by the prisoner, whether the prisoner was represented, and documentation of the disposition is provided to the prisoner;
19

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 20 of 26

j.

sanctions imposed, and the resulting loss of privileges for disciplined prisoners,

are reasonable in light of Defendants' legitimate classification and security needs;

k. visitation privileges may be denied as sanction based on the severity of the

offense; and

j. there is a documented appeal process for prisoners found guilty of rules

violations.

XII. Remedial Fund

1. Defendants shall continue maintain the remedial fund established by the Court by its October 29, 2001 Order under the terms of that Order and the Court's May 28, 2003 Order, which are incorporated by reference herein. The Attorney General shall no longer be a signatory to the account.

VII. Implementation
Defendants will begin implementing the requirements of this Agreement immediately upon the effective date of the Agreement. Within 90 days after the effective date, Defendants will propose a schedule for policy development, training, and implementation of the substantive terms of this agreement.
Defendants will implement every policy, procedure, plan, training, system, and other item required by this Agreement. Each policy required by this Agreement will become effective and Defendants will promulgate the policy to all staff involved in its implementation within 90 days.
Defendants will conduct a semi-annual impact evaluation to determine whether the policies, procedures, protocols, and training plan are achieving the objectives of this Agreement and to plan and implement any necessary corrective action.
Defendants may propose modifying any policy, procedure, or plan, provided that Plaintiffs' Counsel is provided with 14 days' notice in advance of the action..
Defendants shall provide status reports every four months reporting actions taken to achieve compliance with this Agreement. Each compliance report shall describe the actions Defendants have taken during the reporting period to implement each provision of the Agreement..
Defendants shall promptly notify the Court's experts and Plaintiffs' Counsel of any prisoner death, serious suicide attempt, or injury requiring emergency medical attention. With this notification, Defendants shall forward to Plaintiff Counsel any related incident reports and medical and/or mental health reports and completed investigations as they become available.
Defendants shall maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented and shall make such records available to Plaintiffs' Counsel at all reasonable times for inspection and copying. In addition, Defendants shall also provide all documents not protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege reasonably
20

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 21 of 26
requested. The parties will discuss a protective order over which Defendants may claim a privilege.
The parties shall have the same rights and responsibilities for monitoring, reporting and compliance as set forth in the Settlement Agreement in this case, as modified by all subsequent remedial orders addressing monitoring, which are incorporated by reference herein.
Plaintiff Counsel shall have sufficient access to CJC including onsite tours, and documents to fulfill its duties in monitoring compliance and reviewing and commenting on documents pursuant to this Agreement.
Excluding on-site tours, within 45 days of receipt of written questions from Plaintiffs' Counsel concerning Defendants' compliance with the requirements of this Agreement, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' Counsel with written answers and any requested documents unless the requests are unreasonable and the Defendants obtain relief.
BOC will monitor the progress of this Agreement by utilizing a Compliance Officer assigned to the St. Thomas District. The compliance officer shall be responsible for reporting, inspecting and assisting with compliance.
VIII. MONITORING
A. Selection of Court Experts
1. The parties' joint expert in the field of mental health care shall be Kathryn Burns, M.D, in the field of security shall be Steve Martin, and the Court's classification expert is James Austin, Ph.D. The parties will jointly select experts in the fields of (1) medical care, and (3)environmental/fire safety. They, along with the aboveidentified experts, shall oversee the implementation of the Agreement, and shall determine the Defendants' compliance with all of the remedies ordered by the Court in this case. The selection of the experts will be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement. The selection is subject to Court approval, and the experts will serve at the pleasure of the Court.
2. In selecting the experts who has the skill, background, and experience to perform the duties of the position, the parties will seek someone who: a. is independent and can perform the duties of the expert free from undue influence; b. has the confidence of the parties, the Cmrrt and the community; c. can perfonn the services in a cost effective manner; and d. has extensive experience in institutional reforn1litigation, and has previously been involved in implementing relief in institutional reform litigation.
3. Within 60 days of this Agreement being signed by the parties, each party will nominate up to three persons to serve as the expert in each subject area, and shall submit to the other party the curriculum vitae oftheir candidates. Should the parties
21

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 22 of 26
fail to agree on any of the experts within 30 days after exchanging nominations, the parties will recommend their nominees to the Court under seal and the Court will appoint the experts from the names submitted by the parties, pursuant to this Agreement and Fed. R. Evid. 706. The same procedures will be followed ifthe position of any of the experts later becomes vacant and the parties cannot agree on a replacement.
B. Termination of the Experts
1. Neither party, nor any employee or agent of either party, will have any supervisory authority over the experts' activities or findings. The experts may be tenninated only for good cause unrelated to the experts' findings and only with prior notice to, and approval of, the parties acting jointly or by the Court's order. Should all the parties agree that an expert is not fulfilling his or her duties in accordance with this Agreement the parties may petition the Court for the expert's immediate removal and replacement. One party may unilaterally petition the Court for the expert's removal for good cause, and the other party will have the opportunity to respond to the petition.
C. Fees and Expenses of the Experts
1. The cost for the experts' fees and expenses will be borne by Defendants up to $100,000 for each set of two tours and subsequent reports by all of the experts. The Court shall determine how all expert costs in excess of $100,000 shall be apportioned between the parties. The parties recognize; however, that every effort should be made to control these fees and expenses in order to conserve funds for compliance. Each expert candidate shall submit an estimated invoice for their tour and subsequent report. Following each tour, the experts will submit a detailed statement of fees and expenses to the parties, and either party may object to any statement the experts submit. In the absence of agreement, the Court will detennine the appropriate amount to be paid.
D. Experts' Access
1. Within a reasonable time after appointment by the Court, each expert will submit to the parties for their review and comment a description of how the expert will assess compliance, how the expert intends to gather information necessary for the assessment, and what information the expert will require from the defendants
2. With reasonable advance notice, the experts will have full and complete reasonable access to the CJC, all facility records, prisoners' medical and mental health records, staff members, and prisoners. Defendants will direct all employees to cooperate fully with the experts. Reasonable advance notice must be provided to the Bureau of Corrections prior to conducting any on-site compliance reviews. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the Territory or Defendants may assert against a third party, 22

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 23 of 26
including those recognized at common law or created by statute, rule; or regulation against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any document. All privileged information obtained by the experts will be maintained in a confidential manner.
E. Limitations on Public Disclosures by the Experts
1. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or as the parties may otherwise agree, the experts will not make any public statements except as specifically authorized in this Agreement with regard to any act or omission of Defendants or their agents, representatives, or employees. Any media statement made by the experts must first be approved in writing by all parties. Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the experts will not be retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against Defendants, their departments, officers, agents or employees regarding the subject matter of this case, The experts are not a state, territorial, or local agency or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the experts shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection.
2. The Territory, the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Defendants shall not be responsible for indemnification of the experts and shall not bear responsibility for any attorney's fees or costs in connection with any suit or claim brought by a third party against the experts.
F. Experts' Reports
1. The experts will issue an initial report to the parties within six months after the effective date of his or her appointment and then every six months thereafter until Defendants have reached at least partial compliance with every provision. At that point, the experts will issue reports yearly. These reports will be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual prisoners and staff and for the interest of Defendants in protecting against disclosure of non-public information (e.g., security sensitive information). The experts' reports will indicate a compliance rating for each provision (both with regard to policy formulation and implementation) and may provide non-binding recommendations for achieving compliance with any provisions not in compliance at the time of the Report.
2. These reports will be filed in the record of this case under such conditions as the Court may order. The reports will be provided to counsel for comment in draft form at least two weeks prior to their filing, and the draft reports and any comments thereto shall be neither publicly disclosed nor filed on the record in this case.
3. Reports of the experts will be admissible in evidence to the extent permitted by the Federal Rules ofEvidence.
G. Compliance Assessments
23

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 24 of 26
1. In his or her reports, the experts will evaluate the status of compliance for each relevant provision of the remedies ordered in this case using the following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance; (2) Partial Compliance, and (3) Noncompliance. In order to assess compliance, the experts will review a sufficient number of pertinent documents to accurately assess current conditions; interview all necessary staff; and interview a sufficient number of prisoners to accurately assess current conditions. The experts will be responsible for independently verifying representations from Defendants regarding progress toward compliance and for examining supporting documentation, where applicable. Each expert's report will describe the steps taken to analyze conditions and assess compliance, including documents reviewed, individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the experts' findings. Either side may dispute the experts' findings, and retain their own experts, and engage in discovery and present their own evidence, for any evidentiary hearing seeking either enforcement or tennination of any relief in this case.
H. Technical Assistance
1. The experts shall provide specific recommendations to the Defendants with regard to each substantive requirement of this Agreement, in order to assist Defendants in achieving and maintaining substantial compliance. Defendants also may consult with the experts regarding the development of policies required by this Agreement. However, under no circumstances will any of them order or purport to order Defendants to take any specific step to achieve substantial compliance. The experts shall not, and is not intended to replace or take over the role and duties of the Governor of the Territory, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, or the Warden of the CJC.
I. Experts' Testimony
1. In accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, either party or the Court may call the experts to testify as a witness. Regardless of who calls the expert, each party may cross examine. The experts' testimony will be admissible as permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
J. Experts' Ex Parte Communications
Absent agreement by both parties, the experts may not initiate nor receive ex parte communications with the Court. Any documents, records, letters, emails, reports, correspondence, photographs, or other items sent by any expert to a party or sent by any party to an expert shall be copied or sent to the other party. Either party may initiate or receive oral ex parte communications with the expe1is.
P. Enforcement and Termination
1. The District Court of the Virgin Islands will retain jurisdiction over this matter.
24

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 25 of 26
2. The relief in this case shall terminate when Defendants achieve substantial compliance with the substantive provisions of thi.s Agreement and maintain compliance for one (l) year.
3. Failure by either party to enforce this entire Agreement or any provision thereof with respect to any deadline or any othet provision herein. shall not be construed as a vvaiver ofits right to enforce other deadlines or provisions of this Agreement.
4. If any unforeseen circumstru1ce occurs that causes a failure to timely carry out any requirements of this Agreementj Defendants shall notify Plaintifi's' Cmmsel in writing within 20 calendar days after Defendants become aware of the unforeseen circumstance and its impact on Defendants' ability to perform undet the Agreement The notice shall descri.be the cause of the failure to perform and the measures taken to prevent or minimize the failure. Defendants shall implement all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such failure.
5. The Agreement shall be applicable to, and binding upon, all parties, elected officials and their respective officers, agents, employees, assignsj and their successors in of'flce.
6. In the event that any provision ofthis Agreement is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, that finding shall not affect the remaining provisions ofthis Agreement.
7. This ag1·eernent supersedes all prior settlement agreement and remedial orders and shaH be approved by and entered as an order of the Court For the Plaintiffs: ERICBALABA
7
Sc r StafD Counsel ACLU National Prison Project
915 151" Street, NW, ih Floor
Washington, DC 20005 Tel. (202) 393-4930 Fax.(202) 393-4931 BENJAMIN CURRENCE:
Non·e Gade 2nd Floor #12 P.O. Box 6143 St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804~6143 340/775-3434
25

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-SSB-GWB Document #: 765-1 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 26 of 26
For the DEFENDANTS AND TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS:
VINCENT F. FRAZER, ESQ.
ATTORNEY GENERA,.L-.-,
I
Assistant Attomey General V.I. Department of Justice
34-38 Kronpl'indsens Gade
GERS Building, 2nd Floor
St. Thomas, VI 00802 SO ORDERED this -~day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2013.
Brotman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 1 of 7

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

__________________________________________

:

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al.,

:

Civil No. 94-78

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

KENNETH MAPP, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

__________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS’ SCHEDULED SITE VISIT AND
FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to enforce the 2013 Settlement Agreement and compel Defendants to allow Plaintiffs’ scheduled site visit from October 12-16, 2015. The grounds for this Motion are set forth below.
Background On October 1, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel notified Defendants of their upcoming site visit to the CJC and CJC Annex from October 12-16, 2015. See E. Balaban Oct. 1, 2015 Letter to S. D’Andrade (Ex. A). Seven days later, on October 7, 2015, Defendants’ counsel replied and stated that “counsel for Defendants are unavailable and Defendants cannot accommodate your site visit.” See S. D’Andrade Oct. 7, 2015 Letter to E. Balaban (Ex. B) (asserting that because (1) Defendants’ counsel is unavailable, (2) October 12 is a federal holiday and therefore civilian staff are unavailable, (2) security staff will be in a training during the week of October 12, (3)

1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 2 of 7
Defendants have a fire evacuation drill planned for October 14, and (5) Plaintiffs’ counsel has already visited the facilities four times this year, Plaintiffs should “forgo this visit”).
Plaintiffs promptly responded and informed Defendants counsel were willing to modify their schedule in light of some of the scheduling constraints at the facility. See E. Balaban Oct. 7, 2015 Letter to S. D’Andrade (Ex. C). Defendants did not accept these changes.
I. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO CONDUCT THEIR TOUR UNDER THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.
It is established that district court judges retain the power to enforce consent decrees entered into their cases. See, e.g., Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 432 (2004) (“Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and hoping for compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be enforced.”). Thus, “[u]ntil parties to such an instrument have fulfilled their express obligations, the court has continuing authority and discretion—pursuant to its independent juridical interests—to ensure compliance.” Holland v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrections, 246 F.3d 267, 283 (3d Cir. 2001). Consent decrees are enforced on their plain terms. See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 137 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir.1998)(“A court should not later modify the decree by imposing terms not agreed to by the parties or not included in the language of the decree.”).
Under the 2013 Settlement Agreement, Defendants are required to provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with access to the Jail “including onsite tours.” 2013 Settlement Agreement (D.E. 7651) ¶VII. The 2013 Settlement Agreement also retains and incorporates all of the parties’ monitoring and enforcement rights and duties from the 1994 Settlement Agreement and subsequent orders. Id. at 21. Pursuant to the 1994 Agreement, Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct on-site tours provided they give Defendants ten days’ notice. See 1994 Settlement Agreement (DE 805-2) at 44, ¶C (“Defendants shall grant plaintiffs’ counsel access to tour CJC to evaluate
2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 3 of 7
defendants’ compliance with this Agreement. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide ten (10) days’ notice to defendants in advance of these tours.”). Plaintiffs provided Defendants with eleven (11) days’ notice of their tour. Under the plain terms of the Agreement, counsel is therefore entitled to conduct a site visit beginning next Monday.
Defendants raised several objections of the tour, none of which excuses their noncompliance with the Agreement:
First, Defendants state that Plaintiffs’ counsel can neither review documents, nor tour the facility, since Defendants’ counsel Ms. D’Andrade is not available next week. There is nothing in the Agreement that prohibits class counsel from touring when Defendants’ counsel is unavailable. Had Defendants wanted this exclusion, they should have insisted on it being in the Agreement. Having given proper notice, Plaintiffs’ counsel are entitled to tour on the Agreement’s plain terms. Second, Ms. D’Andrade is not the only attorney in this case for Defendants, or the Government’s only attorney. If Defendants insist on counsel being present, then they should enlist another Government attorney. Third, class counsel has regularly toured without counsel being present. For the most part, counsel will be reviewing documents, and there is no apparent need for Defendants to have counsel present during this review. Fourth, Plaintiffs are willing to accommodate Defendants if they want counsel present while class counsel asks questions about compliance of Jail staff. Plaintiffs can agree to ask questions on designated days next week when counsel is available, though the Agreement again does not require this accommodation.
Second, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs cannot review records or tour the facility on October 12, 2015 because this is a federal holiday. Putting aside the fact that Jails do not close on federal holidays, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered to limit their tour that day to reviewing Jail log
3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 4 of 7
books and health care records (since nursing staff will be on-site). The Jail, of course will be staffed, and staff can pull the requested logs now (and have been aware that class counsel wants to review these logs for over a week).
Third, Defendants state class counsel cannot visit the facility at all on October 14 because there is a planned evacuation drill that day. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to exit the facility during the fire drill and re-enter the facility once the drill is completed. There is no just reason why class counsel should be denied access for an entire day because a drill is planned.
Fourth, Defendants object because there is planned officer training next week. Again, the Jail will not be closed next week, it will be staffed by officers and civilian personnel, and the fact that some staff may be in training does not warrant denial of class counsel’s clear right to tour on adequate notice.
Fifth, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ counsel does not need to tour the facility next week because counsel already conducted visits in February, April and August. First, the Agreement does not place a numerical limit on the number of tours class counsel takes. Second, in February and April class counsel was preparing for and then attending site visits by the parties’ joint experts. The experts completed those visits and issued their reports. See Doc. 8231 (Bogard’s Second Report), 832-1 (Burns’ Second Report). The experts are now poised to conduct more site visits, and conduct another round of assessments of Defendants’ compliance with the Agreement. Also, the Court on August 21, 2015 set this matter for an evidentiary hearing, now scheduled for Nov. 27, 2015. See Doc. 833. The Court’s order requires the experts to assess Defendants’ compliance with quarterly goals for reaching compliance, and requires the parties to also submit reports on Defendants’ progress towards the goals. See id. at 4 Plaintiffs’ October visit is to prepare for the experts’ reviews and for the hearing. The two August site
4

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 5 of 7
visits were extremely short, amounting to a total of three days. The first August site visit focused specifically on the status of the Jail’s ventilation and cooling system (HVAC), which was inoperative and malfunctioning for two months, resulting in potentially dangerous living conditions at the jail. And, the second August site visit lasted for a total of two days, as it was cut short due to the approaching Tropical Storm Erika.1 Accordingly, the requested visit is necessary in order for Plaintiffs’ counsel to have sufficient access to CJC and the Annex, and allow Plaintiffs to adequately assess Defendants compliance with the terms of the Agreement.
II. PLAINTIFFS ASK THE COURT TO EXPEDITE A RULING ON THIS MOTION.
Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to expedite its ruling on this Motion. Class counsel is travelling to the Virgin Islands on Sunday, and the planned site visit begins next week. Defendants’ refusal to accommodate Plaintiffs throws into doubt the scope and extent of that tour. So that this dispute can be resolved before the visit begins next Monday, Plaintiffs ask that the Court expedite its ruling on this Motion.
CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court to enforce the Agreement and compel Defendants to permit Plaintiffs’ counsel to conduct a site visit next week.
1 Plaintiffs’ counsel was told on August 28, 2015 that the Government was closed, and therefore counsel would not be permitted access to the Jail. Ex. D Counsel later learned that the Governor lifted the curfew and ordered all government employees to work as of 11 am that day. See Ex. E. Defendants did not notify Plaintiffs that the curfew had been lifted and that government staff was required to report to work. Counsel also was not informed that they could resume their visit that day.
5

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 6 of 7

Dated: October 8, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ ERIC BALABAN Eric Balaban
National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 915 15th Street Seventh Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 393-4930
/s/ BENJAMIN CURRENCE Benjamin Currence
11A Norre Gade, Suite 4 P.O. Box 6143
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804-6143 (340) 775-3434
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 7 of 7
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading, exhibits, and proposed Order were served by the Notice of Electronic Filing administered by this Court to the following counsel for Defendants at the following address:
Carol Thomas-Jacobs Asst. Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General GERS Bldg., 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, USVI 00801 cjacobs@doj.vi.gov Shari D’Andrade Assistant Attorney General Virgin Island Department of Justice GERS Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 sdandrade@doj.vi.gov
/s/ ERIC BALABAN Eric Balaban
7

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-1 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-1 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-2 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-2 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-3 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-3 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-4 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-4 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-5 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 1 of 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 842-6 Filed: 10/08/15 Page 1 of 1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

__________________________________________

:

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al.,

:

Civil No. 94-78

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

KENNETH MAPP, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

__________________________________________

ORDER Having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and for Expedited Consideration, and for good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall provide access to Plaintiffs’ counsel for a site visit on the terms set forth in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s October 1 and 7, 2015 letters, which are incorporated by reference herein. SO ORDERED this _______ day of _________, 2015,

_____________________________ Hon. Judge Curtis V. Gomez

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 1 of 9

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN *****************************

LAWRENCE CARTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. GOVERNOR KENNETH MAPP, ET AL.,
Defendants.

) CIVIL NO. 1994-78 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO ALLOW
PLAINTIFFS’ SCHEDULED SITE VISIT AND FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION

COME NOW, Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby

oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to

Allow Plaintiffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and for Expedited Consideration, D.E. 842.

Defendants state as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This dispute concerns Plaintiffs’ unwillingness to cooperate with scheduling site

visits. Plaintiffs insist ignoring Defendants attempt to coordinate. Defendants coordinate

site visits with several experts, and in the St. Croix Consent Decree with the United States.1 These Plaintiffs and Attorney Balaban in particular, are the only parties who

have ignored repeated, good-faith, requests to coordinate schedules. The parties should

have been able easily resolve this issue without bringing it to this Court’s attention.

However, Defendants have quietly accommodated Plaintiffs’ contumacious and unilateral

1 The parties presently confer with the experts with respect to scheduling mutually agreeable dates for site visits. Exhibit 1.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 2 of 9

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Allow Plainitffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and For Expedited Consideration

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 2

conduct in the past. This gamesmanship must end.

Plaintiffs’ misguided Motion paints an incomplete picture for this Honorable

Court. Defendants had twice requested that the parties meet and confer to mutually agree

on dates for site visits. Plaintiffs blatantly ignored this request and sent notice of their

intent to tour the facilities. In response, Defendants, inter alia, reasserted their request to

meet and confer. .

Plaintiffs’ rejected Defendants’ good faith overture. This frivolous motion

followed. Rather than raise substantive disputes regarding the conditions of the facility to

Court, Plaintiffs’ Motion underscore their own unreasonableness. Additionally, their ill-

advised Motion relies on the 1994 Settlement Agreement, which has been superseded by

the 2013 Settlement Agreement, adopted and entered by Order of the Court, D.E. 780.

2013 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS CONTROLLING

Plaintiffs’ reliance on the 1994 Settlement Agreement is misplaced. The 2013

Settlement, adopted and entered by the Court by Order dated August 29, 2013, D.E. 780,

supersedes the 1994 Settlement Agreement. Specifically, the 2013 Settlement Agreement

states: “This agreement supersedes all prior settlement agreement[s] and remedial orders

. . . .” 2013 Settlement Agreement, Section P.7 (emphasis added).

I. DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES FOR SITE VISITS IS REASONABLE

Pursuant to the 2013 Settlement Agreement, Defendants open their facilities to the

Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are permitted to meet with prisoners, staff, review logbooks and

other documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel onsite tour usually lasts for five days. In addition to

Plaintiffs’ onsite tour, the experts are entitled to tour the facilities, review logbooks,

interview staff and speak to prisoners. The experts’ visits are separate and apart from

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 3 of 9

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Allow Plainitffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and For Expedited Consideration

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 3

Plaintiffs’ visits. See Settlement Agreement, Section VII.

Because of the magnitude of this case, affecting virtually all aspects of the jails,

all tours require the presence of the Bureau of Corrections’ managerial staff, which

includes the Director, Assistant Director, Warden, Assistant, Chief, Compliance

Coordinators and Territorial Health Services Administrator. In addition, maintenance,

medical and mental health staff must avail themselves. Counsel for Defendants must be

present.

With this in mind, in August of 2015, Defendants’ counsel verbally requested of

Plaintiffs’ counsel provide sufficient advance notice of intent to conduct a visit and to select mutually agreeable dates to ensure that the tours are convenient for both parties.2

Plaintiffs’ disregarded this request, and scheduled a site visit for the week of August 24th—their second site visit for the month of August. Exhibit 2. Prior to this, Plaintiffs

visited the jails on August 14, 2015. Defendants’ counsel immediately informed

Plaintiffs of their scheduling conflicts and reasserted their request to select amenable dates. Exhibits 3 & 4. During the week of August 24th, Attorney Balaban conducted a

site visit.

Weeks after Plaintiffs rejected the Defendants suggestion that Plaintiffs tour

during the week of October 12 rather than the week of August 24, Plaintiffs unilaterally

notified Defendants of their intended tour, to commence on October 12, 2015.

a. PLAINTIFFS’ PREVIOUSLY REFUSED THE OCTOBER 5-15, 2015
DATES
Devoid from Plaintiffs’ Motion is the fact that on August 17, 2015, Defendants

2 Defendants note that the parties do not need to confer regarding visits with prisoners, as they are counsel’s clients. Plaintiffs’ counsel may provide reasonable advance notice and Defendants will accommodate by facilitating meetings in the attorney-client room at the facilities.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 4 of 9

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Allow Plainitffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and For Expedited Consideration

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 4

suggested several dates, including October 5-15, 2015 for the onsite tour, which are

inclusive of the dates that Plaintiffs’ have now scheduled to visit. Exhibits 3 & 4. In

response, Plaintiffs offered silence and refused to cooperate, respond or confirm. As a

result, Defendants scheduled other matters.

b. DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL ARE UNAVAILABLE

As communicated to Plaintiffs in an October 7, 2015 correspondence, the dates

for the site tour are not feasible. Specifically, counsel has deadlines and appearances in

other cases. Irrespective of Plaintiffs’ improper suggestion of how counsel should handle

this litigation, Defendants are entitled to counsel and their counsel is entitled to be

present at all site visits.

With respect to Defendants, civilian staff are not expected to work on October 12,

2015, which is a federal holiday, which raises a specter of impropriety. These suspicions

notwithstanding, the Classification Officer and Compliance Coordinator will be on

holiday leave. Importantly, the Compliance Coordinator is a civilian and position

required by the 2013 Settlement Agreement. The Compliance Coordinator is responsible

for compiling documents and logbooks and otherwise facilitating the tour. On October

14, 2015, Defendants are also scheduled to conduct a facility-wide, full scale fire drill

and evacuation, which requires participation of all staff and prisoners, and coordination

with the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Police Department, the

Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency and the Virgin Islands Fire

Service. Exhibit 5. Additionally, The Peace Officer Standards Council (“POST”) has

scheduled for training for the week of October 12, 2015, and pursuant to Virgin Islands

law, the corrections officers, who are also peace officers, must attend the training.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 5 of 9

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Allow Plainitffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and For Expedited Consideration

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 5

Moreover, Attorney Balaban and the security expert are scheduled to visit the jail only

two weeks after their October visit - on November 2-6, 2015. To say the least, Plaintiffs’

scheduled tour is unduly burdensome.

II. PLAINTIFFS WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BY RESCHEDULING THEIR TOUR

Importantly, a glaring, self-serving void from Plaintiffs’ Motion is that just two-

weeks following their intended tour, they will tour the facilities on November 2-6, 2015

and have already inspected many of the logbooks and other documents that they request

for the October 12-16, 2015 tour.

a. PLAINTIFFS WILL BE ONSITE ON NOVEMBER 2-6, 2015

Unlike the unilaterally scheduled October 12-16, 2015 tour, the parties, along

with the expert, mutually agreed on the November 2-6, 2015 tour several months in

advance. Exhibit 1. Plaintiffs have not indicated that they have cancelled this tour.

Even more perplexing is that by their refusal to respond to Defendants’ standing request,

Defendants presumed that October 12-16, 2015 was not a viable time for the site visit.

Defendants’ materially relied upon Plaintiffs’ rejection of those dates.

b. PLAINTIFFS HAVE ALREADY INSPECTED MANY OF THE REQUESTED LOGBOOKS AND DOCUMENTS

In Plaintiffs’ October 1, 2015 correspondence, they indicate that they would like

to review “all CJC and CJC Annex log books (including unit logs, Main Control logs,

disciplinary logs, contraband logs, and any other log (including recreation logs)

maintained at the Jail, from March 1, 2015 – present.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A.

In reverse chronological order, Defendants note that Plaintiffs have received the

following log books and logs:

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 6 of 9

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Allow Plainitffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and For Expedited Consideration

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 6

x On September 18, 2015, via e-mail Plaintiffs received the August 2015

contraband, recreation, and church logs.

x On August 24, 2015, via email Plaintiffs received the shakedown and

church logs covering May to June, 2015

x During Plaintiffs’ August 24th site visit, Defendants provided Main

Control and all unit log books and logs for the period March to August,

2015, in addition Plaintiffs’ counsel received the disciplinary and

contraband logs, generally covering the period of April to July, 2015; on

August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs received the recreation log.

x On August 14, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed the Main Control and all

unit log books located on the posts and toured both facilities. Plaintiffs

also interviewed prisoners.

x On July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs, via email, received the recreation log

covering the month of June.

x On June 10, 2015, Plaintiffs’, via email, received the May recreation log.

x On May 18, 2015, Plaintiffs’, via email, received the April recreation log.

x During Plaintiffs’ site visit from April 20-22, 2015, Defendants provided

Plaintiffs all logs and log books covering the period December 1, 2014 to

April 2015. Plaintiffs also toured the facilities and interviewed prisoners.

See Exhibit 6. x On April 17, 2015, Plaintiffs, via email, received the March recreation log.

Further, aside from logs and log books otherwise provided on site or emailed,

Plaintiffs have requested and received numerous prisoner classification and medical

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 7 of 9

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Allow Plainitffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and For Expedited Consideration

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 7

records. Moreover, Plaintiffs are scheduled to receive logs typically sent in Defendants’

monthly submissions, along with incident, investigative classification, grievance, work

detail, significant incident, environmental, maintenance, medical, and management

information systems reports.

Aside from onsite tours, Plaintiffs are entitled to request documents. See 2013

Settlement Agreement, Section VII (“Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs’ Counsel with

written answers and any requested documents . . .”). A delay of a mere two weeks—

when they are scheduled onsite on November 2-6, 2015—will not unduly prejudice

Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Exhibit 5.

c. ST. CROIX BOC CONSENT DECREE CASE

In the BOC Consent Decree Case on St. Croix, United States v. Territory of the

Virgin Islands, Civ. No. 1:86-cv-265 (D.V.I.), which is akin to this matter and in some

respects more involved due to the number of experts, the parties always meet and confer

to decide dates for site visits. Indeed, in scheduling the next site visit, the undersigned

indicated to the United States and the monitoring team her potential unavailability and

the parties amicably selected another date. Although the St. Croix litigation proceeds in a

different manner from this instant case, Defendants note that at every status conference

the parties inform the court of the mutually agreed upon site visit days. The court uses

those dates to schedule the future status conference. Accordingly, Defendants’ request in

this case—to dates that are amenable to the parties—is neither unique nor unreasonable.

d. VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSENT DECREE

In the Virgin Islands Police Department Consent Decree Case, the parties,

including the monitors, mutually agree on dates for site visits. The Court, at the February

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 8 of 9

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Allow Plainitffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and For Expedited Consideration

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 8

24, 2015 hearing, indicated that this matter shall proceed in the same manner as the

Virgin Islands Consent Decree Case. Thus, similar to the Virgin Islands Police

Department Consent Decree Case, this case must proceed in the same manner with

respect to the selection of mutually agreeable dates for site visits.

III. PLAINTIFFS’ VISIT POSES BURDEN ON DEFENDANTS

Lastly, Defendants note that they bear the cost of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. To

date, Plaintiffs have visited the jails four times, wish to visit October 12-16, and will visit

on November 2-6, 2015. This expenditure of attorneys’ fees takes away from funds that

could be directed towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly,

Defendants ask that the Court require the parties to adopt a schedule for site visit.

October 9, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
CLAUDE EARL WALKER, ESQ. ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: /s/ Shari N. D’Andrade___________ SHARI N. D’ANDRADE, ESQ. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL V.I. Bar. No. 1221 V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 6040 Estate Castle Coakley Christiansted, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 773-0295 Fax: (340) 773-1425 Email: sdandrade@doj.vi.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 9, 2015, I electronically filed a true copy of the DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE THE

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 9 of 9

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Allow Plainitffs’ Scheduled Site Visit and For Expedited Consideration

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 9

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND COMPEL DEFENDNATS TO ALLOW

PLAINTIFFS’ SCHEDULED SITE VISIT AND FOR EXPEDITED

CONSIDERATION with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives

notification of such filing (NEF) to the following:

Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 Fax: (202) 393-4931 Email: ebalaban@npp-aclu.org

Benjamin A. Currence Law Offices of Benjamin A. Currence 5045 Norre Gade, Suite 2 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Telephone: (340) 775-3434 Fax: (340) 774-1001 Email: bencurrence@gmail.com

Carol Thomas-Jacobs Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 8050 Kronprindens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 Telephone: (340) 774-5666 Fax: (340) 776-3494 Email: cjacobs@doj.vi.gov

/s/ Shari N. D’Andrade

10/9/2015

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RRMe: CDartoy-cSuitemViesint int O#c:to8b4er3--S1hariFDi'Alenddr:ad1e0/09/15 Page 1 of 4

Re: Carty-Site Visit in October

David Bogard <dbogard@pulitzerbogard.com>
Mon 7/6/2015 1:03 PM
To:Shari D'Andrade <Shari.D'Andrade@doj.vi.gov>;
Cc:Eric Balaban <ebalaban@aclu.org>; Michael Gatling <mgatling@pulitzerbogard.com>; Alicia Gathers <agathers@aclu.org>; Benjamin A. Currence <bencurrence@gmail.com>; Carol Jacobs <Carol.Jacobs@doj.vi.gov>; Thomas, Bonnilyn <bthomas@boc.vi.gov>; Kim Lyons (klyonsvi@gmail.com) <klyonsvi@gmail.com>;

Thank you, Shari. I will plan accordingly.
David M. Bogard Pulitzer/Bogard & Associates, LLC P- 516,432.5177 C- 516.456.4944
On Jul 6, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Shari D'Andrade <Shari.D'Andrade@doj.vi.gov> wrote:
Good morning, David:

November 2-6 works for the Defendants.

Shari
From: Eric Balaban <ebalaban@aclu.org> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 2:12 PM To: David Bogard Cc: Michael Gatling; Alicia Gathers; Benjamin A. Currence; Carol Jacobs; Thomas, Bonnilyn; Kim Lyons (klyonsvi@gmail.com); Shari D'Andrade Subject: RE: Carty-Site Visit in October
That is fine with Plaintiffs.
Eric Balaban* senior staff counsel
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADY0NDVjZmQ3LWE1NmQtNDE5Ni04NDk5LTEyODBiYzc1MjlmM… 1/4

10/9/2015

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RRMe: CDartoy-cSuitemViesint int O#c:to8b4er3--S1hariFDi'Alenddr:ad1e0/09/15 Page 2 of 4

ACLU National Prison Project

915 15th St., N.W. Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202/393-4930 (ph) 202/393-4931 (fax) ebalaban@aclu.org *not admitted in D.C., practice limited to the federal courts
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is legally privileged. The information it contains is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 202.393.4930 and by return e-mail, and delete all copies of same.

From: David Bogard [mailto:dbogard@pulitzerbogard.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 12:42 PM To: Eric Balaban Cc: Michael Gatling; Alicia Gathers; Benjamin A. Currence; Carol Jacobs; Thomas, Bonnilyn; Kim Lyons
(klyonsvi@gmail.com); Shari D'Andrade (sdandrade@doj.vi.gov) Subject: Re: Carty-Site Visit in October

All- I can do the week of November 2-6. That appears to be okay with plaintiffs so would defendants please confirm that week is ok. I really need to finalize this so may I please hear from both parties today? Thanks.

David M. Bogard Pulitzer/Bogard & Associates, LLC P- 516,432.5177 C- 516.456.4944

On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Eric Balaban <ebalaban@aclu.org> wrote: David:

Those dates are not good for Plaintiffs, despite our efforts. Oct. 16-24 are not good. If you are looking at November, Nov. 14-21 is not good for Plaintiffs, but otherwise the month is good.

Thank you for your patience. I hope you have a good and safe holiday.

Eric Balaban* senior staff counsel ACLU National Prison Project 915 15th St., N.W. Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADY0NDVjZmQ3LWE1NmQtNDE5Ni04NDk5LTEyODBiYzc1MjlmM… 2/4

10/9/2015

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RRMe: CDartoy-cSuitemViesint int O#c:to8b4er3--S1hariFDi'Alenddr:ad1e0/09/15 Page 3 of 4 202/393-4930 (ph) 202/393-4931 (fax) ebalaban@aclu.org *not admitted in D.C., practice limited to the federal courts CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is legally privileged. The information it contains is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 202.393.4930 and by return e-mail, and delete all copies of same.

From: Shari D'Andrade [mailto:Shari.D'Andrade@doj.vi.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 11:46 AM To: Eric Balaban Cc: David Bogard; Michael Gatling; Alicia Gathers; Benjamin A. Currence; Carol Jacobs;
Thomas, Bonnilyn; Kim Lyons (klyonsvi@gmail.com) Subject: Re: Carty-Site Visit in October

Those dates work for Defendants.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 30, 2015, at 5:55 PM, Eric Balaban <ebalaban@aclu.org> wrote: Apologies. We are trying now to determine our availability.

Eric Balaban* senior staff counsel ACLU National Prison Project 915 15th St., N.W. Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202/393-4930 (ph) 202/393-4931 (fax) ebalaban@aclu.org *not admitted in D.C., practice limited to the federal courts
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is legally privileged. The information it contains is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 202.393.4930 and by return e-mail, and delete all copies of same.

https://outlook.office365.com/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADY0NDVjZmQ3LWE1NmQtNDE5Ni04NDk5LTEyODBiYzc1MjlmM… 3/4

10/9/2015

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RRMe: CDartoy-cSuitemViesint int O#c:to8b4er3--S1hariFDi'Alenddr:ad1e0/09/15 Page 4 of 4
From: David Bogard [mailto:dbogard@pulitzerbogard.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:51 PM To: Shari D'Andrade Cc: Eric Balaban; Michael Gatling; Alicia Gathers; Benjamin A. Currence;
Carol Jacobs; Thomas, Bonnilyn; Kim Lyons (klyonsvi@gmail.com) Subject: Re: Carty-Site Visit in October

Counsel- may I please hear back from you regarding site visit days I proposed by tomorrow? Thank you.

David M. Bogard Pulitzer/Bogard & Associates, LLC P- 516,432.5177 C- 516.456.4944

On Jun 29, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Shari D'Andrade <Shari.D'Andrade@doj.vi.gov> wrote:
My apologies, David. I was unaware of the email because of technical issues with the email server. Defendants are conferring internally and will advise as to those dates.

Shari

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:25 PM, David Bogard <dbogard@pulitzerbogard.com> wrote:
Counsel- I previously wrote concerning tentative dates for our next site visit. Please confirm that the week of October 19-23 is acceptable to the parties so that we may plan our work and secure more affordable travel rates. Thank you.
David M. Bogard Principal Pulitzer/Bogard & Associates, LLC 516-432-5177 n Fax 516-432-3414 n Cell 516456-4944 www.pulitzerbogard.com

PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS [DBogard@PulitzerBogard.com]DBogard@Pulitzer Bogard.com

https://outlook.office365.com/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADY0NDVjZmQ3LWE1NmQtNDE5Ni04NDk5LTEyODBiYzc1MjlmM… 4/4

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843-2 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843-2 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2

10/7/2015

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM DRoe:cCuarmty ve. nMtap#p:- S8h4ar3i D-'3AndrFadieled: 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2

Re: Carty v. Mapp

Eric Balaban <ebalaban@aclu.org>
Fri 8/14/2015 7:13 PM Inbox
To:Shari D'Andrade <Shari.D'Andrade@doj.vi.gov>;
Cc:Alicia Gathers <agathers@aclu.org>; Carol Jacobs <Carol.Jacobs@doj.vi.gov>; bencurrence@gmail.com <bencurrence@gmail.com>;

Shari:
I sorry , but I do not have alternate dates readily available. Please tell me what personnel are unavailable that week, and I will be happy to reconsider the scope of my visit.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, "Shari D'Andrade" <Shari.D'Andrade@doj.vi.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Eric: Unfortunately, Defendants will not be able to accommodate you on those dates. We kindly ask that you provide reasonable advance notice so that we can coordinate schedules. Although on August 4, 2015, we represented to Dr. Austin that we were available that week, after Plaintiffs objected to him visiting and he acquiesced, other matters related to separate cases arose and were scheduled. Today, we made ourselves available to your co‐counsel for a site visit. Please provide proposed alternate dates in September.
Kind regards, Shari

From: Alicia Gathers <agathers@aclu.org> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 3:18 PM To: Shari D'Andrade; Carol Jacobs; bencurrence@gmail.com Cc: Eric Balaban Subject: Carty v. Mapp
Ms. D’Andrade,
Please see the attached correspondence from Mr. Balaban.
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADY0NDVjZmQ3LWE1NmQtNDE5Ni04NDk5LTEyODBiYzc1MjlmMgBGA… 1/2

10/7/2015

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM DRoe:cCuarmty ve. nMtap#p:- S8h4ar3i D-'3AndrFadieled: 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2

Thank you,

Alicia Gathers Paralegal/Legal Assistant National Prison Project of the ACLUF 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 ■ 202­548­6602 ■ agathers@aclu.org www.aclu.org
This message may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply email that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this email from your system.

https://outlook.office365.com/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADY0NDVjZmQ3LWE1NmQtNDE5Ni04NDk5LTEyODBiYzc1MjlmMgBGA… 2/2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843-4 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 1 of 1

34-38 KRONPRINDSENS GADE GERS COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR ST. THOMAS, VI 00802 (340) 774-5666 FAX: (340) 776-349

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

6040 ESTATE CASTLE COAKLEY DESIGN CENTER BUILDING
CHRISTIANSTED, ST. CROIX, VI 00820 (340) 773-0295 FAX: (340) 773-1425

August 17, 2015

Eric Balaban, Esq.
ACLU—National Prison Project 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005 Via Electronic Mail: ebalaban@aclu.org

RE: Carty v. Mapp, Case No. 3:94-cv-78 On-site Tour

Dear Attorney Balaban:

Thank you for adjusting the scope of your visit. Defendants’ counsel are unavailable during the week of August 24th and accordingly, object to you discussing any aspect of the case with Defendants,
including BOC correctional staff, civilian staff, administration and vendors outside of our presence.

Of course, you are entitled to meet with prisoners. We ask that you forward a list of prisoners whom you would like to speak with, so that Defendants can make them available to you in the attorneyclient room. During your visit you may also want to meet with additional prisoners. Once you’ve forwarded the names of these prisoners, Defendants will also make them available to you. The logbooks you have requested will be available for your review and inspection in the lounge between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

In light of defense counsel’s absence and your co-counsel’s recent on-site tour of both St. Thomas jails on August 14, 2015, we ask that you re-schedule your on-site tour to coincide with the security expert, Mr. Bogard’s, visit on November 2-6, 2015. Otherwise, Defendants and counsel are available on October 5-16, 2015. Please let us know which dates are most amenable to you.

Sincerely,

Shari N. D’Andrade Assistant Attorney General

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843-5 Filed: 10/09/15
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
6040 Castle Coakley Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 00820

Page 1 of 2
Tel: (340 773-0295 Fax: (340) 773-1425

October 7, 2015

Via Electronic Mail: ebalaban@aclu.org

Eric Balaban
ACLU
National Prison Project 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

RE: Carty v. Mapp, Civil No. 3:94-cv-78 Response to ACLU’s October 1, 2015 Correspondence Regarding Site Visit

Dear Attorney Balaban:

We are in receipt of your October 1, 2015 correspondence notifying us of your intended site visit on October 12 – 15, 2015. Unfortunately, counsel for Defendants are unavailable and Defendants cannot accommodate your site visit.

In August, during your co-counsel’s site visit to the St. Thomas jails, we indicated that because site visits generally last up to five days, we requested advance notice of proposed dates for such visits so that the parties can confer and select mutually agreeable dates. Despite this standing request, on August 13, 2015, you unilaterally scheduled a site visit for the week of August 24, 2015. In response, we re-asserted our request of advance notice, indicated counsel’s unavailability because of other matters, and requested that you reschedule the visit for any date in September, October 5-15, 2015 or November 2-6, 2015, the same dates of the security expert’s site visit. You, however, were unwilling to reschedule. We reluctantly accommodated and you visited the jails during the week of August 24, 2015.

Again, without conferring with us to select mutually agreeable dates, on October 1, 2015, you independently scheduled a site visit for October 12 – 15, 2015. We are surprised that the dates of the visit are the exact dates that we proposed back in August, to which you failed to respond and left the impression that the dates were inconvenient.
During the week of October 12th, counsel is unavailable and Defendants cannot accommodate this visit. Specifically, October 12th is a federal holiday and therefore, counsel and civilian staff at the St. Thomas jails (with the exception of nursing staff) are unavailable. Furthermore, security staff will be in training the week of the October 12th and Defendants will conduct a facility-wide, full-scale fire evacuation drill, tentatively set for October 14, 2015, that requires participation of all staff and prisoners.

In light of this, the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel has visited the facilities in February, April, and on two separate occasions in August of this year, and that you are expected on site on

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843-5 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2

Defendants’ response to ACLU’s October 1, 2015 Letter

Page 2

November 2-6, 2015 (during the security expert’s site visit), we ask that you forgo this visit. If you do not, Defendants can only make the prisoners available to you in the attorney-client room on October 12, 13, and 15. Finally, we avail ourselves to the exchange of proposed dates for future site visits.

Sincerely,

Shari N. D’Andrade Assistant Attorney General

cc: Benjamin Currence, Esq. (via email)

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843-6 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 843-6 Filed: 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 886 Filed: 02/26/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN *****************************

LAWRENCE CARTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. GOVERNOR KENNETH MAPP, ET AL.,
Defendants.

) CIVIL NO. 1994-78 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOTICE OF FILING OF QUARTERLY GOALS

COME NOW, Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, and following

the post-hearing conference with the Court on February 26, 2016, attached as Exhibit 1

are Defendants’ quarterly goals for the period ending on May 6, 2016.

February 26, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
CLAUDE EARL WALKER, ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: /s/ Shari N. D’Andrade___________ SHARI N. D’ANDRADE, ESQ. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL V.I. Bar. No. 1221 V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 6040 Estate Castle Coakley Christiansted, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 773-0295 Fax: (340) 773-1425 Email: shari.d’andrade@doj.vi.gov

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 886 Filed: 02/26/16 Page 2 of 2

Lawrence Carty v. Governor Kenneth Mapp, et al. Notice of Filing of Quarterly Goals

Civil No. 78/1994 Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 26, 2016, I electronically filed a true copy of the DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING OF QUARTERLY GOALS with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notification of such filing (NEF) to the following:

Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 Fax: (202) 393-4931 Email: ebalaban@npp-aclu.org

Benjamin A. Currence Law Offices of Benjamin A. Currence 5045 Norre Gade, Suite 2 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Telephone: (340) 775-3434 Fax: (340) 774-1001 Email: bencurrence@gmail.com

Carol Thomas-Jacobs Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 8050 Kronprindens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 Telephone: (340) 774-5666 Fax: (340) 776-3494 Email: cjacobs@doj.vi.gov

/s/ Shari N. D’Andrade

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 886-1 Filed: 02/26/16 Page 1 of 2

Defendants’ Quarterly Goals

BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - CARTY et al v. TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

QUARTERLY GOALS – PERIOD ENDING MAY 6, 2016

PROVISION

REF.

EXPERT

GOALS

Complete training and implementation of Administrative Directives

Sec. IV.H.1.d.,
f., g.;

Bogard

x Re-train staff that did not earn a passing score on the following Administrative Directives: o Use of Force De-escalation

IV.G.1.a.[v

o Pre Hearing Detention

ii.];

o Contraband

IV.I.1.f.;

o Keep Separates

IV.D.1.a-f;

o Outdoor Recreation

XI.1.e.;

o Maintaining Housing Posts

IV.B.1.e.

o Housing Unit Rounds

o Use of force Incident Reporting x Revise lesson plan for Use of Force Incident Reporting policy.

x Fully implement Administrative Directives.

Development and implementation of memorandum of understanding to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill prisoners in need of inpatient or intermediate care, or those in need of acute stabilization, to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility.
Defendants shall remedy all know security deficiencies and hazards at the Jail.
Defendants shall ensure that security systems and equipment are readily available to staff and in working order.
Defendants shall develop and implement policies regarding the operation and placement of security

Sec. Burns V.2.x.iii

Sec. IV C.1;
IV.C.1.m

Bogard

x Develop plan to address timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility.
x Develop a detailed plan for procurement and installation of new CCTV system (hardware and software) for both facilities. The plan must include all of the steps and approximate time frames for implementation, including but not limited to: identification of and initial consultation with potential vendors; description and work and technical requirements; identification of necessary funds based on informed capital estimates; estimated time frames to complete the work.

1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 886-1 Filed: 02/26/16 Page 2 of 2 cameras and the video monitoring system.
2

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 1 of 5

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

__________________________________________

:

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al.,

:

Civil No. 94-78

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

KENNETH MAPP, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

__________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPEDITED MOTION FOR COURT ORDER ACCEPTING AGREED UPON QUARTERLY GOALS
Defendants have submitted proposed Goals (Doc. 886-1) that do not abide by the parties’ agreement or the Court’s instructions following the February 26, 2016 hearing. Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to issue an order accepting the Goals as agreed upon during the meeting in the Court’s chambers on February 26, 2016, and requiring Defendants to produce a fourth goal for the quarter ending on May 6, 2016.
BACKGROUND On February 24, 2016, Defendants submitted their proposed quarterly goals to Plaintiffs and the joint experts. See Defs.’ Proposed Quarterly Goals (Ex. A). That same day, Plaintiffs responded with their proposed quarterly goals to Defendants and the joint experts. See Pls.’ Proposed Quarterly Goals (Ex. B). On February 25, 2016, Defendants submitted a revised list of proposed quarterly goals to Plaintiffs and the joint experts, in redline format. See Defs.’ Revised Proposed Quarterly Goals (Ex. C). On February 26, 2016, the parties conferred with the Court following the quarterly status hearing, during which the parties agreed to three quarterly goals as set forth by Defendants in their
1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 2 of 5
revised goals. The Court also instructed Defendants to select a fourth goal from those proposed by Plaintiffs. The goals agreed to by the parties include the following: (1) “Complete training and implementation of Administrative Directives,” which includes re-training staff that did not earn a passing score on the Administrative Directives, revising lesson plan for Use of Force Incident Reporting policy, and fully implementing Administrative Directives; (2) “Develop and implement MOU to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of inpatient or intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility;” and (3) “Develop a detailed plan for procurement and installation of new CCTV system (hardware and software) for both facilities. The plan must include all of the steps and approximate time frames for implementation, including but not limited to: identification of and initial consultation with potential vendors; description and work and technical requirements; identification of necessary funds based on informed capital estimates; estimated time frames to complete the work.”
On February 26, 2016, Defendants filed their quarterly goals with the Court. See Doc. 886. Defendants unilaterally, and without notice or the consent of Plaintiffs, changed the language for the goal relating to the development and implementation of a MOU to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of inpatient or intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility. See DE 886-1 (revising quarterly goal to require only a “plan to address timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of intermediate care,” and omitting language on those in need of inpatient care). Defendants also failed to propose a fourth goal.
2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 3 of 5
ARGUMENT I. THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT GOALS FOR THIS QUARTER AS AGREED TO
BY THE PARTIES DURING THE FEBRUARY 26, 2016 MEETING. A. The Court Should Adopt the Goal on Implementation of a Hospitalization Memorandum of Understanding as Written by Dr. Burns.
In their quarterly goals filed with the Court (DE 886-1), Defendants unilaterally altered the language of the goal on the development and implementation of a MOU to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of inpatient or intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility. The parties agreed to certain language during the meeting in the Court’s chambers on February 26, 2016, which tracks the language proposed by joint expert Dr. Kathryn A. Burns and the language in the Settlement Agreement. See Agreement ¶V.x.iii (“[D]evelopment and implementation of memorandum of understanding to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill prisoners in need of acute stabilization to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility.”). Plaintiffs request that the Court adopt the language that the parties agreed to, as set forth in proposed order.
B. The Court Should Order Defendants to Produce a Fourth Quarterly Goal as Agreed to During the February 26, 2016 Meeting.
Defendants also failed to propose a fourth goal as instructed by the Court during the February 26, 2016 meeting in the Court’s chambers. Defendants filed only three goals with the Court, despite specific instruction from the Court to select a fourth goal from Plaintiffs’ proposed quarterly goals that they believe they could readily achieve. As such, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order Defendants to produce a fourth goal within seven (7) days of this Motion.
3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 4 of 5

II. PLAINTIFFS ASK THE COURT TO EXPEDITE ITS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court shorten the period for Defendants to respond
to this Motion to this Wednesday, March 2, 2016, and expedite its consideration and ruling on this Motion. Shortening the timeframe will ensure that the goals are set at the beginning of the quarter, and that Defendants thereby have sufficient time to make progress towards compliance with the goals.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to issue an expedited ruling and grant this Motion for a Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals.

Dated: February 29, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ ERIC BALABAN Eric Balaban
National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 915 15th Street Seventh Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 393-4930
/s/ BENJAMIN CURRENCE Benjamin Currence Norre Gade 2nd Floor #12 P.O. Box 6143
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804-6143 340/775-3434
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

4

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on February 29, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading and exhibits were served by the Notice of Electronic Filing administered by this Court to the following counsel for Defendants at the following address:
Carol Thomas-Jacobs Asst. Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General GERS Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, USVI 00801 carol.jacobs@doj.vi.gov Shari D’Andrade Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General GERS Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 shari.d’andrade@doj.vi.gov
/s/ ERIC BALABAN Eric Balaban
5

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-1 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 1 of 1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

__________________________________________

:

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al.,

:

Civil No. 94-78

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

KENNETH MAPP, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

__________________________________________

DECLARATION OF ERIC BALABAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPEDITED MOTION FOR COURT ORDER ACCEPTING AGREED UPON QUARTERLY GOALS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Eric Balaban declares the following to be true and correct under penalty of perjury:
1. I am lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Proposed Quarterly Goals that Defendants submitted to Plaintiffs and the experts on February 24, 2016. 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Proposed Quarterly Goals that Plaintiffs submitted to Defendants and the experts on February 24, 2016. 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the revised Proposed Quarterly Goals that Defendants submitted to Plaintiffs and the experts on February 25, 2016. DATED this 29th day of February, 2016
/s/ ERIC BALABAN ERIC BALABAN

1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-2 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 1 of 3

Carty Experts-Revised Goals

BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - CARTY et al v. TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

PROPOSED QUARTERLY GOALS – PERIOD ENDING MAY 6, 2016

PROVISION

REF.

EXPERT

LEAD

GOALS

An adequate fire safety program with written

Sec. IV

Bogard

GD/KW

• Finalize Evacuation Plan for the CJC and the

evacuation plan reviewed by Local Fire authorities,

O.1.a

Annex and submit to VI Fire Service for

and posted evacuation routes throughout both

approval

facilities.

•

Complete training on Administrative Directives

Sec. IV.H.1.d.,
f., g.; IV.G.1.a.[v
ii.]; IV.I.1.f.; IV.D.1.a-f; XI.1.e.; IV.B.1.e.

Bogard

GD/ KW/ Compliance/
EH

• Re-train staff that did not successful receive a passing score on the following Administrative Directives o Use of Force De-escalation o Pre Hearing Detention o Contraband o Keep Separates o Outdoor Recreation o Maintaining Housing Posts o Housing Unit Rounds o Use of force Incident Reporting
• Revise lesson plan for Use of Force Incident Reporting policy.

Security Policies

Sec. IV. E.8, G & H Bogard

Compliance/ Finalize, the following policies

GD/KW

• Inmate Bedding and Clothing Policy

• Incident Reporting Policy

Draft the following policy: • Use of force policy and related forms, including sub-policies that cover use of reporting requires, supervisory and administrative review of use of force incidents, use of force continuum, use of force alternatives & de-escalation,

1
EXHIBIT A

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-2 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 2 of 3

Adequate suicide prevention

Sec. Burns V.2.l.i-xii

Implementation of specific policies on the use of seclusion or restraints on mentally ill prisoners consistent with professional guidelines

Sec. V.2.x, Burns vii.a-d

The development and implementation of an objective and validated system that classifies and appropriated houses detainees and sentenced prisoners . . .
Defendants shall remedy all know security deficiencies and hazards at the Jail.
Defendants shall ensure that security systems and equipment are readily available to staff and in working order.

Sec. IV.A. Austin 1.a

Sec. IV C.1;
IV.C.1.m

Bogard

2

GD, VC GD, VC
ES

impermissible uses of force, medical and mental health staff involvement, physical restraints and control techniques and tactics, less-lethal weapons/devices, use of mechanical restraints, use of deadly force, firearms and armory operations, video recording of use of force incidents, Special Operations Response Team (SORT), and Use of Force Training
• Complete suicide prevention policy, procedure and all related forms including a standardized risk assessment instrument, including identification and modification of a safe cell
• Prepare staff training materials and training schedule on suicide prevention policy and procedure.
• Complete Seclusion and Restraint policy, procedure and all related forms and logs.
• Prepare staff training materials and training schedule on seclusion and restraint policy and procedure.
• Complete validation study

EH/ • Develop a detailed plan for procurement and installation of new CCTV system (hardware and software) for both facilities. The plan must include all of the steps and approximate time frames for implementation, including but not limited to: identification of and initial

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-2 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 3 of 3

Defendants shall develop and implement policies regarding the operation and placement of security cameras and the video monitoring system.
TEAM
RM- Rick Mullgrav, Director EH- Everette Hansen, Assistant Director ES – Ernest Smithen, Classification Supervisor KW – Kelvin Williams, Assistant Warden GD- Gilbert David, Warden JW – Jimmy Warren, Chief Inspector VC- Vernita Charles, Health Services Administrator
COMPLIANCE – Bonnilyn Thomas, Kim Lyons

consultation with potential vendors; description and work and technical requirements; identification of necessary funds based on informed capital estimates; estimated time frames to complete the work.

3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-3 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 1 of 3

Carty Experts-RevisedPlaintiffs’ Proposed Quarterly Goals

BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - CARTY et al v. TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

PROPOSED QUARTERLY GOALS – PERIOD ENDING MAY 6, 2016

PROVISION

REF.

EXPERT

GOALS

An adequate fire safety program with written evacuation plan reviewed by Local Fire authorities,

Sec. IV O.1.a

Bogard

• Finalize Evacuation Plan for the CJC and the Annex and submit to VI Fire Service for approval

and posted evacuation routes throughout both

•

facilities.

Complete training on and implementation of Administrative Directives

Sec. IV.H.1.d.,
f., g.;

Bogard

• Re-train staff that did not successful receive a passing score on the following Administrative Directives o Use of Force De-escalation

IV.G.1.a.[v

o Pre Hearing Detention

ii.];

o Contraband

IV.I.1.f.;

o Keep Separates

IV.D.1.a-f;

o Outdoor Recreation

XI.1.e.;

o Maintaining Housing Posts

IV.B.1.e.

o Housing Unit Rounds

o Use of force Incident Reporting

• Revise lesson plan for Use of Force Incident Reporting policy.

• Fully implement Administrative Directives.

Security Policies

Sec. IV. E.8D, A, G Bogard
& H

Finalize and prepare for training, the following policies:
• Inmate Bedding and Clothing Policy • Incident Reporting Policy

• Draft the following policy: • Use of force policy and related forms, including sub-policies that
cover use of reporting requires, supervisory and administrative review of use of force incidents, use of force continuum, use of force alternatives & de-escalation, impermissible uses of force, medical and mental health staff involvement, physical restraints and control techniques and tactics, less-lethal weapons/devices, use of mechanical restraints, use of deadly force, firearms and

Formatted Table
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Font color: Custom Color(RGB(26,26,26)) Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"

1

EXHIBIT B

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-3 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 2 of 3

Adequate suicide prevention

Sec. Burns V.2.l.i-xii

Implementation of specific policies on the use of seclusion or restraints on mentally ill prisoners consistent with professional guidelines

Sec. V.2.x, Burns vii.a-d

Development and implementation of memorandum of understanding to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill prisoners in need of inpatient or intermediate care, or those in need of acute stabilization, to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility.
The development and implementation of an objective and validated system that classifies and appropriated houses detainees and sentenced prisoners . . .Defendants shall actively manage their prisoner population, including seeking pretrial detention alternatives and reduced bails, and offering sentences of time served for prisoners charged with misdemeanor and non-violent offenses.
Defendants shall remedy all know security deficiencies and hazards at the Jail.

Sec. V.2.x.iii
Sec. IV.A. 1.a
Sec. IV C.1;
IV.C.1.m

Burns Austin Bogard

Defendants shall ensure that security systems and

2

armory operations, video recording of use of force incidents, Special Operations Response Team (SORT), and Use of Force Training
• Complete suicide prevention policy, procedure and all related forms including a standardized risk assessment instrument, including identification and modification of a safe cells
• Prepare staff training materials and training schedule on suicide prevention policy and procedure.
• Complete Seclusion and Restraint policy, procedure and all related forms and logs.
• Prepare staff training materials and training schedule on seclusion and restraint policy and procedure.
• Develop and implement MOU to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of inpatient or intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility.

• Launch Criminal Justice assessment Complete validation study

Formatted Table

• Develop a detailed plan for procurement and installation of new CCTV system (hardware and software) for both facilities. The plan must include all of the steps and approximate time frames for implementation, including but not limited to: identification of

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-3 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 3 of 3

equipment are readily available to staff and in working order.
Defendants shall develop and implement policies regarding the operation and placement of security cameras and the video monitoring system.
TEAM
RM- Rick Mullgrav, Director EH- Everette Hansen, Assistant Director ES – Ernest Smithen, Classification Supervisor KW – Kelvin Williams, Assistant Warden GD- Gilbert David, Warden JW – Jimmy Warren, Chief Inspector VC- Vernita Charles, Health Services Administrator
COMPLIANCE – Bonnilyn Thomas, Kim Lyons

and initial consultation with potential vendors; description and work and technical requirements; identification of necessary funds based on informed capital estimates; estimated time frames to complete the work.
Formatted: No widow/orphan control, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers

3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-4 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 1 of 3

Carty Experts-RevisedPlaintiffs’Defendants’ Proposed Quarterly Goals

BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - CARTY et al v. TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

PROPOSED QUARTERLY GOALS – PERIOD ENDING MAY 6, 2016

PROVISION

REF.

EXPERT

GOALS

An adequate fire safety program with written evacuation plan reviewed by Local Fire authorities,

Sec. IV O.1.a

Bogard

• Finalize Evacuation Plan for the CJC and the Annex and submit to VI Fire Service for approval

and posted evacuation routes throughout both

•

facilities.

Complete training on and implementation of Administrative Directives

Sec. IV.H.1.d.,
f., g.;

Bogard

• Re-train staff that did not successful receive a passing score on the following Administrative Directives o Use of Force De-escalation

IV.G.1.a.[v

o Pre Hearing Detention

ii.];

o Contraband

IV.I.1.f.;

o Keep Separates

IV.D.1.a-f;

o Outdoor Recreation

XI.1.e.;

o Maintaining Housing Posts

IV.B.1.e.

o Housing Unit Rounds

o Use of force Incident Reporting

• Revise lesson plan for Use of Force Incident Reporting policy.

• Fully implement Administrative Directives.

Security Policies

Sec. IV. E.8D, A, G Bogard
& H

Finalize and prepare for lesson planstraining, for the following policies:
• Inmate Bedding and Clothing Policy • Incident Reporting Policy • • Draft the following policy: • Use of force policy and related forms, including sub-policies that
cover use of reporting requires, supervisory and administrative review of use of force incidents, use of force continuum, use of force alternatives & de-escalation, impermissible uses of force, medical and mental health staff involvement, physical restraints and control techniques and tactics, less-lethal weapons/devices,

1

EXHIBIT C

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-4 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 2 of 3

Adequate suicide prevention

Sec. Burns V.2.l.i-xii

Implementation of specific policies on the use of seclusion or restraints on mentally ill prisoners consistent with professional guidelines

Sec. V.2.x, Burns vii.a-d

Development and implementation of memorandum of understanding to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill prisoners in need of inpatient or intermediate care, or those in need of acute stabilization, to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility.
The development and implementation of an objective and validated system that classifies and appropriated houses detainees and sentenced prisoners . . .Defendants shall actively manage their prisoner population, including seeking pretrial detention alternatives and reduced bails, and offering sentences of time served for prisoners charged with misdemeanor and non-violent offenses.
Defendants shall remedy all know security deficiencies and hazards at the Jail.

Sec. V.2.x.iii
Sec. IV.A. 1.a
Sec. IV C.1;
IV.C.1.m

Burns Austin Bogard

2

use of mechanical restraints, use of deadly force, firearms and armory operations, video recording of use of force incidents, Special Operations Response Team (SORT), and Use of Force Training • Complete suicide prevention policy, procedure and all related forms including a standardized risk assessment instrument, including identification and modification of a safe cells • Prepare staff training materials and training schedule on suicide prevention policy and procedure. • Complete Seclusion and Restraint policy, procedure and all related forms and logs. • Prepare staff training materials and training schedule on seclusion and restraint policy and procedure. • Develop and implement MOU to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of inpatient or intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility.
• Launch Criminal Justice assessment Complete validation study
• Develop a detailed plan for procurement and installation of new CCTV system (hardware and software) for both facilities. The

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-4 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 3 of 3

Defendants shall ensure that security systems and equipment are readily available to staff and in working order.
Defendants shall develop and implement policies regarding the operation and placement of security cameras and the video monitoring system.
TEAM
RM- Rick Mullgrav, Director EH- Everette Hansen, Assistant Director ES – Ernest Smithen, Classification Supervisor KW – Kelvin Williams, Assistant Warden GD- Gilbert David, Warden JW – Jimmy Warren, Chief Inspector VC- Vernita Charles, Health Services Administrator
COMPLIANCE – Bonnilyn Thomas, Kim Lyons

plan must include all of the steps and approximate time frames for implementation, including but not limited to: identification of and initial consultation with potential vendors; description and work and technical requirements; identification of necessary funds based on informed capital estimates; estimated time frames to complete the work.
Formatted: No widow/orphan control, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers

3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-5 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

__________________________________________

:

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al.,

:

Civil No. 94-78

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

KENNETH MAPP, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

__________________________________________

ORDER Having considered Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED, and the following three quarterly goals are adopted for the quarter ending on May 6, 2016: 1. complete training and implementation of Administrative Directives, including re-
training staff that did not earn a passing score on the eight Administrative Directives (use of force de-escalation, use of force incident reporting, contraband control, prehearing detention, keep separates, outdoor recreation, Maintaining Housing Post Assignments, and Housing Unit Rounds); revising lesson plan for Use of Force Incident Reporting policy; and fully implementing the above listed Administrative Directives; 2. develop and implement MOU to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of inpatient or intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or mental health facility; and

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 887-5 Filed: 02/29/16 Page 2 of 2
3. develop a detailed plan for procurement and installation of a new CCTV system (hardware and software) for both facilities. The plan must include all of the steps and approximate time frames for implementation, including but not limited to: identification of and initial consultation with potential vendors; description and work and technical requirements; identification of necessary funds based on informed capital estimates; estimated timeframes to complete the work.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall propose a fourth goal within seven (7) days of this Order from those Plaintiffs proposed. SO ORDERED this _______ day of _________, 2016,
_____________________________ Hon. Judge Curtis V. Gomez

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 1 of 16

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

__________________________________________

:

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al.,

:

Civil No. 94-78

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

KENNETH MAPP, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

__________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER APPOINTING DR. JAMES AUSTIN TO CONDUCT A POPULATION MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT, OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO RE-APPOINT DR. AUSTIN Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to enforce its Order appointing James Austin, Ph.D. as its population management expert and ordering Dr. Austin to produce a criminal justice assessment aimed at reducing the prisoner population at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) and CJC Annex (collectively, “the Jail.”). June 21, 2011 Order (Doc. 695). In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask the Court to re-appoint Dr. Austin and order the he produce the criminal justice assessment he previously proposed. The grounds for this motion are set forth below.
Background The CJC and CJC Annex remain dangerous and mismanaged. The latest round of reports from court-appointed experts David Bogard and Kathryn Burns, M.D., M.P.H., paint a bleak picture of conditions at the Jail. The facilities are dangerously understaffed.1 Contraband,

1 “Insufficient staffing levels of both treatment and custody staff continue endangering the lives and safety of inmates and staff.” First Report of Kathryn Burns, MD, MPH on Compliance with Mental Health Provisions of the Settlement Agreement (“Burns Report”) (Doc. 786-1) at 1. Mr. Bogard’s Oct. 1, 2014 Staffing Plan requires a near-doubling of corrections staff, with 36
1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 2 of 16
including weapons and drugs, is readily available.2 Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults occur
regularly.3 Instances of potential excessive uses of force are not investigated.4 Staff is woefully
additional corrections officers, 3 additional sergeants and 4 additional lieutenants Oct. 1, 2014 Staffing Plan Report (“Staffing Plan”) (App. 1, Doc. 788-1) at 23. There are too few officers to make the required 15-minute cell checks on all prisoners and this is a particularly implicates the special management units. Final Baseline Security Report, David M. Bogard (“Bogard Report”) (Doc. 788-1). ¶IVB.6. There are also not enough officers to maintain established supervision protocols for prisoners at high risk of suicide. Id. Staff themselves attempt to explain the problems of inadequate supervision as a function of chronic understaffing. Id. at 23. 62% of all officers are working 40-60% more than their regularly scheduled 40-hour workweek. These numbers are problematic, and moreover the impact of overtime is significantly compounded by the current practice of overtime primarily as second shift, meaning that officers are regularly working 16 consecutive hours. Staffing Plan at 5. “Requiring officers to work large amounts of overtime on a regular basis in a jail setting is a dangerous practice. It is simply impossible for officers to maintain the requisite level of vigilance over that many hours, and the result can be poor decision making, excessive force due to exhaustion, and falling asleep while on duty.” Id.
2 Staff are rarely subject to random, unannounced, lawful searches for the purpose of contraband control. Bogard Report at 41. Verbal reports from staff and prisoners confirm the bartering and selling of contraband. Id. Prisoners were observed in both jails using and keeping contraband created from issued property and rules regarding this type of contraband are not enforced. Id. at 56. Contraband policies are undermined by inadequate or inoperable CCTV, the outdoor recreation area remaining vulnerable to undetected contraband, and understaffing contributing to inadequate prisoner searches. Id. at 54. Incident reports from Cluster 1, the mental health cluster, describe inmate-on-inmate assaults that “involve the use of shanks and other weapons.” Burns Report at 19.
3 BOC reports more than 100 inmate/inmate assaults and disturbances occurred at CJC from 2012 until April 2014. Staffing Plan at 4. During that period there were very few formal administrative investigations despite many or most of those 100 violent events involving a use of force. Id. at 9. Prisoner assaults have occurred as a result of lax security practices involving the operation of security gates, housing unit doors and cell doors that had been left unlocked. Bogard Report at 42. Incident reports from the mental health unit (Cluster 1) “are filled with reports of inmate-on-inmate physical fights, assaults and attacks requiring emergency transport to the outside hospital for physical care. Some of these incidents involve the use of shanks and other weapons.” Burns Report at 19.
4 There remains no policy for establishing permissible forms of force and the administrative review of use of force is inconsistent and underreports incidents. Bogard Report at 76. “In the past two and a half years BOC reports only one investigation of staff for improper use of force.” Id . at 85. Some staff did not prepare reports when involved in or witness to the use of force, reports that were prepared failed to provide essential descriptive details or documented whether there were required notifications, authorizations, approvals related to the use of force techniques and/or restraint devices. Id. at 83. “The significant inadequacies of these incident reports and the
2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 3 of 16
undertrained.5 Prisoner supervision is often non-existent.6 Security practices are lax and, at
times, dangerous.7 The seriously mentally ill are left to languish essentially untreated, and are
often victimized by fellow prisoners and staff.8
fact that such a high percentage were flawed, raises significant concerns about both policy as it relates to identifying the requirements for use of force documentation, and also training.” Id.
5 Chronic understaffing undermines in-service training, but to date BOC has not provided any documentation regarding training curricula or evidence of actual staff training. Bogard Report at 119. “The absence of official policies and procedures means that staff can’t be reasonably trained in the agency’s norms and expectations.” Id. The pre-service training, POST, is geared towards law enforcement and does not prepare future corrections officers for jail specific practices. Id. at 107. Documentation clearly reveals that employees are not receiving their 40 annual hours of in-service training. Id. One specific deficiency is the training in use of self— contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), which could delay emergency response. Id. at 37.
6 Staff primarily conduct hourly cell checks instead of “approximately every fifteen minutes” leaving prisoners largely with no direct contact or supervision . Bogard Report at 23. This is exacerbated by the practice of having custody staff leave prisoner-occupied housing units unsupervised for extended periods in order to provide additional coverage during meal service. Id. Housing unit staff also leave their respective housing units with unsecured and unsupervised inmates while they provide escort and supervision duties related to recreation. Id. Even with officers present, housing unit staff allow prisoners to partially and/or completely cover cell doors with sheets, staff wear headphones while on duty, and inconsistently enforce rules and regulations. Bogard Report at 28.
7 Mr. Bogard concludes that “the vast majority of [security] deficiencies and hazards identified previously remain unabated.” Bogard Report at 35 There are recurrent lapses in housekeeping tool control, largely due to staff not consistently ensuring that utility closest are locked or that access is controlled at all times. Id. at 40. Incident reports further revealed that “prisoner assaults have occurred as a result of security gates, housing unit doors and cell doors being left unlocked.” Id. at 42. CCTV also remains inoperable at the Annex and CJC has insufficient camera coverage in the cameras that are operable. Id. at 42.
8 “Mental health care at CJC is deficient in virtually every aspect.” Burns Report at 22. The lack of policies or procedures, insufficient staffing levels, limited treatment and interventions available, no adequate suicide prevention program, and lack of appropriate safe housing all threaten those prisoners who are mentally ill. Id. Further, detention staff are untrained on work with prisoners with mental illness, resulting in the use of physical force, restraints, and lock down as substitutes for treatment. Id. Additionally, at the time Dr. Burns made her report there were two prisoners who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, who after being hospitalized and discharged, were returned to the jail and continued to be held in custody for over a year without any current or pending charges. Burns Report at 1. Dr. Burns was
3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 4 of 16
These problems are not new. They have plagued the Jail since this case was filed. They have endured despite the Court approving and adopting the 1994 Settlement Agreement, entering numerous subsequent remedial orders, and holding Defendants in contempt four separate times. In 2013 the Court approved a new Settlement Agreement, which incorporates virtually all existing remedies, adds new ones, and is designed to set “a long-overdue path to ensuring Defendants’ compliance in this case.” Pl. Memo in Support of Mot. To Approve Class Settlement (Doc. 775-2) at 24, incorporated by reference into Aug. 29, 2013 Order (Doc. 780).
Despite the promise of a new Agreement, little has changed at the Jail. The very first remedy listed in the 2013 Agreement requires Defendants to reduce the Jail’s prisoner population:
Defendants shall actively manage their prisoner population, including seeking pretrial detention alternatives and reduced bails, and offering sentences of time served for prisoners charged with misdemeanors and non-violent offenses. 2013 Settlement Agreement (Doc. 765-1) ¶IVA.1. This is not a new remedy: The 1994 Settlement Agreement had an almost identical provision. See 1994 Settlement Agreement ¶I.8 I(similar language). This population reduction remedy is foundational; compliance with it makes it easier to reach compliance with all other substantive provisions of the Agreement. The fewer prisoners there are at the Jail, the easier it is to supervise them appropriately, to house them safely, to separate known enemies, and to provide them with all services required under the Agreement.
particularly concerned with the use of injectable mediation without any administrative authorization and the use of physical restraint to force inmates to take oral medications, two practices that she urged to “stop immediately.” Id. at 9. “Inmates experiencing mental health crises are not receiving treatment to address or eliminate the crises. This creates an increased risk of harm, including self-injury, inmate on inmate or staff injury and staff on inmate injury.” Id. at 11. The mental health staff are not adequately present at CJC/Annex and there are troubling practices in both their documentation and lack of appropriate equipment. Id. at 15-16.
4

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 5 of 16
The fewer seriously mentally ill prisoners who are housed at the Jail, the easier it is to adequately treat and safely house the remaining mentally ill prisoner population.
But, reducing the prisoner population would have a more immediate effect than easing the path to compliance. All of the problems that Mr. Bogard and Dr. Burns identified would be mitigated if the Jail held fewer prisoners. The chronic understaffing and lax security practices would pose less of a risk, since there would be fewer prisoners to manage. The mistreatment and warehousing of the mentally ill would be alleviated because fewer mentally ill prisoners would be held at the Jail.
Despite the importance of the population reduction provision, Defendants have never complied with it. In 2009, corrections expert Steve Martin found that there was little evidence that Defendants had actively managed the prisoner population. Mar. 23, 2009 Report of Steve J. Martin (Doc. 585) at 21. Mr. Martin further found that prisoners had been held longer than their maximum possible sentences while awaiting trial on minor charges, or had been held in excess of one year awaiting trial. Id. Among the examples he cited was prisoner AW, who had been incarcerated for 103 days on a disturbance of the peace charge, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 90 days. See 14 VI Code Ann. §622. Another prisoner, MB, had been incarcerated since January 3, 2005 (1376 days) on second degree assault and destruction of property charges. Prisoner JJ had been incarcerated for 133 days on a simple assault charge, a crime that carries a maximum 6 month sentence. See 14 VI Code Ann.§299.
In light of this record, the Court appointed James Austin, Ph.D. as its population management expert, and ordered Dr. Austin to complete an assessment of the Territory’s criminal justice system that
5

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 6 of 16
(1) analyzes the Territory’s criminal justice processes and policies that affect the population level at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) and CJC Annex [collectively, “the Jail”], (2) includes strategies and remedies to address those processes and policies so that the population level at the Jail can be reduced without significantly affecting public safety, (3) includes a baseline population forecast that would advise the territory on the impact of current criminal justice trends, (4) identifies realistic options that have been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions that will reduce the need for future beds, and (5) assesses the existing classification and disciplinary systems at the Jail and provides technical assistance to Defendants so they can make the best use of existing bed space to safely and appropriately house the prisoner population. June 21, 2011 Order (Doc. 695). Dr. Austin is a nationally-recognized expert who has assisted states and counties around the country to safely reduce their prisoner populations while enhancing public safety by implementing evidence-based criminal justice practices. See Ex. C (Austin curriculum vitae). Dr. Austin has not conducted his court-ordered criminal justice assessment. Four months after the Court appointed Dr. Austin, Defendants filed a motion to reconsider his appointment. See Mot. For Reconsideration or Modification of the Court’s Order Appointing James Austin (Doc. 705). Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion. Pl. Resp. to Mot. For Reconsideration or Modification of the Court’s Order Appointing James Austin (Doc. 719). Defendants failed to file a reply, and the Court has not ruled on Defendants’ motion. On May 10, 2015, Dr. Austin sent an email to counsel notifying them that he wanted to make a site visit in June 2015 for the purpose of conducting his criminal justice assessment, and asked the parties to suggest personnel he should meet with to do this work. See Ex. A (5/10/15 Austin email). Eleven days later, Defendants responded that they would not provide a list of
6

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 7 of 16
personnel to Dr. Austin since they were “unaware of any provision of the Settlement Agreement that speaks to a criminal justice assessment.” See Ex. B (5/21/15 D’Andrade email).
I. THE COURT SHOULD DENY DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY RECONSIDERAITON MOTION AND ORDER THEM TO COMPLY WITH ITS ORDER APPOINTING DR. AUSTIN.
The Court’s 2011 Order appointing Dr. Austin remains in effect, and Dr. Austin is prepared to begin his criminal justice assessment. The Court should order Defendants to comply with the Order, and provide Dr. Austin with access to “any records and personnel with their control that he deems necessary to complete his work, and that they and th[e] Court shall use their best efforts to ensure that Dr. Austin has access to any other documents or personnel that are not within Defendants' control that he deems necessary to complete his work.” June 21, 2011 Order at 2 (Doc. 695).
Defendants’ reconsideration motion remains pending. The Court should deny that motion, for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’ response (Doc. 719). The motion was filed more than three months after the 14-day deadline for reconsideration motion under Local Rule 7.3, and therefore should not be considered. See Doc. 719 at 1-2.
The Court should deny Defendants’ motion even if it considers their untimely objections. Defendants argue that Dr. Austin’s appointment violated the limits on “prospective relief” in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §3626(a), and that Dr. Austin’s review was territorywide, and thus beyond the scope of this case. See Doc. 705 at 2-6. The federal courts consistently have held that the appointment of an expert, like Dr. Austin, is not “prospective relief” under the PLRA, and Dr. Austin’s work was expressly limited to assessing the St. Thomas prisoner population under the terms of the Court’s June 2011 Order. See Doc. 719 at 3-6.
7

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 8 of 16
Defendants now refuse to comply with the Court’s Order and cooperate with Dr. Austin because the 2013 Settlement Agreement “does not mention a criminal justice assessment.” See Ex. B. While true, this is immaterial. There was no need for the Agreement to require a criminal justice assessment since the 2011 Order did so.
The 2013 Agreement’s population reduction remedy is almost identical to the 1994 Agreement’s remedy that was the premise for Dr. Austin’s 2011 appointment. (Doc. 765-1) To this day, Defendants continue to disregard this remedy. They hold prisoners at the Jail past their maximum sentences, and indefinitely detain at least one prisoner with no charges. See Part II, infra. Holding these men at the jail strains an already broken system. Dr. Austin has helped prisons and jails around the country reduce their populations safely. Even a small reduction at the Jail could have a very positive effect, and would reduce the serious risks to prisoners and staff safety that Mr. Bogard and Dr. Burns have detailed.
Dr. Austin’s assessment can be a powerful means to monitor and ensure compliance with the population reduction remedy. Rather than displacing his appointment, the 2013 Agreement explicitly retains all “rights and responsibilities for monitoring, reporting and compliance” established by previous orders. (Agreement ¶VII. at 21). Under the 2011 Order, Defendants therefore remain responsible for cooperating with Dr. Austin’s criminal justice assessment.
The 2013 Agreement does supersede all previous remedies (Agreement ¶VIII.P.7.). But, Dr. Austin’s appointment is not a remedy. It merely is a means to effectuate a remedy. His appointment does not change the legal relationship between the parties. It does not create new substantive legal rights for Plaintiffs. It does not redress Defendants’ violation of the population reduction remedy. It does not require the release of a single prisoner. It also does not require
8

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 9 of 16
Defendants to change a single aspect of operations or conditions at the Jail or in their criminal justice system.
Dr. Austin’s appointment is therefore most akin to the appointment of a court expert or special master to oversee implementation of remedies in institutional litigation. Federal courts uniformly have held in the analogous situation that these appointments in prison conditions cases are not “relief” subject to the restrictions of the PLRA. See Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126, 128, 133 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that the appointment of an expert to make findings and recommendations regarding bed space in the Louisiana prison system is not prospective relief subject to the PLRA); see also Coleman v. Brown, No. 2:90-cv-0520, 2013 WL 4780945 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2013) (concluding that order requiring the special master to report on staffing levels and adequacy of inpatient prison programs was not relief under the statute); see also Madrid v. Gomez, 940 F. Supp. 247, 250 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (“a Special Master is simply a device utilized by the Court to assist in the formulation of appropriate relief or to monitor relief that is ordered. The appointment, however, is not itself relief.”); Benjamin v. Jacobson, 156 F. Supp. 2d 333, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“[M]onitoring itself, independent of the conditions to be monitored, cannot be relief. Monitoring merely informs the court and the parties where the defendants are in the process of providing the ordered relief. To find otherwise would conflate relief with the means to guarantee its provision.”); Coleman v. Wilson, 933 F. Supp. 954, 957 (E.D. Cal. 1996) (special master not prospective relief under the PLRA); cf. Carruthers v. Jenne, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (counsel’s monitoring under consent decree is not prospective relief since “monitoring is not an ultimate remedy and only aids the prisoners in obtaining relief.”).
As the Madrid Court reasoned, the appointment of a special master does not result in “the actual change in the legal relations or in defendants’ conduct or actions that cures the legal
9

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 10 of 16
wrong and makes plaintiff whole.” Madrid 940 F. Supp. at 250. This same reasoning applies to Dr. Austin’s appointment here. Nothing in the 2011 Order obligates Defendants to make a single change in operations or conditions at the Jail or elsewhere. Though Dr. Austin will make recommendations for reforms, the Order does not require Defendants to implement any of them. Therefore, Dr. Austin’s appointment is no more a “remedy” superseded by the 2013 Agreement than it is “relief” subject to the PLRA.
Notably, the Territory has acknowledged in the United States’ lawsuit regarding conditions at the Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility (ACF) that the appointment of a special master “is simply a means of achieving previously ordered relief, rather than a form of relief itself.” United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, 884 F. Supp. 2d 399, 409 n.5 (D.V.I. 2012). In this regard, Dr. Austin’s appointment here operates in the same manner as the appointment of the special master in the ACF litigation.
II. THE COURT SHOULD RE-APPOINT DR. AUSTIN IF IT FINDS THAT ITS 2011 APPOINTEMNT HAS LAPSED.
Over forty years ago, the Supreme Court held that “an injunction often requires continuing supervision by the issuing court and always a continuing willingness to apply its powers and processes on behalf of the party who obtained that equitable relief.” System Fed’n No. 91, Ry. Employees’ Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 647 (1961). When faced with particularly obstinate Defendants in an institutional reform case such as this one, one tool courts have used with great success is the appointment of a neutral expert to oversee implementation of remedies, and to report to the Court on compliance efforts. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161-62 (5th Cir. 1982) (upholding appointment of a court monitor to oversee implementation of a prison conditions decree under the court’s inherent powers); United States v.
10

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 11 of 16
Michigan, 680 F. Supp. 928, 962 (W.D. Mich. 1987) (appointing an independent expert pursuant
to Fed. R. Evid. 706 to oversee implementation of a prison conditions consent decree); Morales
Feliciano v. Romero Barcelo, 672 F. Supp. 591, 623 (D.P.R. 1986) (appointing a court monitor
to oversee implementation of a consent decree addressing Puerto Rico prison conditions, noting
the court’s “inherent equitable power to appoint a person . . . to assist it in administering in a
remedy.”); cf. Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 612 F. 2d. 84, 11 (3d Cir.
1979) (upholding appointment of a special master to implement a state hospital consent decree
which likely would be “a complex and lengthy process, probably involving monitoring, dispute
resolution, and the development of detailed enforcement mechanisms.”).
Mr. Bogard and Dr. Burns have both made it painfully clear that the Jail is in crisis.
Defendants have compounded the problem by flouting the population reduction remedy. There
continue to be prisoners who are held at the Jail awaiting trial for far longer than their maximum
possible sentence. These include the following:
Delvin Durant: On Aug. 15, 2014, the Virgin Islands Superior Court entered an Order in People v Durant, Crim. No. ST-13-CR-154. It states that Mr. Durant was charged with two counts of simple assault and battery and one count of disturbing the peace. The statutory maximum for simple assault is 6 months and for disturbing the peace is 90 days. At the time of the Order, Mr. Durant had been in custody since April 2, 2013 (500 hundred days), far in excess of the maximum imprisonment sentence. The Court orders the charges dismissed.
Kenson Jolly: There is a May 9, 2014 Order from People v. Jolly, Crim. No. ST13-MMS-22 stating that Mr. Jolly was charged with disturbance of the peace, with a statutory maximum penalty of 90 days. Mr. Jolly had been in custody since Dec. 14, 2013 (146 days), “unable to post bail and far in excess of the maximum sentence required by law.” Mr. Jolly’s criminal charges were dismissed with prejudice, but he remained jailed until May 27, 2014, when he was transferred to the behavioral unit of RLS Hospital via a March 7, 2014 involuntary commitment order secured by his court-appointed guardian.9
9 3/7/14 Order in re Jolly, VI Superior Ct family division involuntary commitment #5/2012. 11

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 12 of 16
Jahniah Peters: There is a Jan. 16, 2015 Order in People v. Peters, Crim. No. ST-14-CR-254, dismissing the charges against Mr. Peters with prejudice since he had served more than six months, longer than the maximum sentence for his charged offense. Prisoner GL: Mr. GL was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) of first degree murder charges in 1998. He remained housed in BOC and Department of Health facilities until he was transferred to the Sylmar Health & Behavioral Center (Calif.) on Mar. 17, 2009. He was discharged back to the CJC on Jan. 29, 2013, where he has remained since. There are no pending charges against Mr. GL. Dr. Burns, who has 25 years of experience in correctional mental health, and has assessed over 100 prisons and jails around the country, stated that she knows of no other correctional system that keeps NGRI patients like Mr. GL indefinitely housed in a jail, rather than discharging them to a hospital for appropriate treatment. See Feb. 23, 2015 hearing tr. at 97:22-24, 129:24-131:21 (Burns). Dr. Austin is eminently qualified to conduct a criminal justice assessment that will set a path to safely reducing the Jail’s population. He has successfully collaborated with local and state correctional officials around the country to help them reduce their prison and jail populations through reliance on community-based alternatives to incarceration, at considerable savings to the taxpayers and without risk to public safety. He has participated in producing major jail master plans and assessments on such major urban jails as Cook County, IL; Bexar County and Harris County, TX; Baltimore City, MD; and Washington, DC. He is currently working in more than ten jurisdictions to help prison and jail officials reduce crowding and improve correctional facility conditions. He was a principal expert relied on by the three-judge panel in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger and Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Cal.2009) in addressing whether and how California can safely reduce prison overcrowding, at great financial savings to the state. Id. at 914 n.39, 923, 926, 970, 972, 975-980, 982-983. 988. 990991, 997-999 & ns.88-91. He currently is serving as the Court’s Fed. R. Evid. 706 population
12

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 13 of 16
management expert in Carruthers v. Israel, No. 76-6086 (S.D. Fla.), appointed to devise a population management plan and a baseline population estimate for the Broward County, Fl. Jail.
Dr. Austin filed a declaration in 2011 setting out his methodology and schedule for completing a criminal justice assessment. He has reviewed this declaration, and confirms that he can complete a comprehensive assessment using the same methodology within six months, assuming he receives the cooperation, and access to data, he needs to carry out his work. See Balaban Dec. ¶ 2. The fact that Dr. Austin would serve as this Court’s expert should speed his access to the files and personnel he needs to carry out his duties, as set forth in the appended proposed Order.
Finally, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants bear the costs of Dr. Austin’s appointment, as the Court ordered in 2011. See Doc. 695 at 2. Rule 706 permits this Court to allocate courtappointed expert costs to one party. The commentary to Rule 706’s precursor states:
No doubt in the usual case the judge will provide that the expense of the experts shall be taxed as cost and paid by the loser. He may require the parties to contribute proportionate shares of the fee in advance. He may think it wise to excuse an impecunious party from paying his proportionate share. United States Marshal’s Service v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1057-59 (8th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (citing Model Code of Evidence, Rule 410 as the “basis of current Fed. R. Evid. 706,” and upholding an order requiring the Government to advance the costs of a court-appointed expert for indigent defendants). See Fed. R. Evid. 706 (b) ( ”the compensation [of a Rule 706 expert] shall be paid by the parties in such proportion and at such time as the court directs.”); see also McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th Cir.) (district court may apportion all of the Rule 706 expert costs to one party), vacated on other grounds, 502 U.S. 903 (1991). Here, it is Defendants abiding non-compliance that has harmed Plaintiffs and resulted in the ongoing enforcement proceedings in this case. Given that Plaintiffs are prisoners, and do not
13

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 14 of 16
have the resources of the Virgin Islands government, it is appropriate for Defendants to bear Dr. Austin’s costs. See, e.g., Nelson v. Dawson, 2009 WL 453965, at *9 (D. Idaho Feb. 20, 2009) (allocating all costs of a Rule 706 expert to prison officials, noting that the prisoner plaintiffs are indigent); Carruthers, Case No. 76-6086, slip op. at 3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2001) (apportioning the costs of two Rule 706 experts to Defendants, given that the prisoner plaintiffs were indigent and it was Defendants’ “conduct [that] occasioned these proceedings.). Plaintiffs believe that the Dr. Austin’s work will lead to long-term reductions in the prisoner population at the Jail, which in turn could result in significant cost-savings for Defendants. By way of example, New Orleans saved an estimated 2 million dollars in just the first three months after implementing one of the reforms Dr. Austin recommended through his work on the parish’s criminal justice system.10
Conclusion It has been over 20 years since the Court first ordered Defendants to actively manage its prisoner population so that there are as few men and women held at the jail as is necessary. Defendants have flouted this remedy since. The dangerous conditions and security hazards at the Jail that the parties’ experts have documented require action now by the Court. The appointment of Dr. Austin can lead to compliance with the population management remedy, and set a path to permanent reductions in the prisoner population that will ease the risks prisoners and staff currently face at the Jail.
10 Matt Davis, Changes in NOPD’s arrest policies save city nearly $2 million in jail fees so far this year, THE LENS (New Orleans), Mar. 29, 2011, available at. http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/story/The-Lens-Changes-in-NOPD-s-arrest-policiessave/Qz7hqcyi5UqeqER9Tn4Xug.cspx
14

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 15 of 16

Dated: June 2, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ ERIC BALABAN Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 915 15th Street Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 393-4930
/s/ BENAJAMIN CURRENCE Benjamin Currence Norre Gade 2nd Floor #12 P.O. Box 6143 St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804-6143 340/775-3434
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading, and accompanying declaration, exhibits, and proposed Order were served by the Notice of Electronic Filing administered by this Court to the following counsel for Defendants at the following address:
Carol Thomas-Jacobs Asst. Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General GERS Bldg., 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade
15

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 819 Filed: 06/02/15 Page 16 of 16 St. Thomas, USVI 00801 cjacobs@doj.vi.gov Shari D’Andrade Assistant Attorney General Virgin Island Department of Justice GERS Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 sdandrade@doj.vi.gov
/s/Eric Balaban Eric Balaban
16

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 1 of 12

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

_________________________________________________

:

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al.,

:

:

Civil No. 94-78

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

:

JOHN DEJONGH, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

_________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF JAMES AUSTIN AS THE COURT’S POPULATION MANAGEMENT AND CLASSIFICIATION EXPERT
Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to appoint James Austin, Ph.D., as an expert pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 706 and its inherent powers, and order that Mr. Austin (1) conduct an analysis of the territory’s criminal justice processes and policies that affect the population level at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) and CJC Annex [collectively, “the Jail”], (2) develop strategies and remedies to address those processes and policies so that the population level at the Jail can be reduced without significantly affecting public safety, (3) develop a baseline population forecast that would advise the territory on the impact of current criminal justice trends, (4) identify realistic options that have been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions that will reduce the need for future beds, and (5) assess the existing classification and disciplinary systems at the Jail and provide technical assistance to Defendants so they can make the best use of existing bed space to safely and appropriately house the prisoner population. The grounds for this motion are set forth below.

1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 2 of 12
Background This Court has entered a number of orders setting population caps, requiring Defendants to seek pretrial detention alternatives to reduce the prisoner population, or otherwise remedy conditions at the Jail that are caused or exacerbated by overcrowding. See, e.g., Settlement Agreement, Section I (Population) (instituting a population cap and requiring security checks and special housing for segregation and protective custody prisoners). The Agreement specifically requires Defendants to reduce the number of newly admitted prisoners, and the lengths of stay of its current population by “seek[ing] pretrial detention alternatives, reduc[ing] bails, and . . . offer[ing] sentences of time served for prisoners charged with misdemeanors and non-violent offenses.” See id. ¶I.8. The Court has also ordered remedies to ensure that prisoners are safely and appropriately housed, and that there is sufficient staff to supervise them adequately. See, e.g. id. ¶VI.A.2. (requiring implementation of an objective classification system consistent with National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Guidelines), Jan 31, 2001 Order (dkt. 325), ¶ (ordering Defendants to hire and retain sufficient custody staff to provide for the health, security and safety of all prisoners; to respond to emergencies; to appropriately monitor prisoners; and to permit for foreseeable illness, vacation, attrition, and training). This Court has twice found Defendants in contempt of these remedial provisions. In 1997, the Court held that the officers’ failure to monitor the housing units through on-site rounds, the severe overcrowding at the CJC, and the Defendants’ failure to implement an objective classification system had resulted in numerous violent assaults at the jail. See Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F. Supp. 727, 743 (D.V.I. 1997) 740. In 2003, the Court again found Defendants in contempt of the Agreement=s supervision provision and of its 2001 staffing order, finding that Athe jail remains dangerously under-
2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 3 of 12
staffed, despite this Court=s Order.@ Carty v. Turnbull, Civil No. 94-78 (D.V.I. May 28, 2003) (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contempt Motion), slip op. at 44.
Corrections expert Steve Martin conduced two inspections of the Jail in November 2008 and June 2009 and found that it remained seriously understaffed. Mr. Martin observed a number of clusters with no assigned officer present either in the unit or the control office, leaving the prisoners in these units unsupervised. June 2, 2009 hearing tr. 35:1-13 (Martin). This extremely dangerous security breach puts the lives and safety of prisoners at risk. Because there are too few officers to provide utility support (escorting prisoners, supervising visitation, etc.), cluster officers often perform tasks other than cellblock supervision, which take them away from their assigned posts, leaving prisoners in those clusters unsupervised. Report of Plaintiffs’ Expert Steve J. Martin (Hereinafter “Martin Report”), admitted as Pl. Ex. 2, June 2, 2009 hearing tr 15:16, at 12. Also, two officers are routinely assigned to manage four clusters (3&4 and 5&6). Id. This also creates an unacceptable security risk, particularly when the cluster officer must leave the control office unattended. Id.
The dangers of leaving mentally ill prisoners unattended are particularly acute, yet both Mr. Martin and mental health expert Jeffrey Metzner, M.D. documented serious security breaches that occurred in the Jail’s mental health unit due in part to a lack of adequate officer supervision, as well as overcrowding and triple-celling in the mental health unit. See, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [“Findings”] (dkt. ) ¶¶41-44.
The Jail’s chronic understaffing has resulted in officers being routinely required to work double shifts. June 2, 2009 hearing tr. 36:18-37:1 (Martin). Mr. Martin, who has 38 years experience in corrections, and has site visited over 500 corrections facilities, characterized the
3

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 4 of 12
amount of double-shifting as “staggering.” Id. 36:22-24 (Martin). As a result of this regular doubleshifting, security is obviously compromised through officer fatigue, boredom, and inattentiveness. June 2, 2009 hearing tr. 37:4-9 (Martin). Also, such routine double-shifting evidences chronic staff shortages. Id. 37:14-23 (Martin) Moreover, officers who very often work double-shifts are more prone to utilize sick leave, exacerbating staff shortages. Id.
Bureau of Corrections Director Julius Wilson told Mr. Martin that the BOC had had problems recruiting qualified candidates for vacant deputy positions. Id. 86:3-11 (Martin). Mr. Wilson has attempted to broaden the applicant pool to attract more qualified candidates, and planned to train a group of new officer candidates. Id. 86:24-87:2 (Martin). Mr. Wilson’s efforts, however, have not resolved the rampant understaffing at the jail. When Mr. Martin toured the jail on June 1, 2009, he continued to find critical security posts unmanned, and prisoners left unsupervised. June 2, 2009 hearing tr. 35:1-13 (Martin).
The Jail’s chronic understaffing persists. At the September 29, 2010 hearing, Warden Everette Hansen testified that at the time Defendants were supposed to reach compliance with the Agreement, there were about 77 officers working at the Jail. See Sept. 29, 2010 hearing tr. 6:22-7:1 (Hansen). As of last September, there were 44 officers working at the Jail, with four more set to retire shortly. Id. 7:4-9 (Hansen). As the evidence showed at the June 2009 hearing, this understaffing compromises basic security and operations throughout the facility, has contributed to the high level of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, and has led to a litany of security breaches, all of which endanger both prisoners and staff. These problems continue. On several occasions, staff have simply left their posts and the Jail, purportedly because they were understaffed and had been forced to work double shifts: In one incident last year, all staff were ordered to lock down their prisoners
4

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 5 of 12
and report off duty because they had worked double shifts, and there were no relief officers—the prisoners were apparently left unattended for at least eight hours. See Declaration of Eric Balaban in Support of Motion to Appoint a Court Monitor [“Balaban Decl.”] (dkt. 672) ¶3.
Despite this chronic understaffing, Defendants have failed to actively manage their prisoner population to reduce the number of admissions or their lengths of stay. Prisoners have been held longer than their maximum possible sentences while awaiting trial on minor charges, due to Defendants’ unwillingness to implement simple population control measures that they are legally required to put in place. See Findings ¶68.
The dangers posed by understaffing are exacerbated by the Defendants’ failure to implement an objective classification system, which is one of the primary tools to ensure the safe housing of prisoners at the Jail. The uncontroverted evidence at the June 2009 hearing showed that the Jail does not have a working objective classification system; that the decision on where to house a prisoner is as much a function of where the Jail has an empty bed as it is based on a thorough and valid risk assessment as to where a prisoner safely can be housed; and that prisoner-on-prisoner assaults occur frequently and with impunity due to this near-arbitrary housing system for prisoners at the Jail. See Findings ¶¶65-67.
Warden Hansen’s testimony at the September 2010 hearing shows that Defendants still have not fully implemented an objective classification system consistent with NIC Guidelines. The NIC has identified as a key component of an objective classification system a written housing plan, which must “establish sufficient space at each custody level to accommodate housing the number of inmates assigned to each level.” See Sept. 29, 2010 hearing tr. 10:9-13 (Hansen); see also Ex. A, Balaban Decl. (James Austin, “Objective Classification Systems: A Guide for Jail Administrators,”
5

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 6 of 12
National Institute of Corrections, Feb. 1998) at 10. For example, a housing plan should ensure that minimum custody level prisoners are housed together, as are medium custody prisoners, and that maximum security prisoners are housed “in single-cell units.” Id.
Warden Hansen admitted that it remains the case that prisoners can be housed based on where the Jail has an available bed rather than based on their classification status. Id. 11:6-10 (Hansen). He testified that the limited available bed space at the CJC has a dramatic effect on the Jail’s capacity to house prisoners according their classification. See id. 11:14-16 (Hansen) (“because of space constraints, we’re really limited as to how we can move and how we can classify.”). He also admitted that the lack of bed space compromised the Jail’s ability to implement an objective classification system. Id. 11:17-19 (Hansen). The more recent population reports Defendants have submitted confirm that prisoners of different classification levels are mixed together in two-man cell units throughout the Jail. See Ex. B, Balaban Decl. Though Defendants asserted in their July 15, 2010 compliance report that they had implemented their computerized SmartJail system, which would “facilitate the existing objective based classification program,”1 Warden Hansen admitted two months later that the current classification instrument is not being entered into the SmartJail system. See Sept. 29, 2010 hearing tr. 7:20-23 (Hansen). The only information currently being entered into the SmartJail system is the offender’s charge, admission date, and photograph. Id. 7:12-19 (Hansen).
One essential element of an objective classification system is that prisoners are housed according to a validated risk assessment, which must account for prisoner’s institutional history as documented through a reliable disciplinary system. A reliable disciplinary system also ensures that the Jail’s limited segregation bed space is reserved for those prisoners who pose the most serious
1 July 15, 2010 Status Report (dkt. 642) at 7.
6

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 7 of 12
risks to fellow prisoners and staff. As of the June 2009 hearing, the Jail had not implemented a reliable disciplinary system, resulting in prisoners being locked down arbitrarily. See Findings ¶¶8490. Prompted by this evidence, this Court last November ordered Defendants to implement a reliable disciplinary system that ensured that all incidents that resulted in discipline were adequately documented, that prisoners enjoyed basic due process protections, and that punishments were proportional to violations. See Nov. 8, 2010 Order (dkt. 671) ¶14. I. THIS COURT SHOULD APPOINT JAMES AUSTIN AS ITS POPULATION
MANAGEMENT AND CLASSIFICATION EXPERT UNDER FED. R. EVID. 706 AND ITS INHERENT POWERS. Over forty years ago, the Supreme Court held that “an injunction often requires continuing supervision by the issuing court and always a continuing willingness to apply its powers and processes on behalf of the party who obtained that equitable relief.” System Fed’n No. 91, Ry. Employees’ Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 648 (1961). When faced with particularly obstinate Defendants in an institutional reform case such as this one, one tool courts have used with great success is the appointment of a neutral expert to oversee implementation of remedies, and to report to the Court on compliance efforts. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161-62 (5th Cir. 1982) (upholding appointment of a court monitor to oversee implementation of a prison conditions decree under the court’s inherent powers); United States v. Michigan, 680 F. Supp. 928, 962 (appointing an independent expert pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706 to oversee implementation of a prison conditions consent decree); Morales Feliciano v. Romero Barcelo, 672 F. Supp. 591, 623 (D.P.R. 1986) (appointing a court monitor to oversee implementation of a consent decree addressing Puerto Rico prison conditions, noting the court’s “inherent equitable power to appoint a person . . . to assist in administering in a remedy.”); cf. Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 612
7

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 8 of 12
F. 2d. 84, 11 (3d Cir. 1982) (upholding appointment of a special master to implement a state hospital consent decree which likely would be “a complex and lengthy process, probably involving monitoring, dispute resolution, and the development of detailed enforcement mechanisms.”).
It is self-evident that the problems that have endangered prisoners and staff at the Jail over the past sixteen years could be alleviated, if not eliminated, if the Jail held fewer prisoners. The effect of the chronic understaffing would be less severe, since existing staff would have fewer prisoners to manage. Likewise, reducing the number of prisoners would alleviate the problems posed by the Jail’s lack of available bed space, one of the most significant barriers Defendants now face to safely house prisoners according to an objective classification system. Reducing the prisoner population will also reduce the burden on the Jail’s medical and mental health systems. In particular, reducing the lengths of stay of the seriously mentally ill at the Jail should have profound effect on operations and conditions, as this population requires the most intensive supervision and treatment. \
In order to devise remedies to reduce the prisoner population at the Jail, and to develop a population plan that provides Defendants with a realistic projection of their future bed space needs, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court appoint James Austin, Ph.D., as a population management expert under Fed. R. Civ. P. 706 and its inherent powers. Plaintiffs also propose that Dr. Austin assess and provide technical assistance to Defendants on the Jail’s classification and disciplinary systems as the Court’s expert. Dr. Austin is already familiar with the Jail’s classification system, having helped the territory devise the classification instrument over a decade ago. See Declaration of James Austin, filed herewith, ¶11.He is also the principal author of the NIC Classification Guidelines that are incorporated by reference into the Agreement. See Agreement ¶VI.A.2.; see also Sept. 29, 2010 hearing tr. 10:9-13 (Hansen); Ex. A, Balaban Decl. (James Austin, “Objective
8

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 9 of 12
Classification Systems: A Guide for Jail Administrators,” National Institute of Corrections, Feb. 1998). With Dr. Austin’s assistance, Defendants can take the long-overdue steps necessary to institute working classification and disciplinary systems that will result in the safe housing of prisoners at the CJC and Annex.
Dr. Austin has successfully collaborated with local and state correctional officials around the country to help them reduce their prison and jail populations through reliance on community-based alternatives to incarceration, at considerable savings to the taxpayers and without risk to public safety. He has participated in producing major jail master plans and assessments on such major urban jails as Cook County, IL; Bexar County and Harris County, TX; Baltimore City, MD; and Washington, DC. He is currently working in ten jurisdictions to help prison and jail officials reduce crowding and improve correctional facility conditions. He was a principal expert relied on by the three-judge panel in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger and Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 2009 WL 2430820, (E.D. Cal., September 03, 2009) in addressing whether and how California can safely reduce prison overcrowding, at great financial savings to the state. Id. at *24 n.39, *83, *89-92, *94-95, *100-03, *110 n.88, *111-12 & ns. 89-91. He currently is serving as the Court’s Rule 706 population management expert in Carruthers v. Lamberti, No. 76-6086 (S.D. Fla.), appointed to devise a population management plan and a baseline population estimate for the Broward County, Fl. Jail.
Plaintiffs have submitted with this application Dr. Austin’s declaration, outlining his proposed methodology and plan of work to develop a plan to decrease the population at the Jail, implement objective and evidence-based classification and disciplinary systems, and provide an evidence-based population projection that can inform Defendants of their long-term bed space needs. Dr. Austin estimates that he can produce this work in no more than six months, assuming he
9

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 10 of 12
receives the cooperation, and access to data, he needs to carry out his work. The fact that Dr. Austin would serve as this Court’s expert should speed his access to the files and personnel he needs to carry out his duties, as set forth in the appended proposed Order.
Dr. Austin’s declaration describes how an analysis of data files would identify the factors that are producing the current average daily population at the Jail, and from this data how the territory could identify its options for safely reducing that population. Dr. Austin proposes to look at the entire population to determine if there are persons who need not be housed at the Jail. For example, a close analysis might show that court processing, lack of treatment programs, or other factors are preventing a more timely release from custody or prisoners who can safely be released, making it possible for the territory to identify new criteria to safely divert low-risk individuals to pre-trial release programs.
In short, the appointment of Dr. Austin can reduce the population that exists today at the Jail, and can help keep that population as low as possible consistent with public safety. Dr. Austin can also help ensure that those men and women who must be incarcerated are housed at the Jail based on an objective risk assessment, and that the Jail’s limited segregation bed space is reserved for those prisoners who pose the most serious risk to fellow prisoners and staff.
Finally, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants bear the costs of Dr. Austin’s appointment. Rule 706 permits this Court to allocate court-appointed expert costs to one party. The commentary to Rule 706’s precursor states:
No doubt in the usual case the judge will provide that the expense of the experts shall be taxed as cost and paid by the loser. He may require the parties to contribute proportionate shares of the fee in advance. He may think it wise to excuse an impecunious party from paying his proportionate share. United States Marshal’s Service v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1057-59 (8th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (citing
10

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 11 of 12
Model Code of Evidence, Rule 410 as the “basis of current Fed. R. Evid. 706,” and upholding an order requiring the Government to advance the costs of a court-appointed expert for indigent defendants). See Fed. R. Evid. 706 (b) ( ”the compensation [of a Rule 706 expert] shall be paid by the parties in such proportion and at such time as the court directs.”); see also McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th Cir.) (district court may apportion all of the Rule 706 expert costs to one party), vacated on other grounds, 502 U.S. 903 (1991).
Here, it is Defendants abiding non-compliance that has harmed Plaintiffs and resulted in the ongoing enforcement proceedings in this case. Given that Plaintiffs are prisoners, and do not have the resources of the Virgin Islands government, it is appropriate for Defendants to bear Dr. Austin’s costs. See, e.g., Nelson v. Dawson, 2009 WL 453965, at *9 (D. Idaho Feb. 20, 2009) (allocating all costs of a Rule 706 expert to prison officials, noting that the prisoner plaintiffs are indigent); Carruthers, Case No. 76-6086, slip op. at 3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2001) (apportioning the costs of two Rule 706 experts to Defendants, given that the prisoner plaintiffs were indigent and it was Defendants’ “conduct [that] occasioned these proceedings.) Plaintiffs believe that the Dr. Austin’s work may result in long-term reductions in the prisoner population at the Jail, resulting in significant cost-savings for Defendants.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant this Motion and appoint Dr. Austin the Court’s population management and classification expert, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 706 and the Court’s inherent powers.
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of March, 2011.
11

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 686 Filed: 03/04/11 Page 12 of 12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ ERIC BALABAN Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 915 15th Street Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 393-4930
Benjamin Currence Norre Gade 2nd Floor #12 P.O. Box 6143 St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804-6143 340/775-3434 340/774-1001 (fax)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion, declaration and exhibit,
and proposed Order, were served by the Notice of Electronic Filing administered by this Court to the
following counsel for Defendants at the following address:
Richard Schrader, Jr. Assistant Attorney General - Department of Justice 6040 Castle Coakley Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00820
/s/ Eric Balaban Eric Balaban

12

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 695 Filed: 06/28/11 Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, eta!.,
Plaintiffs. v.
JOHN DEJONGH, eta!..
Defendants.

Civil No. 94-78

ORDER This Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of James Austin as the Court's Population Management and Classification Expert, and for good cause shown, hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED. This Court FURTHER ORDERS that James Austin, Ph.D., is hereby appointed the Court's population management and classification expert pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706 and the Comi's inherent powers. Within 180 days of the date of this Order, Dr. Austin shall file a report with the parties and this Court that (I) analyzes the Territory's criminal justice processes and policies that affect the population level at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) and CJC Annex [collectively, "the Jail"), (2) includes strategies and remedies to address those processes and policies so that the population level at the Jail can be reduced without significantly affecting public safety, (3) includes a baseline population forecast that would advise the territory on the impact of current criminal justice trends, (4) identifies realistic options that have been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions
I

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 695 Filed: 06/28/11 Page 2 of 3

that will reduce the need for future beds, and (5) assesses the existing classification and disciplinary systems at the Jail and provides
technical assistance to Defendants so they can make the best use of existing bed space to safely and appropriately house the prisoner population.
This Court FURTHER ORDERS that Dr. Austin shall complete this work according to the schedule he has proposed in the Declaration of James Austin, Ph.D., dated March 4, 2011, which is incorporated by reference herein.
This Court FURTHER ORDERS that Defendants shall provide Dr. Austin with access to any records and personnel with their control that he deems necessary to complete his work, and that they and this Court shall use their best efforts to ensure that Dr. Austin has access to any other documents or personnel that are not within Defendants' control that he deems necessary to complete his work . Dr. Austin shall be compensated by Plaintiffs, who shall have the right to be reimbursed for these costs by Defendants.
SO ORDERED this~day of June, 2011.

ATTEST: WILFREDO MORALES Clerk of the Court
By: Benjamin Currence Norre Gade 2nd Floor# 12 P.O. Box 6143

Hon.~ BROTMil\1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (Sitting by Designation)
2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 695 Filed: 06/28/11 Page 3 of 3
St. Thomas, U.S.V.L 00804-6143 340/775-3434 340/774-1001 (fax) Eric Balaban ACUJ National Prison Project 915 15'h St., N.W. Seventh Floor Washington D.C. 20005 202/393-4930 202/393-4931 (fax) Richard Schrader Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Corrections 6040 Castle Coakley Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI 00820 340/773-0295 340/773/3236 (fax)
3

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 1 of 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN	   Carty	  v	  DeJongh	   Civil	  No.	  94-­‐78	  
FIRST	  REPORT	  OF	  KATHRYN	  A.	  BURNS,	  MD,	  MPH	   ON	  COMPLIANCE	  WITH	  MENTAL	  HEALTH	  PROVISIONS	  OF	  THE	  SETTLEMENT	  AGREEMENT	  
October	  2014	   I	  have	  completed	  my	  baseline	  assessment	  of	  the	  mental	  health	  services	  offered	  to	  inmates	  at	   the	  Criminal	  Justice	  Complex	  (CJC)	  and	  the	  CJC	  Annex,	  St.	  Thomas,	  United	  States	  Virgin	  Islands.	  	   Although	  the	  Settlement	  Agreement	  (Agreement)	  was	  filed	  in	  May	  2013,	  significant	  long-­‐standing	   deficiencies	  with	  respect	  to	  the	  delivery	  of	  adequate	  mental	  health	  care	  persist:	  	  There	  are	  no	  medical	   or	  mental	  health	  care	  policies	  or	  procedures;	  inmates	  requiring	  care	  are	  not	  timely	  identified	  or	  treated;	   insufficient	  staffing	  levels	  of	  both	  treatment	  and	  custody	  staff	  continue	  endangering	  the	  lives	  and	  safety	   of	  inmates	  and	  staff;	  inmates	  do	  not	  have	  access	  to	  higher	  levels	  of	  mental	  health	  care;	  no	  treatment	   interventions	  other	  than	  psychotropic	  medication	  are	  provided	  and	  even	  that	  is	  unreliable	  given	  the	   idiosyncratic	  screening	  mechanism	  in	  place.	  	  There	  is	  no	  appropriate	  safe	  housing	  for	  mentally	  ill	   inmates	  or	  those	  requiring	  placement	  on	  suicide	  precautions.	  	  Actual	  therapeutic	  treatment	  space	  for	   individual	  and	  group	  interventions	  is	  lacking.	  	  Detention	  staff	  are	  untrained	  in	  how	  to	  work	  with	  persons	   with	  mental	  illnesses.	  	  They	  use	  physical	  force,	  steel	  restraints	  and	  lock	  down	  as	  substitutes	  for	   treatment.	  	  Additionally,	  at	  the	  time	  of	  my	  site	  visit,	  two	  inmates	  who	  had	  been	  found	  not	  guilty	  by	   reason	  of	  insanity,	  hospitalized	  and	  discharged,	  had	  been	  returned	  to	  the	  jail	  from	  the	  hospital	  and	   continued	  to	  be	  imprisoned	  there	  for	  more	  than	  a	  year	  with	  no	  current	  or	  pending	  charges	  –	  or	  any	   apparent	  discharge	  or	  release	  plan!	  	   Additional	  detail	  relative	  to	  the	  conditions	  of	  the	  CJC	  and	  CJC	  Annex	  is	  found	  in	  the	  remainder	  of	   this	  baseline	  report.	  	  Findings	  are	  correlated	  with	  specific	  items	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  	  	  I	  found	  no	  areas	  of	  
EXHIBIT A

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 2 of 28
	  

compliance	  or	  even	  partial	  compliance	  with	  any	  of	  the	  provisions	  of	  the	  Agreement	  relative	  to	  the	  

provision	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  to	  inmates.	  	  This	  report	  closes	  with	  recommendations	  for	  addressing	  the	  

identified	  deficiencies	  in	  a	  staged	  response	  designed	  to	  assist	  the	  defendants	  in	  prioritizing	  the	  

tremendous	  amount	  of	  work	  that	  must	  be	  done	  to	  bring	  the	  jail	  into	  substantial	  compliance	  with	  the	  

terms	  of	  the	  Agreement	  by	  addressing	  and	  correcting	  the	  most	  serious/life	  threatening	  deficiencies	  first	  

and	  then	  turning	  attention	  to	  deficiencies	  requiring	  more	  planning	  and	  some	  physical	  plant	  modification	  

to	  create	  safe	  housing	  and	  appropriate	  treatment	  space.	  

	  

Sources	  of	  Information:	  

	  

I	  visited	  the	  CJC	  and	  CJC	  Annex	  May	  22-­‐23,	  2014.	  	  Prior	  to	  the	  visit,	  I	  reviewed	  the	  Settlement	  

Agreement	  and	  a	  report	  prepared	  by	  Dr.	  Jeffrey	  Metzner	  dated	  March	  20,	  2009	  containing	  his	  

assessment	  of	  mental	  health	  services	  that	  existed	  at	  the	  time.	  	  I	  also	  requested	  the	  following	  documents	  

from	  defendants	  in	  order	  to	  prepare	  for	  the	  visit	  with	  updated	  information:	  

1. All	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  policies	  and	  procedures	  including:	   a. Receiving	  Screening/Intake	   b. Mental	  Health	  Screening	  and	  Assessment	   c. Medication	  administration,	  including	  daily	  administration	  times	   d. Health	  care	  requests/referrals	  including	  any	  logs	  tracking	  this	  information	   e. Mental	  health	  classification	   f. Suicide	  Prevention	  including	  any	  risk	  assessment	  instruments,	  observation	  forms	  and	   logs	  tracking	  the	  number	  and	  duration	  of	  watches	   g. Disciplinary	  policy	   h. Mental	  health	  treatment	  planning	   i. Psychotropic	  medication	   j. Therapeutic	  seclusion	  and	  restraint	  policy	  and	  procedures	  including	  any	  observation	   logs,	  assessment	  instruments	  and	  logs	  tracking	  the	  number	  of	  episodes	  requiring	   seclusion	  or	  restraint	  and	  the	  duration	  of	  the	  episode(s)	  

Carty v DeJongh

2	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 3 of 28
	  

k. Discharge/Release	  policy	  and	  procedure	  	  

l. Any	  policy	  that	  describes	  the	  provision	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  to	  inmates	  in	  segregation	  

m. Quality	  Improvement	  

n. Management	  information	  system	  

o. Specialized	  mental	  health	  housing	  unit	  

2. Staff	  training	  materials	  related	  to	  intake	  screening,	  suicide	  prevention,	  signs	  and	  symptoms	  of	  

mental	  illness	  and	  responding	  to	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  crises	  

3. Psychotropic	  medication	  formulary	  

4. Staffing	  plan	  and	  current	  table	  of	  organization	  including	  whether	  positions	  are	  filled	  or	  vacant;	  

CVs	  of	  all	  mental	  health	  staff	  including	  verification	  of	  current	  licensure.	  

5. Program	  descriptions	  for	  mental	  health	  care	  provided,	  psychiatric	  services	  and	  any	  specialized	  

mental	  health	  housing.	  

6. Basic	  population	  information	  about	  the	  facility	  (average	  number	  of	  inmates	  at	  the	  facility	  and	  

length	  of	  stay;	  number	  of	  intakes	  and	  releases	  per	  month	  for	  last	  12	  months)	  

7. Number	  of	  inmates	  on	  mental	  health	  caseload,	  number	  of	  inmates	  prescribed	  psychotropic	  

medication	  

8. Mental	  health	  crisis	  care	  information:	  	  suicide	  or	  crisis	  watch	  logs	  for	  past	  year	  including	  

transfers	  to	  inpatient	  psychiatric	  care	  	  

9. Inmate	  deaths	  for	  the	  past	  2	  years	  including	  date	  of	  death,	  cause	  and	  manner	  of	  death	  (suicide,	  

homicide,	  accident	  or	  natural)	  

10. Any	  contracts	  of	  memoranda	  of	  understanding	  regarding	  the	  transfer	  and	  provision	  of	  mental	  

health	  care	  to	  prisoners	  in	  outside	  treatment	  facilities	  such	  as	  inpatient	  hospitalization	  

11. Any	  and	  all	  mental	  health	  care	  staff	  meeting	  minutes	  that	  address	  mental	  health	  care	  

operations	  and	  coordination	  of	  care;	  and	  any	  written	  communication	  to	  the	  Director	  or	  

Associate	  Director	  regarding	  mental	  health	  care	  as	  a	  result	  of	  these	  meetings.	  

	  

	  

No	  policies	  of	  procedures	  on	  any	  subject	  were	  provided.	  	  No	  training	  materials	  were	  received.	  	  

Responses	  to	  most	  of	  the	  other	  types	  of	  information	  requested	  were	  incomplete,	  non-­‐responsive	  to	  the	  

request	  or	  not	  provided.	  	  Therefore,	  I	  tried	  to	  gather	  the	  necessary	  information	  while	  on	  site.	  	  During	  

the	  visit,	  I	  toured	  the	  facilities	  to	  view	  the	  housing	  areas,	  programming	  and	  recreational	  space.	  	  I	  was	  

not	  permitted	  to	  tour	  the	  segregation	  housing	  unit	  at	  CJC	  due	  to	  an	  apparent	  correctional	  officer	  staffing	  

shortage;	  an	  appropriate	  correctional	  escort	  could	  not	  be	  provided	  on	  either	  day.	  	  	  

Carty v DeJongh

3	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 4 of 28
	  

	  

I	  reviewed	  mental	  health	  and	  medical	  records,	  medication	  administration	  records	  and	  some	  

housing	  unit	  log	  books.	  	  I	  also	  interviewed	  the	  mental	  health	  director,	  Ms.	  Warren;	  both	  psychiatrists;	  

and	  inmates	  receiving	  mental	  health	  services	  at	  the	  jail.	  	  I	  subsequently	  reviewed	  some	  incident	  reports	  

and	  investigations	  as	  well.	  

	   Report	  Format:	  

	  

This	  report	  is	  focused	  primarily	  on	  mental	  health	  requirements	  articulated	  in	  the	  Settlement	  

Agreement,	  Section	  V.	  Medical	  and	  Mental	  Health	  Care	  and	  particularly	  Section	  V.2.x.	  Mental	  Health	  

Care	  and	  Treatment.	  	  Although	  the	  agreement	  articulates	  detailed	  requirements	  in	  many	  areas,	  because	  

it	  was	  my	  first	  visit	  and	  no	  written	  policies	  or	  procedures	  were	  provided,	  I	  have	  essentially	  grouped	  the	  

mental	  health	  care	  requirements	  into	  the	  following	  larger	  categories	  for	  purposes	  of	  this	  first	  report.	  	  

• Intake	  screening	   • Mental	  health	  assessment	   • Medication	  management	   • Access	  to	  off	  site	  consultation	  and	  specialty	  care,	  including	  inpatient	  and	  emergency	  care	   • Suicide	  prevention	   • Staffing	   • Segregation	   • Mental	  health	  levels	  of	  care,	  access	  to	  inpatient	  or	  intermediate	  care,	  psychotropic	  medications	  
and	  special	  procedures	  (seclusion	  and	  restraint)	  	  

	  

In	  addition	  to	  the	  terms	  of	  the	  Settlement	  Agreement	  specific	  to	  mental	  health,	  there	  are	  

number	  of	  over-­‐arching	  provisions	  more	  broadly	  related	  to	  the	  provision	  of	  care	  such	  as	  inmate	  safety	  

and	  supervision	  (Agreement	  Section	  IV)	  and	  the	  provision	  of	  timely	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  care	  

consistent	  with	  community	  standards	  (Section	  V.1	  and	  V.2.e.)	  	  Findings	  related	  many	  of	  the	  specific	  

requirement	  areas	  are	  also	  relevant	  to	  these	  larger	  concepts/requirements.	  	  For	  example,	  an	  adequate	  

suicide	  prevention	  program	  requires	  a	  relevant	  policy,	  procedure;	  mental	  health	  staffing	  to	  assess	  risk	  

and	  provide	  treatment;	  enough	  correctional	  staff	  to	  identify	  inmates	  at	  risk	  of	  suicide,	  closely	  monitor	  

Carty v DeJongh

4	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 5 of 28
	  

inmates	  placed	  on	  suicide	  watch	  and	  provide	  emergency	  intervention	  in	  the	  event	  of	  a	  suicide	  attempt;	  

safe	  housing	  and	  appropriate	  property	  management;	  proper	  prescription	  and	  administration	  of	  

medications;	  access	  to	  psychiatric	  inpatient	  care	  if	  suicide	  risk	  is	  not	  abated	  by	  treatment	  measures	  

employed	  at	  the	  jail;	  training	  for	  correctional	  staff	  on	  signs	  of	  suicide,	  mental	  illness,	  emergency	  

intervention	  and	  practice	  drills.	  	  In	  the	  specific	  sections	  that	  follow,	  I	  will	  attempt	  also	  to	  indicate	  when	  

there	  are	  broader	  implications	  for	  the	  larger,	  over-­‐arching	  provisions	  as	  well.	  	  	  

	  

Record	  reviews	  and	  interview	  information	  of	  individual	  patients	  are	  summarized	  in	  the	  Appendix	  

that	  accompanies	  this	  report.	  

	  

Mental	  Health	  components	  of	  Settlement	  Agreement	  

	  

	  

Intake	  Screening	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  	  V.2.a.	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

There	  is	  no	  policy	  for	  intake	  screening.	  	  The	  Settlement	  Agreement	  requires	  that	  screening	  be	  

conducted	  by	  qualified	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  professionals	  and	  that	  all	  inmates	  with	  a	  positive	  

screen	  receive	  timely	  and	  appropriate	  care,	  including	  transfer	  to	  a	  hospital	  when	  indicated.	  	  If	  nursing	  

staff	  is	  not	  available	  for	  the	  intake	  screening,	  a	  specially	  trained	  corrections	  officer	  shall	  administer	  an	  

initial	  needs	  survey.	  

	  

The	  practice	  in	  effect	  at	  the	  jail	  was	  described	  as	  follows:	  	  Officers	  screen	  inmates	  at	  the	  time	  of	  

booking.	  	  No	  description	  or	  curriculum	  covering	  any	  specialized	  training	  officers	  receive	  to	  qualify	  them	  

to	  perform	  screenings	  was	  provided.	  	  Medical	  nurses	  see	  the	  newly	  arrived	  inmate	  the	  same	  day	  or	  the	  

following	  day	  depending	  on	  the	  time	  of	  arrival.	  	  (Nurses	  are	  at	  the	  facility	  8	  AM	  -­‐	  6	  PM	  daily.)	  	  	  	  The	  

document	  used	  by	  the	  nurses	  for	  screening	  does	  not	  contain	  sufficient	  mental	  health	  information	  to	  

adequately	  screen	  for	  mental	  health	  needs	  or	  suicide	  risk.	  	  Referrals	  are	  generated	  to	  the	  mental	  health	  

Carty v DeJongh

5	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 6 of 28
	  

social	  worker,	  Ms.	  Warren.	  	  Referrals	  are	  primarily	  inmates	  who	  have	  previously	  been	  at	  the	  facility	  with	  

known	  mental	  health	  needs	  and/or	  inmates	  arriving	  with	  prescription	  psychotropic	  medications.	  	  	  

	  

The	  current	  practice	  is	  not	  compliant	  with	  the	  Agreement	  and	  is	  not	  set	  forth	  in	  policy.	  	  

Correctional	  officers,	  with	  no	  specialized	  training,	  are	  doing	  all	  of	  the	  initial	  screening,	  even	  when	  nurses	  

are	  on	  duty.	  	  Furthermore,	  the	  current	  instrument	  is	  too	  narrow	  and	  misses	  cases	  of	  inmates	  with	  

serious	  mental	  health	  needs	  at	  the	  front	  door.	  	  For	  example,	  inmate	  #1	  was	  arrested	  and	  booked	  into	  

the	  jail	  on	  4/2/13.	  	  He	  has	  a	  history	  of	  schizophrenia	  and	  has	  been	  psychiatrically	  hospitalized	  multiple	  

times	  and	  yet,	  he	  wasn’t	  referred	  to	  mental	  health	  for	  nearly	  two	  weeks.	  	  No	  order	  for	  continued	  

antipsychotic	  medication	  was	  written	  until	  July	  –	  three	  and	  a	  half	  months	  after	  his	  arrival	  at	  the	  jail.	  	  The	  

inmate	  remained	  highly	  symptomatic	  and	  quite	  ill	  a	  year	  later.	  	  Patients	  with	  schizophrenia	  and	  other	  

psychiatric	  illnesses	  are	  at	  elevated	  risk	  of	  suicide	  and	  may	  present	  an	  increased	  risk	  of	  harm	  to	  others	  

as	  well	  when	  they	  are	  psychotic.	  	  Rapid	  identification	  is	  vitally	  important	  so	  that	  treatment	  may	  begin	  or	  

continue	  as	  soon	  as	  possible.	  	  Clinical	  studies	  have	  also	  demonstrated	  that	  the	  longer	  that	  treatment	  is	  

delayed	  (such	  as	  in	  this	  case),	  the	  longer	  it	  takes	  for	  it	  to	  work	  and	  degree	  of	  improvement	  eventually	  

achieved	  is	  less	  than	  it	  would	  have	  been	  had	  treatment	  been	  timely.	  	  The	  intake	  screening	  instrument	  

must	  be	  revised	  to	  reflect	  important	  areas	  of	  mental	  health	  inquiry	  so	  that	  serious	  mental	  health	  needs	  

are	  not	  missed	  and	  treatment	  delayed.	  	  Screening	  instruments	  are	  intended	  to	  cast	  a	  broad	  net	  to	  

"catch"	  both	  known	  (obvious)	  cases	  as	  well	  as	  persons	  displaying	  more	  subtle	  signs	  of	  difficulties.	  	  

Thereafter,	  a	  mental	  health	  professional	  can	  further	  assess	  and	  refer	  the	  inmate	  to	  the	  appropriate	  level	  

of	  mental	  health	  care,	  including	  psychiatric	  hospitalization	  when	  necessary.	  	  	  

	  

There	  are	  multiple	  deficiencies	  that	  must	  be	  addressed	  to	  come	  into	  compliance	  with	  the	  

Agreement:	  policy	  and	  procedure,	  revised	  instrument;	  nursing	  to	  conduct	  screening	  during	  regular	  

hours,	  special	  training	  for	  officers	  to	  do	  the	  initial	  screening	  when	  nurses	  are	  not	  present;	  mechanism	  to	  

ensure	  immediate	  continuation	  of	  prescription	  medications,	  and	  timely	  referral	  to	  and	  assessment	  by	  a	  

Carty v DeJongh

6	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 7 of 28
	  

psychiatrist.	  Policy,	  procedure	  and	  actual	  practice	  are	  also	  required	  demonstrating	  that	  acutely	  ill	  and	  

unstable	  inmates	  are	  transferred	  emergently	  for	  hospitalization	  when	  necessary.	  	  No	  such	  policy	  or	  

procedure	  was	  provided	  nor	  was	  there	  any	  evidence	  that	  acutely	  ill	  inmates	  have	  access	  to	  emergency	  

care	  and	  psychiatric	  hospitalization.	  	  

	  

Mental	  health	  assessments	  –	  as	  follow-­‐up	  from	  positive	  intake	  screening,	  conducted	  by	  qualified	  

mental	  health	  professional	  within	  3	  days	  of	  admission	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2b	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

There	  is	  no	  policy	  for	  mental	  health	  follow-­‐up	  assessments.	  	  Assessments	  are	  not	  completed	  by	  

a	  qualified	  mental	  health	  professional	  as	  defined	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  	  Ms.	  Warren,	  a	  social	  worker,	  does	  a	  

psychosocial	  and	  initial	  assessment	  using	  forms	  that	  she	  created.	  	  The	  forms	  are	  fairly	  well	  done	  and	  

contain	  the	  types	  of	  information	  and	  level	  of	  detail	  required.	  	  However,	  the	  Agreement	  requires	  that	  the	  

mental	  health	  assessment	  be	  conducted	  by	  a	  “qualified	  mental	  health	  professional”	  which	  is	  defined	  as	  

a	  psychiatrist	  or	  psychiatric	  nurse	  practitioner.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  is	  neither.	  	  	  There	  is	  sufficient	  psychiatric	  

coverage	  at	  the	  facility	  such	  that	  one	  of	  the	  psychiatrists	  could	  complete	  the	  assessments	  within	  three	  

days	  of	  admission,	  but	  they	  do	  not.	  	  Additionally,	  as	  previously	  noted,	  the	  intake	  screening	  process	  must	  

also	  be	  remedied	  in	  order	  to	  ensure	  that	  inmates	  requiring	  additional	  assessment	  are	  identified	  timely	  

and	  referred.	  	  	  

	  

Medication	  management	  -­‐	  continuity,	  administration	  &	  management	  of	  medications	  that	  address	  a	  

number	  of	  factors	  including	  continuity,	  timely	  responses	  to	  medication	  orders	  and	  labs,	  professional	  

medication	  administration	  procedures,	  monitoring	  for	  effectiveness	  and	  side	  effects,	  discharge	  

medications;	  timely	  access	  to	  a	  psychiatrist	  and	  psychiatric	  review	  of	  medications;	  and	  the	  Agreement’s	  

general	  provisions	  for	  timely	  and	  appropriate	  care,	  including	  psychiatric	  care.	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2f	  sections	  i-­‐vi;	  V2x	  section	  iv;	  V2e;	   Not	  compliant	  

V1	  

	  

	  

	  

There	  is	  no	  medication	  or	  psychotropic	  medication	  policy.	  	  A	  policy	  is	  required	  by	  the	  Agreement	  

to	  address	  continuity,	  administration	  and	  management	  of	  medications.	  

Carty v DeJongh

7	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 8 of 28
	  

	  

The	  psychotropic	  medication	  formulary	  was	  requested.	  	  The	  response	  was	  incomplete.	  	  A	  

document	  dated	  03/01/13	  labeled	  as	  consisting	  of	  39	  pages	  was	  produced	  as	  a	  pdf	  file.	  	  However,	  only	  

the	  odd	  numbered	  pages	  were	  provided.	  	  The	  even-­‐numbered	  pages	  were	  not	  included	  in	  the	  file	  and	  

presumably	  contain	  the	  majority	  of	  psychotropic	  medications	  since	  only	  a	  few	  medications	  were	  listed	  

on	  the	  pages	  that	  were	  provided:	  Amantadine	  (Symmetrel);	  Benzodiazepines	  (Clonazepam	  &	  

Lorazepam);	  Diphenhydramine	  (Benadryl);	  Gabapentin	  (Neurontin);	  Stimulants	  for	  treatment	  of	  

narcolepsy	  and	  Donepezil	  (Aricept).	  	  It	  is	  not	  clear	  that	  the	  formulary	  produced	  is	  actually	  in	  use	  at	  the	  

facility.	  	  In	  fact,	  psychiatrist	  Dr.	  Lu	  was	  not	  aware	  that	  there	  was	  an	  actual	  formulary	  and	  said	  that	  

virtually	  any	  psychotropic	  medication	  could	  be	  prescribed.	  	  However,	  if	  there	  is	  indeed	  an	  “open”	  

formulary,	  then	  neither	  psychiatrist	  appears	  to	  be	  taking	  advantage	  of	  the	  availability	  of	  newer,	  and	  

sometimes	  more	  efficacious	  medications.	  

	  

At	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit,	  only	  seventeen	  (17)	  inmates	  were	  prescribed	  psychotropic	  

medication	  at	  CJC	  which	  represented	  approximately	  24%	  of	  the	  jail	  population.	  	  If	  psychotropic	  

medication	  is	  used	  as	  a	  proxy	  for	  calculating	  the	  prevalence	  of	  mental	  illness,	  then,	  the	  number	  of	  

inmates	  with	  mental	  illness	  in	  CJC	  is	  low	  when	  compared	  with	  other	  US	  jails.	  	  Only	  one	  of	  the	  five	  

women	  was	  prescribed	  psychotropic	  medication	  (20%).	  	  The	  prevalence	  rate	  of	  mental	  illness	  among	  

women	  in	  correctional	  facilities	  is	  generally	  closer	  to	  45-­‐50%.	  This	  is	  another	  indication	  that	  the	  intake	  

screening	  process	  is	  under-­‐identifying	  mentally	  ill	  inmates.	  	  Additionally,	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  

record	  reviews	  identified	  breaks	  in	  medication	  continuity	  when	  inmates	  entered	  the	  jail.	  	  In	  other	  words,	  

although	  inmates	  entered	  on	  medications,	  they	  were	  not	  re-­‐ordered	  timely	  and	  missed	  medications	  for	  

days	  or	  weeks.	  	  This	  is	  highly	  problematic	  and	  dangerous.	  	  The	  medications	  are	  designed	  to	  eliminate	  or	  

control	  symptoms	  of	  mental	  illness.	  	  If	  the	  medications	  are	  withheld	  or	  there	  are	  breaks	  in	  continuity,	  

symptoms	  return.	  	  Such	  symptoms	  may	  include	  suicidal	  thoughts	  and	  behaviors,	  impulsive	  and	  

aggressive	  behaviors	  in	  response	  to	  psychosis	  and	  other	  symptoms	  that	  create	  not	  only	  a	  management	  

Carty v DeJongh

8	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 9 of 28
	  

problem	  for	  the	  correctional	  staff	  but	  a	  very	  real	  risk	  of	  harm	  to	  self	  and	  others,	  including	  peers	  and	  

staff,	  at	  the	  jail.	  	  This	  is	  in	  addition	  to	  the	  psychological	  suffering	  and	  torment	  of	  the	  inmate	  patients	  

themselves.	  	  Further,	  as	  noted,	  there	  is	  clinical	  evidence	  that	  when	  treatment	  is	  withheld,	  it	  takes	  longer	  

for	  the	  medication	  to	  be	  effective	  when	  it	  is	  finally	  given	  and	  the	  patient’s	  response	  is	  less	  robust	  than	  it	  

would	  have	  been	  if	  treatment	  were	  provided	  sooner	  or	  without	  interruption.	  	  

	  

The	  types	  of	  medications	  prescribed	  were	  primarily	  antipsychotic	  medications	  (first	  generation),	  

some	  mood	  stabilizers	  (usually	  Depakote	  but	  also	  some	  lithium);	  and	  surprisingly,	  only	  3	  inmates	  were	  

prescribed	  antidepressant	  medications.	  	  In	  other	  correctional	  settings,	  antidepressant	  medications	  are	  

the	  most	  frequently	  prescribed	  medication.	  	  Although	  the	  “older”	  antipsychotic	  medications	  were	  

prescribed	  far	  more	  often	  than	  newer	  medications,	  there	  was	  no	  documentation	  that	  inmates	  were	  

being	  regularly	  monitored	  or	  examined	  for	  the	  development	  of	  movement	  disorders,	  which	  are	  common	  

side	  effects	  of	  the	  older	  antipsychotic	  medications	  and	  part	  of	  the	  standard	  of	  care	  when	  they	  are	  used.	  	  	  

	  

There	  were	  instances	  in	  which	  injectable	  medication	  orders,	  including	  orders	  for	  long-­‐acting	  

injectable	  medications,	  were	  written	  to	  be	  given	  if	  the	  inmate	  refused	  oral	  medications.	  	  There	  was	  no	  

documentation	  of	  any	  sort	  that	  legal	  or	  clinically	  appropriate	  administrative	  authorization	  for	  this	  

practice	  was	  secured.	  	  It	  needs	  to	  stop	  immediately.	  	  Inmates	  have	  a	  right	  to	  refuse	  treatment.	  	  An	  

appropriate	  policy	  and	  procedure	  to	  override	  medication	  refusal	  consistent	  with	  federal	  and	  territorial	  

law	  must	  be	  developed	  before	  medication	  can	  be	  forced	  on	  inmates.	  	  There	  were	  also	  incident	  reports	  

in	  which	  correctional	  staff	  documented	  physically	  restraining	  and	  forcing	  inmates	  to	  take	  oral	  

medications,	  essentially	  by	  shoving	  them	  into	  the	  inmate’s	  mouth.	  	  (Incident	  reports	  3/6/13)	  	  It	  is	  not	  

known	  how	  many	  times	  correctional	  officers	  have	  engaged	  in	  this	  practice	  but	  it	  must	  cease	  

IMMEDIATELY	  –	  it	  is	  creating	  a	  serious	  risk	  of	  death	  by	  asphyxiation.	  	  There	  is	  no	  medical,	  legal	  or	  other	  

authority	  to	  permit	  or	  condone	  this	  practice.	  	  Note	  also	  that	  there	  was	  no	  documented	  investigation	  of	  

this	  incident,	  which	  is	  not	  only	  inappropriate,	  but	  also	  appalling.	  	  

Carty v DeJongh

9	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 10 of 28
	  

	  

When	  psychotropic	  medication	  orders	  are	  written,	  the	  response	  in	  terms	  of	  getting	  the	  

medication	  and	  administering	  it	  seemed	  timely	  although	  I	  did	  not	  systematically	  study	  the	  time	  intervals	  

in	  every	  case.	  	  There	  continue	  to	  be	  problems	  with	  psychiatrist	  medication	  orders	  being	  written	  without	  

a	  stop	  date.	  	  In	  general,	  medication	  orders	  are	  written	  to	  last	  30	  –	  90	  days	  in	  correctional	  facilities.	  	  At	  

CJC,	  neither	  psychiatrist	  identifies	  how	  long	  the	  order	  is	  in	  effect.	  	  This	  is	  a	  deviation	  from	  the	  standard	  

of	  care	  and	  creates	  unnecessary	  confusion	  for	  nurses	  charged	  with	  interpreting	  the	  orders.	  	  (This	  finding	  

has	  been	  identified	  on	  prior	  occasions	  and	  easily	  remedied	  so	  it	  is	  not	  clear	  why	  it	  persists.)	  	  	  

	  

A	  review	  of	  the	  medication	  administration	  records	  (MARs)	  indicated	  a	  number	  of	  idiosyncratic	  

and	  improper	  practices.	  	  Multiple	  medications	  were	  written	  onto	  the	  same	  row	  of	  the	  MAR	  making	  it	  

unclear	  which	  medication(s)	  may	  have	  been	  given	  and	  which	  may	  not	  have	  been	  given	  or	  refused.	  	  The	  

MARs	  also	  did	  not	  contain	  start	  or	  stop	  dates.	  	  Multiple	  months	  were	  recorded	  on	  a	  single	  MAR	  page.	  	  

(The	  standard	  practice	  is	  that	  a	  single	  page	  covers	  a	  single	  month	  of	  medication	  administration.)	  	  

Decanoate	  medications	  appeared	  to	  be	  recorded	  on	  a	  monthly	  calendar	  rather	  than	  being	  on	  an	  inmate-­‐

specific	  MAR.	  	  March	  2014	  was	  the	  last	  month	  in	  the	  MAR	  binder	  so	  it	  is	  not	  clear	  if	  or	  whether	  April	  and	  

May	  injections	  were	  noted/given.	  	  Although	  MAR	  problems	  are	  nursing	  practice	  issues,	  improper	  and	  

ambiguous	  documentation	  negatively	  impacts	  prescriber	  interpretation	  of	  medication	  compliance	  rates	  

and	  response	  to	  treatment.	  	  

	  

A	  comprehensive	  medication	  policy	  and	  procedure	  can	  address	  multiple	  areas	  of	  existing	  

deficiencies	  in	  practice.	  	  Nursing	  protocols	  and	  training	  around	  the	  administration	  and	  documentation	  of	  

the	  process	  must	  also	  be	  developed	  and	  implemented.	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

Carty v DeJongh

10	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 11 of 28
	  

Off	  site	  specialty	  care	  and	  consultation,	  emergency	  care	  and	  systems	  to	  track	  and	  monitor	  inmates	  

with	  mental	  health	  and	  medical	  needs	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2g;V2i	  section	  i-­‐vii;V2j;	  V2p;	  V2q	  	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

No	  policy	  or	  training	  curriculum	  for	  staff	  in	  recognizing	  and	  responding	  to	  emergencies	  were	  

provided.	  	  No	  protocol	  for	  periodic	  assessment	  of	  the	  facility’s	  compliance	  with	  policies	  and	  procedures	  

regarding	  the	  identification,	  handling	  and	  care	  of	  detainees	  and	  prisoners	  with	  serious	  medical	  and	  

mental	  health	  conditions	  was	  provided.	  	  These	  items	  are	  required	  by	  the	  Agreement.	  

	  

No	  contracts	  or	  memoranda	  of	  understanding	  regarding	  the	  transfer	  and	  provision	  of	  mental	  

health	  care	  to	  prisoners	  in	  outside	  treatment	  facilities	  such	  as	  inpatient	  hospitalization	  were	  provided.	  	  

No	  system	  to	  classify,	  track	  or	  monitor	  inmates’	  mental	  health	  needs	  was	  in	  effect.	  	  One	  document	  

labeled	  “Bureau	  of	  Corrections	  Suicidal	  Attempts”	  was	  produced	  in	  response	  to	  the	  information	  request	  

prior	  to	  the	  site	  visit.	  There	  were	  13	  “attempts”	  by	  four	  inmates.	  	  The	  attempts	  were	  dated	  from	  

December	  2010	  through	  December	  2013	  but	  contained	  no	  information	  from	  calendar	  years	  2012	  or	  

2014.	  

	  

Documentation	  of	  response	  to	  mental	  health	  crises	  was	  inconsistent;	  sometimes	  progress	  notes	  

were	  present	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  file	  indicating	  that	  treatment	  staff	  were	  notified	  of	  a	  crisis	  and	  

responded	  while	  in	  other	  situations,	  there	  was	  a	  notation	  in	  the	  housing	  unit	  log	  that	  an	  inmate	  was	  

placed	  on	  lock-­‐down	  for	  self-­‐injurious	  or	  other	  crisis	  behavior	  but	  no	  corresponding	  referral	  to	  mental	  

health	  or	  treatment	  intervention.	  	  Inmates	  experiencing	  mental	  health	  crises	  are	  not	  receiving	  

treatment	  to	  address	  or	  eliminate	  the	  crises.	  	  This	  creates	  and	  increased	  risk	  of	  harm,	  including	  self-­‐

injury,	  inmate	  on	  inmate	  or	  staff	  injury	  and	  staff	  on	  inmate	  injury	  when	  untrained	  correctional	  officers	  

using	  physical	  force	  to	  place	  inmates	  in	  lockdown	  status	  or	  steel	  restraints.	  	  (Lockdown	  status	  is	  locking	  

an	  inmate	  into	  his	  cell	  for	  unspecified	  and	  unregulated	  periods	  of	  time	  and	  sometimes	  also	  includes	  

steel	  restraints	  as	  well.)	  	  Detention	  staff	  fail	  to	  monitor	  inmates	  in	  lockdown	  status	  and	  they	  do	  not	  

notify	  mental	  health	  staff	  of	  these	  placements.	  	  Involvement	  of	  mental	  health	  staff	  and	  correctional	  

Carty v DeJongh

11	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 12 of 28
	  

officers	  with	  training	  in	  crisis	  de-­‐escalation	  techniques	  reduces	  the	  likelihood	  that	  any	  use	  of	  force	  

would	  be	  required.	  	  In	  any	  event,	  a	  referral	  to	  mental	  health	  is	  required	  to	  ensure	  appropriate	  access	  to	  

care	  as	  required	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  

	  

	  

Suicide	  prevention	  –	  calls	  for	  policy	  and	  procedures	  that	  include	  precautions,	  safety	  cells,	  monitoring,	  

communication,	  treatment,	  follow-­‐up	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2l	  sections	  i-­‐xii;	  IVB1d	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

No	  suicide	  prevention	  policy	  or	  procedure	  was	  produced.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  produced	  some	  

documents	  (undated)	  entitled	  “Special	  Observation	  Monitoring	  Sheet”	  and	  "Mental	  Health	  Suicide	  or	  

Monitoring	  Discontinued	  Form"	  but	  there	  was	  no	  evidence	  that	  these	  forms	  are	  actually	  in	  use	  at	  the	  

facility.	  	  (Neither	  form	  was	  found	  in	  any	  of	  the	  charts	  reviewed	  when	  inmates	  were	  placed	  onto	  watch	  

status	  by	  mental	  health	  or	  correctional	  staff.)	  	  Review	  of	  actual	  practice	  revealed	  numerous	  

inconsistencies.	  	  There	  was	  no	  evidence	  that	  all	  potentially	  suicidal	  inmates	  are	  referred	  to	  mental	  

health.	  	  There	  were	  instances	  in	  which	  placement	  of	  an	  inmate	  on	  a	  watch	  was	  referenced	  in	  the	  mental	  

health	  file	  but	  without	  corresponding	  correctional	  officer	  observations	  on	  a	  monitoring	  sheet	  or	  the	  

officer	  housing	  log.	  	  There	  were	  other	  instances	  in	  which	  the	  housing	  log	  indicated	  an	  inmate	  being	  on	  

watch	  status	  though	  there	  was	  no	  corresponding	  documentation	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  file	  or	  any	  

evidence	  that	  a	  referral	  to	  mental	  health	  had	  been	  generated.	  	  There	  was	  no	  indication	  that	  watches	  

vary	  in	  intensity	  (close	  watch	  with	  officer	  observations	  and	  documentation	  at	  staggered	  intervals	  not	  to	  

exceed	  10	  minutes	  versus	  constant	  watch	  with	  continuous	  observation)	  or	  that	  constant	  watches	  

actually	  occurred	  in	  cases	  of	  high-­‐risk	  inmates.	  	  In	  fact,	  Ms.	  Warren	  reported	  that	  officer	  staffing	  

shortages	  frequently	  prevent	  the	  facility’s	  ability	  to	  provide	  the	  one	  to	  one	  observation	  necessary	  for	  

constant	  observation.	  	  	  Additionally,	  correctional	  officers	  are	  pulled	  from	  one	  cluster	  to	  another	  to	  assist	  

with	  various	  tasks	  such	  as	  meal	  distribution	  which	  pulls	  them	  away	  from	  maintaining	  inmate	  

observation.	  	  Documentation	  is	  inconsistent	  but	  does	  not	  support	  that	  there	  are	  two	  levels	  of	  watch.	  	  

Carty v DeJongh

12	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 13 of 28
	  

(Note	  that	  there	  was	  inconsistency	  even	  in	  the	  naming	  of	  the	  watch	  levels.	  	  The	  observation	  forms	  

created	  by	  Ms.	  Warren,	  though	  never	  officially	  adopted,	  describe	  “mental	  health	  watch”	  and	  “intense	  

watch”	  as	  the	  levels.)	  

	  

There	  was	  no	  evidence	  that	  a	  standard	  suicide	  risk	  assessment	  is	  conducted	  when	  an	  inmate	  is	  

placed	  on	  watch	  status.	  	  There	  was	  no	  evidence	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  file	  that	  treatment	  intensity	  was	  

increased	  in	  response	  to	  mental	  health	  crisis	  or	  placement	  on	  suicide	  watch.	  	  The	  Agreement	  requires	  

that	  a	  psychiatric	  provider	  direct	  the	  care	  of	  potentially	  suicidal	  inmates.	  	  There	  was	  no	  evidence	  that	  

the	  psychiatrists	  were	  involved	  at	  all;	  suicide	  precaution	  orders	  are	  not	  issued	  by	  a	  psychiatrist,	  nor	  is	  

the	  psychiatrist	  called	  upon	  to	  conduct	  a	  face-­‐to-­‐face	  assessment.	  	  If	  suicide	  precautions	  are	  instituted	  

at	  all,	  as	  opposed	  to	  simply	  locking	  inmates	  in	  their	  cells	  with	  no	  treatment,	  there	  is	  no	  evidence	  that	  

the	  precautions	  are	  reduced	  or	  removed	  by	  a	  psychiatrist.	  	  Further,	  I	  did	  not	  see	  a	  single	  cell	  in	  either	  

CJC	  or	  the	  Annex	  that	  would	  be	  appropriately	  called	  a	  “safe	  cell.”	  	  All	  had	  problems	  with	  location	  

(distance	  from	  correctional	  officers),	  limited	  visibility,	  mental	  health	  staff	  access	  for	  confidential	  

treatment	  and	  unsafe	  environmental	  factors	  providing	  places	  to	  “tie	  off”	  an	  object	  that	  could	  be	  used	  in	  

a	  hanging	  attempt.	  	  	  

	  

Staff	  training	  materials	  related	  to	  intake	  screening,	  suicide	  prevention,	  signs	  and	  symptoms	  of	  

mental	  illness	  and	  responding	  to	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  crises	  were	  requested	  but	  nothing	  was	  

produced	  in	  response.	  	  The	  officer	  accompanying	  us	  on	  the	  tour	  could	  not	  locate	  a	  cut-­‐down	  tool,	  nor	  

did	  she	  know	  where	  it	  was	  ordinarily	  located.	  	  (This	  is	  a	  recipe	  for	  tragedy.)	  	  Clearly,	  if	  there	  is	  training	  

for	  correctional	  staff,	  it	  was	  ineffective	  and	  must	  be	  remedied.	  

	  

Suicide	  prevention	  at	  CJC	  is	  deficient	  in	  every	  respect	  and	  noncompliant	  with	  all	  components	  

articulated	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  	  (V.2.l.	  sections	  i	  through	  xii)	  	  However,	  Ms.	  Warren	  reported	  there	  have	  

been	  no	  suicides	  in	  the	  last	  two	  years.	  	  She	  estimated	  that	  suicide	  watches	  occur	  at	  a	  frequency	  of	  one	  

every	  8-­‐15	  months	  although	  there	  is	  no	  actual	  data	  collection	  on	  this	  and	  as	  noted	  previously,	  and	  

Carty v DeJongh

13	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 14 of 28
	  

watches	  do	  not	  result	  in	  a	  referral	  to	  mental	  health	  staff,	  immediately	  or	  otherwise.	  	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  also	  

indicated	  that	  if	  an	  inmate	  is	  injured	  as	  a	  result	  of	  a	  suicide	  attempt,	  he	  or	  she	  is	  taken	  out	  for	  treatment	  

at	  the	  local	  hospital	  but	  generally	  returned	  when	  medically	  treated	  and	  physically	  stable.	  	  This	  may	   happen	  once	  or	  twice	  annually.	  	  No	  inmates	  were	  hospitalized	  at	  the	  local	  hospital	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  

visit.	  	  Given	  that	  suicides	  occur	  in	  correctional	  facilities	  at	  a	  higher	  rate	  than	  in	  the	  community,	  it	  is	   imperative	  that	  CJC	  develop	  and	  maintain	  an	  adequate	  suicide	  prevention	  program.	  	  That	  no	  completed	  

suicides	  have	  occurred	  at	  the	  facility	  in	  the	  past	  two	  years	  is	  fortunate,	  but	  years	  of	  clinical	  research	  and	   practice	  dictate	  that	  correctional	  facilities	  have	  a	  comprehensive	  suicide	  prevention	  program	  in	  place	  to	  

minimize	  the	  risk	  of	  completed	  suicide.	  	  No	  such	  program	  is	  in	  place	  at	  CJC.	  

	  

	  

Staffing	  –	  adequate	  professional	  staffing	  with	  periodic	  analysis	  and	  plans;	  adequate	  correctional	  staffing	   to	  support	  mental	  health	  mission	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2m	  section	  ii,vii,viii;	  V2n;	  IVB1d	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

The	  staffing	  plan	  and	  current	  table	  of	  organization	  including	  whether	  positions	  were	  filled	  or	  

vacant	  and	  the	  CVs	  of	  all	  mental	  health	  staff	  including	  verification	  of	  current	  licensure	  were	  requested	  

prior	  to	  the	  site	  visit.	  	  The	  response	  was	  incomplete.	  	  	  

	  

A	  document	  was	  produced	  identifying	  Ms.	  Ruth	  Warren	  as	  the	  Mental	  Health	  Coordinator	  and	  

Dr.	  Lu	  as	  the	  facility	  psychiatrist.	  	  No	  credentials,	  license	  verification	  or	  work	  hours	  were	  included	  in	  the	  

document	  provided.	  	  Information	  gathered	  on	  site	  indicates	  Ms.	  Warren	  is	  a	  social	  worker	  by	  education,	  

training	  and	  experience	  and	  she	  works	  full	  time	  weekdays.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  is	  contracted	  to	  work	  2	  hours	  each	  

weekday	  for	  a	  total	  of	  10	  hours	  per	  week.	  	  There	  is	  no	  verification	  of	  this.	  	  Further,	  when	  on	  site,	  it	  was	   clear	  that	  that	  Dr.	  Lu	  is	  actually	  conducting	  forensic	  evaluations	  for	  the	  court	  rather	  than	  providing	  

treatment	  to	  inmates	  for	  a	  significant	  portion	  of	  his	  hours.	  	  Further,	  he	  was	  not	  at	  the	  facility	  for	  2	  hours	  

on	  each	  of	  the	  days	  that	  I	  was	  at	  CJC.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  indicated	  that	  another	  psychiatrist,	  Dr.	  Napier,	  had	  

started	  in	  early	  2014	  and	  is	  contracted	  to	  provide	  20	  hours	  of	  psychiatric	  treatment	  per	  week,	  4	  hours	  

Carty v DeJongh

14	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 15 of 28
	  

daily	  in	  the	  afternoons.	  	  As	  with	  Dr.	  Lu,	  the	  contract	  is	  not	  monitored	  nor	  hours	  worked	  verified	  in	  any	  

manner.	  	  Dr.	  Napier	  was	  at	  CJC	  for	  an	  hour	  or	  two	  on	  the	  first	  day	  of	  the	  visit,	  saw	  no	  inmates	  and	  was	  

called	  back	  to	  the	  hospital	  to	  address	  an	  emergency.	  	  He	  did	  not	  return.	  	  He	  hadn't	  arrived	  at	  CJC	  by	  1:00	  

PM	  on	  the	  second	  day	  of	  the	  site	  visit.	  	  There	  was	  no	  indication	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  files	  that	  having	  

additional	  psychiatric	  time	  at	  the	  facility	  has	  increased	  the	  numbers	  of	  patients	  seen	  or	  improved	  the	  

frequency	  with	  which	  patients	  are	  seen	  by	  psychiatry.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  said	  that	  it	  was	  helpful	  to	  have	  two	  

psychiatrists	  in	  terms	  of	  being	  able	  to	  switch	  some	  inmates	  who	  didn’t	  like	  or	  disagreed	  with	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  

care	  to	  Dr.	  Napier,	  but	  there	  was	  no	  formal	  assignment	  of	  patients	  to	  either	  of	  the	  psychiatrists.	  	  In	  

addition	  to	  Ms.	  Warren	  and	  the	  psychiatrists,	  there	  is	  a	  contract	  with	  an	  outside	  vendor	  for	  a	  

psychologist	  (Thompson)	  and	  a	  psychology	  intern	  (Ms.	  Livingston)	  to	  provide	  2	  hours	  of	  group	  treatment	  

to	  inmates	  at	  the	  jail	  weekly.	  

	  

Dr.	  Lu	  said	  that	  he	  had	  been	  providing	  services	  at	  the	  jail	  since	  approximately	  2000.	  	  He	  

acknowledged	  doing	  forensic	  reports/competency	  assessments	  in	  addition	  to	  direct	  clinical	  care.	  	  He	  

didn’t	  view	  this	  as	  any	  sort	  of	  ethical	  problem	  or	  conflict	  or	  see	  it	  as	  taking	  time	  away	  from	  being	  able	  to	  

provide	  an	  adequate	  number	  of	  clinical	  hours.	  	  (His	  progress	  notes	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  records	  contain	  

elements	  of	  both	  clinical	  observations	  and	  forensic	  conclusions.	  	  This	  is	  improper	  and	  has	  been	  

identified	  in	  the	  past.)	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  said	  generally	  sees	  inmates	  monthly	  but	  sometimes	  every	  2-­‐3	  months,	  and	  

that	  he	  re-­‐writes	  medication	  orders	  monthly.	  	  There	  is	  no	  documentation	  to	  support	  this	  practice.	  	  

Progress	  notes	  are	  quite	  infrequent	  and	  medication	  orders	  do	  not	  contain	  start,	  stop	  or	  duration	  dates.	  

	  

Dr.	  Napier	  said	  that	  his	  contract	  with	  the	  jail	  started	  in	  late	  January	  or	  early	  February.	  	  He	  is	  

contracted	  to	  work	  four	  hours	  per	  weekday.	  	  He	  expressed	  some	  concerns	  about	  the	  lack	  of	  physical	  

space	  at	  the	  facility	  and	  the	  lack	  of	  natural	  light	  for	  inmates	  and	  staff.	  	  He	  participates	  in	  a	  meeting	  with	  

medical	  staff,	  Ms.	  Warren	  and	  the	  contract	  psychologists	  every	  other	  Wednesday.	  	  He	  also	  thinks	  that	  

correctional	  staffing	  levels	  are	  a	  concern;	  sometimes	  when	  he	  is	  seeing	  patients,	  there	  are	  no	  security	  

Carty v DeJongh

15	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 16 of 28
	  

staff	  in	  the	  area	  and	  he	  has	  not	  been	  given	  a	  spider	  alarm.	  	  Dr.	  Napier	  mentioned	  considering	  telepsych	  

as	  a	  way	  to	  continue	  to	  provide	  care	  at	  the	  jail	  whenever	  he	  was	  not	  on	  the	  island	  and	  at	  home	  in	  

Canada.	  	  Several	  weeks	  after	  the	  visit,	  he	  telephoned	  me	  to	  ask	  my	  opinion	  about	  starting	  telepsych	  

with	  the	  jail.	  	  In	  this	  conversation,	  in	  addition	  to	  using	  it	  for	  continuity	  purposes	  when	  he	  was	  off	  island,	  

he	  thought	  it	  would	  be	  useful	  even	  when	  he	  was	  on	  the	  island	  and	  at	  the	  hospital	  as	  a	  way	  of	  getting	  his	  

contract	  time	  in	  at	  the	  jail.	  	  I	  told	  him	  that	  the	  lack	  of	  any	  operational	  mental	  health	  policies	  and	  

procedures,	  the	  paper	  records	  system,	  the	  lack	  of	  space,	  appropriate	  equipment,	  technological	  support	  

and	  the	  lack	  of	  clerical	  support	  are	  factors	  that	  must	  be	  addressed	  before	  any	  consideration	  can	  be	  

given	  to	  beginning	  telepsychiatry	  practice.	  It	  is	  not	  a	  viable	  option	  at	  this	  time.	  	  	  

	  

Staffing	  levels	  of	  correctional	  officers	  are	  inadequate:	  	  suicide	  watches	  cannot	  be	  conducted	  

appropriately;	  patients	  cannot	  be	  transported	  over	  to	  CJC	  from	  the	  Annex	  to	  participate	  in	  group	  

treatment	  consistently;	  staff	  cannot	  conduct	  rounds	  in	  segregation	  due	  to	  correctional	  officer	  	  

shortages;	  sometimes,	  posts	  are	  completely	  unmanned	  and	  other	  times,	  officers	  are	  called	  off	  their	  

posts	  to	  assist	  other	  officers	  in	  routine	  tasks	  such	  as	  meal	  distribution	  (leaving	  posts	  completely	  

unmanned)	  to	  name	  just	  a	  few	  examples	  that	  highlight	  the	  inadequate	  correctional	  officer	  staffing	  

levels.	  

	  

In	  summary,	  CJC	  is	  not	  compliant	  with	  the	  staffing	  terms	  articulated	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  	  

Professional	  staffing	  is	  not	  clinically	  adequate	  to	  provide	  mental	  health	  treatment	  programs,	  nor	  is	  there	  

sufficient	  correctional	  staff	  to	  support	  that	  mission.	  	  No	  staffing	  analysis	  was	  provided.	  	  No	  budget	  

specific	  to	  mental	  health	  was	  provided.	  	  There	  was	  no	  evidence	  of	  24-­‐hour	  psychiatric	  coverage.	  	  There	  

was	  no	  system	  of	  accountability	  for	  the	  contracted	  hours	  of	  psychiatric	  time	  on	  site	  during	  the	  day,	  

evidence	  that	  contracted	  psychiatric	  hours	  are	  not	  actually	  provided	  as	  well	  as	  serious	  concerns	  about	  

clinical	  productivity	  and	  practice	  (e.g.,	  failure	  to	  conduct	  timely	  assessments,	  failure	  to	  manage	  

medications	  appropriately,	  no	  involvement	  in	  suicide	  prevention	  and	  crisis	  care,	  etc.)	  	  	  	  	  

Carty v DeJongh

16	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 17 of 28
	  

Segregation	  –	  includes	  procedures	  for	  rounds	  as	  surveillance	  for	  inmates	  experiencing	  difficulty,	  

prohibition	  against	  placing	  mentally	  ill	  into	  segregation,	  mental	  health	  input	  to	  disciplinary	  process,	  and	  

use	  of	  force	  incidents,	  minimize	  segregation	  time,	  adequate	  out	  of	  cell	  time	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  IVH1f;	  V2t,	  V2u,	  V2v,	  V2w	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

No	  policies	  or	  procedures	  regarding	  segregation	  were	  provided.	  	  There	  was	  no	  evidence	  that	  

actual	  practice	  prohibits	  housing	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  (SMI)	  in	  isolation	  or	  any	  evidence	  of	  

review	  to	  minimize	  time	  in	  segregation	  or	  provide	  adequate	  out-­‐of-­‐cell	  time	  as	  required	  by	  the	  

Agreement.	  	  There	  was	  no	  documentation	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  files	  that	  any	  sort	  of	  mental	  health	  

review	  or	  consultation	  is	  provided	  at	  any	  time	  in	  the	  disciplinary	  process	  as	  required	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  	  

This	  provision	  is	  important	  because	  inmate	  behaviors	  may	  be	  a	  manifestation	  of	  psychiatric	  illness;	  it	  can	  

be	  identified	  and	  treated	  rapidly	  if	  inmates	  receiving	  disciplinary	  reports	  are	  referred	  to	  mental	  health	  

staff.	  	  If	  not	  referred,	  and	  given	  a	  lockdown	  sanction,	  access	  to	  care	  is	  impeded,	  mental	  conditions	  

worsen	  and	  treatment	  is	  delayed.	  	  	  

	  

Additionally,	  some	  inmates	  are	  locked	  down	  on	  regular	  housing	  units,	  including	  the	  mental	  

health	  treatment	  housing	  unit,	  cluster	  1.	  	  Although	  not	  technically	  “segregation”,	  the	  conditions	  

experienced	  by	  the	  locked	  down	  inmates	  are	  similar	  to	  those	  of	  segregation	  in	  terms	  of	  out-­‐of-­‐cell	  time,	  

access	  to	  care,	  property	  restriction,	  etc.,	  and	  should	  be	  considered	  when	  the	  policy	  and	  procedures	  are	  

developed	  for	  this	  area	  of	  the	  Agreement.	  

	  

	  

Mental	  health	  care	  –	  includes	  timely	  access	  acute	  and	  chronic	  care,	  access	  to	  inpatient	  or	  intermediate	   care	  if	  clinically	  appropriate,	  psychotropic	  medications,	  staff	  training,	  special	  procedures	  (seclusion	  and	   restraint),	  appropriate	  housing,	  adequate	  treatment	  space	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  IVB1d;	  IVIe;	  IVF7;V2e;	  V2w;	  V2x	   (sections	  i-­‐xii)	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

Program	  descriptions	  for	  mental	  health	  care	  provided,	  psychiatric	  services	  and	  any	  specialized	  

mental	  health	  housing	  were	  requested	  in	  advance	  of	  the	  site	  visit.	  	  The	  information	  provided	  indicated	  

that	  the	  services	  provided	  include	  individual	  assessments,	  psychosocial	  assessments,	  individual	  and	  

Carty v DeJongh

17	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 18 of 28
	  

group	  therapy,	  referral	  and	  education	  services;	  discharge	  planning	  and	  linkage	  to	  community	  services.	  	  

These	  are	  almost	  all	  done	  exclusively	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  as	  her	  time	  permits.	  	  Mental	  health	  staffing	  is	  

insufficient	  to	  actually	  do	  a	  course	  of	  individual	  therapy	  for	  a	  specific	  problem	  or	  issue.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  can	  

and	  does	  provide	  supportive	  counseling	  sessions	  primarily	  on	  an	  as-­‐needed	  or	  requested	  basis	  rather	  

than	  an	  actual	  course	  of	  treatment.	  	  	  

	  

The	  contract	  psychologist	  and	  intern	  do	  one	  group	  session	  weekly	  for	  5-­‐7	  inmates.	  	  Ms.	  

Warren’s	  office	  doubles	  as	  the	  group	  room.	  	  (It	  is	  very	  small	  and	  barely	  accommodates	  her	  desk	  and	  two	  

additional	  chairs.)	  	  The	  group	  curriculum	  is	  8	  weeks	  long	  but	  the	  last	  4	  weekly	  sessions	  were	  cancelled	  

for	  various	  reasons.	  	  (In	  one	  instance,	  there	  were	  no	  correctional	  staff	  to	  transport	  inmates	  from	  Annex	  

in	  order	  to	  participate.	  	  On	  another	  week,	  corrections	  “forgot”	  to	  get	  people	  from	  Annex	  and	  one	  time,	  

there	  were	  no	  chairs	  for	  the	  inmates	  to	  sit	  on	  so	  the	  group	  could	  not	  be	  conducted.	  Ms.	  Warren	  

subsequently	  got	  additional	  chairs.)	  In	  any	  event,	  this	  very	  limited	  group	  treatment	  resource	  is	  not	  

targeted	  to	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illnesses	  –	  they	  receive	  no	  group	  treatment	  or	  other	  

therapeutic	  activity.	  	  	  

	  

There	  is	  no	  policy	  addressing	  levels	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  or	  written	  protocols	  to	  describe	  the	  

frequency	  or	  types	  of	  contacts	  to	  be	  provided	  for	  chronic	  or	  acute	  conditions.	  	  Staffing	  levels	  do	  not	  

permit	  appropriate	  levels	  of	  mental	  health	  care.	  	  Treatment	  is	  more	  than	  psychotropic	  medication	  

administration.	  

	  

There	  are	  no	  single	  cells	  designated	  for	  special	  management	  inmates	  in	  either	  the	  main	  facility	  

or	  annex.	  	  An	  adequate	  number	  of	  single	  cells	  designated	  for	  inmates	  with	  special	  health	  and	  mental	  

health	  care	  needs	  is	  required	  by	  the	  Agreement.	  	  Defendants	  are	  not	  compliant	  with	  this	  provision.	  	  In	  

CJC	  main,	  housing	  area	  "Cluster	  1"	  was	  identified	  as	  the	  mental	  health	  treatment	  unit	  for	  male	  inmates.	  	  

It	  consists	  of	  11	  cells;	  10	  have	  open	  steel	  barred	  doors	  and	  one	  has	  a	  solid	  steel	  door	  containing	  only	  a	  

small	  viewing	  window	  at	  head	  level.	  	  (This	  solid	  door	  cell	  is	  used	  to	  house	  inmates	  on	  suicide	  precautions	  

Carty v DeJongh

18	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 19 of 28
	  

though	  it	  is	  located	  farthest	  from	  the	  officers'	  station,	  offers	  poor	  visibility	  into	  the	  cell	  and	  continuous	  

observation	  could	  not	  be	  maintained	  in	  this	  cell.)	  	  Each	  of	  the	  cells	  may	  house	  two	  inmates,	  none	  are	  

designated	  as	  single	  cells.	  	  Cells	  contain	  a	  bunk,	  shelf	  unit,	  desk	  with	  bench	  and	  stainless	  steel	  

commode/sink	  unit.	  	  There	  are	  no	  windows	  to	  the	  outside	  and	  no	  natural	  light.	  	  (Small	  windows	  to	  the	  

outdoors	  that	  were	  originally	  present	  have	  been	  covered	  over/blocked	  permanently	  in	  response	  to	  

communication	  and	  conveyance	  of	  contraband	  through	  the	  windows	  with	  persons	  outside	  the	  jail.)	  	  

Cells	  are	  located	  around	  the	  periphery	  of	  the	  housing	  area.	  	  The	  central	  "day	  room"	  area	  of	  the	  unit	  

contains	  5	  tables	  with	  bench	  stools	  permanently	  affixed	  to	  the	  floor,	  2	  telephones	  and	  2	  televisions	  for	  

the	  inmates.	  	  No	  mental	  health	  programs	  are	  offered	  on	  the	  housing	  unit.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  sometimes	  visits	  

the	  unit	  to	  chat	  briefly	  with	  the	  inmates	  and/or	  check	  on	  their	  condition.	  	  Dr.	  Napier	  has	  accompanied	  

her	  on	  occasion.	  

	  

Ms.	  Warren	  reported	  that	  the	  decision	  to	  admit	  or	  discharge	  from	  the	  MH	  housing	  unit	  is	  not	  

clinical.	  	  It	  appears	  to	  be	  driven	  by	  limited	  bed	  space.	  	  There	  is	  no	  treatment/programming	  space	  on	  or	  

near	  Cluster	  1.	  

	  

For	  a	  variety	  of	  reasons,	  Cluster	  1	  is	  not	  a	  safe	  or	  therapeutic	  housing	  area.	  	  Clinical	  staff	  do	  not	  

control	  admissions	  and	  discharges.	  	  The	  population	  is	  mixed	  in	  terms	  of	  vulnerable	  inmates	  with	  serious	  

mental	  illnesses	  and	  predatory	  inmates	  with	  a	  history	  of	  violence.	  	  Incident	  reports	  and	  the	  log	  book	  are	  

filled	  with	  reports	  of	  inmate-­‐on-­‐inmate	  physical	  fights,	  assaults	  and	  attacks	  requiring	  emergency	  

transport	  to	  the	  outside	  hospital	  for	  physical	  care.	  	  Some	  of	  these	  incidents	  involve	  the	  use	  of	  shanks	  

and	  other	  weapons.	  	  This	  happens	  often	  when	  it	  is	  clear	  that	  no	  officer	  was	  on	  post	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  

incident.	  	  The	  officer	  post	  is	  unmanned	  for	  hours	  at	  a	  time	  due	  to	  staffing	  shortages	  or	  officers	  being	  

pulled	  off	  post	  to	  assist	  in	  another	  area	  of	  the	  jail.	  	  Other	  times,	  the	  officers	  have	  been	  mandated	  to	  

work	  double	  shifts.	  	  They	  have	  been	  provided	  no	  specific	  training	  or	  instruction	  as	  to	  how	  to	  deal	  with	  or	  

manage	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness.	  	  Such	  training	  would	  assist	  officers	  in	  better	  communicating	  

Carty v DeJongh

19	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 20 of 28
	  

with	  special	  needs	  inmates,	  help	  de-­‐escalate	  crises	  to	  reduce	  the	  need	  for	  using	  force,	  lockdown	  and	  

physical	  restraint.	  	  There	  are	  incident	  reports	  in	  which	  officers	  use	  excessive	  physical	  force	  on	  inmates	  

and	  use	  steel	  restraints	  (handcuffs	  and	  leg	  irons)	  improperly	  and	  without	  authorization,	  policy,	  

involvement	  of	  or	  notice	  to	  mental	  health	  staff.	  	  Inmates	  have	  been	  shackled	  to	  desks	  or	  restrained	  in	  

other	  ways	  that	  increases	  their	  vulnerability	  to	  assaults	  in	  that	  they	  cannot	  defend	  themselves	  or	  get	  out	  

of	  harm’s	  way.	  	  The	  Agreement	  requires	  implementation	  of	  special	  policies	  on	  the	  use	  of	  seclusion	  and	  

restraint	  consistent	  with	  professional	  guidelines	  that	  include	  face-­‐to-­‐face	  assessments	  by	  a	  psychiatrist	  

and	  monitoring	  by	  nursing	  and	  limited	  duration.	  	  None	  of	  these	  guidelines	  are	  met	  with	  the	  unilateral	  

decision	  of	  corrections	  to	  place	  inmates	  in	  lockdown	  or	  restraint.	  	  Cluster	  1	  is	  a	  violent	  and	  dangerous	  

housing	  area.	  	  There	  is	  no	  evidence	  of	  coordinated	  management	  between	  corrections	  and	  mental	  health	  

staff.	  	  There	  is	  no	  evidence	  of	  any	  sort	  of	  structured	  therapeutic	  activity	  on	  the	  housing	  unit.	  	  Housing	  

inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  in	  Cluster	  1	  is	  harmful	  –	  physically	  as	  evidenced	  by	  incident	  reports	  

of	  inmate-­‐on-­‐inmate	  assault	  and	  excessive	  use	  of	  force	  by	  correctional	  staff,	  as	  well	  as	  psychologically.	  

	  

Mental	  health	  care	  at	  CJC	  is	  deficient	  in	  virtually	  every	  aspect:	  	  inadequate	  treatment	  space;	  

inappropriate	  housing	  including	  deficient	  “safety	  cells”	  for	  suicidal	  inmates	  or	  those	  experiencing	  crises;	  

insufficient	  mental	  health	  staffing	  levels;	  minimal	  treatment	  other	  than	  psychotropic	  medication;	  

inadequate	  security	  staffing;	  no	  capacity	  to	  increase	  or	  respond	  to	  need	  for	  higher	  level	  of	  care;	  and	  no	  

policies	  or	  procedures	  including	  those	  for	  high	  risk	  occurrences	  (suicide	  watch,	  restraint,	  therapeutic	  

seclusion).	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  is	  a	  hard	  working,	  organized	  and	  dedicated	  mental	  health	  professional	  but	  one	  

person	  simply	  cannot	  do	  everything.	  	  Additional	  treatment	  providers	  are	  necessary	  and	  the	  psychiatrists	  

must	  be	  held	  accountable	  for	  their	  time	  and	  productivity	  in	  terms	  of	  patient	  care.	  	  Inmates	  with	  serious	  

mental	  illnesses	  are	  not	  seen	  timely	  by	  psychiatry	  nor	  are	  they	  seen	  at	  regular	  intervals.	  	  Additionally,	  

some	  interactions	  are	  not	  conducted	  in	  private	  or	  confidential	  settings.	  	  For	  example,	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  patient	  

interactions	  are	  sometimes	  conducted	  while	  the	  inmate	  is	  at	  the	  window	  of	  the	  medication	  room	  

Carty v DeJongh

20	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 21 of 28
	  

receiving	  his	  medication	  dose.	  	  This	  is	  clearly	  not	  private	  and	  woefully	  inadequate	  in	  terms	  of	  the	  

duration	  and	  comprehensiveness	  of	  the	  contact.	  	  There	  are	  virtually	  no	  treatment	  interventions	  for	  

inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  other	  than	  psychotropic	  medication.	  	  The	  Agreement	  requires	  

adequate	  mental	  health	  programs	  for	  all	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  and	  includes	  psychosocial	  

rehabilitation	  services.	  	  These	  types	  interventions	  serve	  as	  an	  adjunct	  to	  treatment	  with	  medication,	  

help	  inmates	  manage	  their	  illnesses/deal	  with	  symptoms,	  increase	  pro-­‐social	  skills,	  prepare	  for	  release	  

and	  ultimately,	  reduce	  criminal	  recidivism.	  	  Additionally,	  engaging	  inmates	  in	  structured	  activities	  is	  also	  

extremely	  helpful	  in	  terms	  of	  jail	  population	  management	  –	  inmates	  have	  less	  idle,	  unproductive	  time	  

and	  fewer	  incidents	  result.	  	  Also,	  as	  stated	  a	  number	  of	  times,	  correctional	  officers	  must	  be	  present	  in	  

sufficient	  numbers	  and	  receive	  appropriate	  training	  to	  manage	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness.	  	  	  

	  

There	  are	  no	  contracts	  or	  memoranda	  of	  understanding	  regarding	  the	  transfer	  and	  provision	  of	  

mental	  health	  care	  to	  prisoners	  in	  outside	  treatment	  facilities	  such	  as	  inpatient	  hospitalization	  or	  

intermediate	  care.	  	  The	  Agreement	  requires	  timely	  transfer	  to	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  care	  when	  clinically	  

necessary.	  	  I	  identified	  at	  least	  two	  inmates	  (patient	  1	  and	  9)	  that	  needed	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  care.	  	  As	  

stated	  elsewhere	  in	  this	  report,	  clinical	  studies	  demonstrate	  that	  timely	  access	  to	  care	  is	  vital	  to	  ensure	  a	  

positive	  outcome/treatment	  response.	  	  If	  care	  is	  delayed,	  the	  response	  to	  treatment	  is	  less	  

complete/robust	  and	  takes	  longer	  to	  achieve	  than	  when	  care	  is	  provided	  timely	  –	  and	  people	  continue	  

to	  suffer.	  	  	  

	  

The	  Agreement’s	  requirement	  for	  transfer	  to	  outside	  treatment	  facilities	  when	  necessary	  is	  also	  

highly	  relevant	  inasmuch	  as	  there	  are	  two	  patients	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  being	  held	  in	  the	  jail	  who	  

have	  been	  found	  not	  guilty	  by	  reason	  of	  insanity	  (NGRI)	  and	  have	  no	  other	  pending	  charges.	  	  	  I	  

interviewed	  one	  of	  them	  (patient	  #9)	  who	  clearly	  needs	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  care	  and	  should	  be	  transferred	  

out	  immediately.	  	  I	  did	  not	  interview	  the	  other	  patient	  but	  understand	  that	  he	  was	  found	  NGRI	  in	  1998.	  	  

He	  was	  held	  in	  Corrections	  and	  Department	  of	  Health	  facilities	  until	  2009	  when	  he	  was	  transferred	  to	  

Carty v DeJongh

21	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 22 of 28
	  

Sylmar	  Health	  and	  Behavioral	  Center	  in	  California.	  	  This	  patient	  was	  discharged	  from	  Sylmar	  and	  

returned	  to	  CJC	  in	  January	  2013.	  	  He	  has	  remained	  in	  custody	  since	  that	  time.	  	  Several	  inquiries	  have	  

been	  made	  on	  behalf	  of	  both	  of	  these	  acquittees	  to	  determine	  why	  they	  remain	  in	  jail.	  	  I	  also	  raised	  the	  

question	  with	  Mr.	  Robertson	  and	  Ms.	  Carol	  Thomas-­‐Jacobs	  when	  I	  was	  on	  site.	  	  They	  said	  they	  would	  

look	  into	  it	  but	  I	  have	  heard	  nothing	  back	  from	  them.	  	  I	  know	  of	  no	  other	  correctional	  system	  or	  facility	  

that	  continues	  to	  imprison	  NGRI	  acquittees	  or	  other	  people	  who	  have	  been	  found	  not	  guilty	  when	  there	  

are	  no	  pending	  charges.	  	  Both	  of	  these	  inmates	  must	  be	  released	  from	  jail.	  	  Given	  the	  duration	  of	  their	  

confinement	  (and	  patient	  #9	  mental	  condition),	  transfer	  to	  inpatient	  care	  followed	  by	  placement	  into	  

intermediate	  care	  and	  gradual	  transition	  into	  the	  community	  is	  clinically	  indicated	  and	  necessary.	  	  

	  

Mental	  health	  care	  is	  not	  compliant	  with	  the	  specific	  terms	  of	  the	  Agreement	  or	  the	  over-­‐

arching	  requirement	  for	  “timely	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  care	  consistent	  with	  community	  standards	  

and	  constitutional	  requirements	  including	  screening,	  assessment,	  treatment	  and	  monitoring	  of	  

prisoners’	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  needs.”	  	  (Section	  V.1.)	  

	  	  

RECOMMENDATIONS	  

	  

	  

This	  was	  my	  first	  site	  visit	  and	  is	  being	  used	  to	  establish	  a	  baseline	  from	  which	  a	  plan	  to	  move	  

forward	  in	  addressing	  the	  requirements	  of	  the	  Settlement	  Agreement	  can	  be	  developed.	  	  I	  found	  no	  

areas	  of	  compliance	  or	  partial	  compliance	  with	  any	  of	  the	  mental	  health	  terms	  of	  the	  Agreement.	  	  I	  

recommend	  defendants	  consider	  developing	  a	  plan	  that	  calls	  for	  addressing	  items	  in	  stages	  or	  phases.	  	  

For	  example,	  in	  the	  short	  term	  (6	  months),	  the	  items	  of	  highest	  risk	  should	  be	  addressed.	  	  	  Other	  

components	  of	  care	  can	  be	  addressed	  in	  the	  intermediate	  term	  (6-­‐12	  months)	  and	  finally,	  a	  third	  group	  

of	  items	  or	  goals	  can	  be	  addressed	  in	  the	  longer	  term	  (12-­‐24	  months).	  	  	  	  This	  would	  help	  organize	  the	  

task	  into	  manageable	  and	  achievable	  steps	  in	  order	  to	  reach	  compliance	  with	  the	  Agreement.	  	  The	  

following	  paragraphs	  are	  intended	  to	  illustrate	  this	  recommended	  methodology	  using	  some	  of	  the	  

Carty v DeJongh

22	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 23 of 28
	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  terms	  by	  way	  of	  example.	  	  	  They	  are	  not	  offered	  as	  comprehensive	  coverage	  nor	  

intended	  to	  imply	  that	  doing	  only	  these	  items	  is	  sufficient	  to	  bring	  mental	  health	  care	  into	  full	  

compliance	  with	  the	  terms	  specified	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  	  

	  

In	  the	  short	  term	  (first	  6	  months),	  the	  areas	  of	  the	  Agreement	  that	  address	  high-­‐risk	  practices	  or	  

situations	  should	  be	  addressed.	  	  This	  includes	  revision	  and	  updating	  the	  Intake	  Screening	  process	  to	  

ensure	  that	  emergency	  needs	  and	  continuity	  of	  care	  are	  identified	  in	  addition	  to	  other	  mental	  health	  

needs	  so	  that	  a	  referral	  to	  mental	  health	  may	  be	  made	  timely.	  	  The	  current	  practice	  under-­‐identifies	  

people	  and	  does	  not	  triage	  or	  sort	  patients	  into	  those	  with	  chronic	  vs.	  acute	  care	  needs.	  	  	  Suicide	  

prevention	  is	  another	  high-­‐risk	  area	  that	  should	  be	  addressed	  in	  the	  short	  term.	  	  “Safety	  cells”	  must	  be	  

identified	  and	  made	  “safe”	  with	  improved	  visibility.	  	  Monitoring,	  documentation	  and	  communication	  

between	  treatment	  and	  custody	  staff	  must	  be	  addressed	  in	  policy	  and	  practice.	  	  Adoption	  of	  a	  

standardized	  risk	  assessment	  instrument	  would	  be	  helpful	  in	  assessing	  and	  managing	  risk.	  	  The	  policy	  

must	  also	  address	  increasing	  treatment	  intensity	  during	  periods	  of	  increased	  suicide	  risk	  and	  specify	  

follow-­‐up	  after	  a	  watch	  is	  discontinued.	  	  Policies	  and	  procedures	  for	  the	  use	  of	  seclusion	  and	  restraint	  

must	  also	  be	  addressed	  during	  this	  period	  as	  they	  represent	  high-­‐risk	  practices.	  	  Inmates	  in	  the	  MH	  

cluster	  are	  placed	  on	  locked	  down	  status,	  which	  is	  actually	  a	  form	  of	  seclusion.	  	  This	  practice	  must	  be	  

addressed	  by	  policy	  and	  include	  authorization	  by	  psychiatry,	  monitoring	  by	  corrections	  and	  involvement	  

of	  mental	  health	  staff.	  	  Finally	  staff	  	  (mental	  health,	  medical	  and	  custody)	  training	  on	  the	  new	  

procedures	  and	  expectations	  could	  also	  occur	  in	  the	  short	  term.	  

	  

In	  the	  intermediate	  term	  (months	  7-­‐12),	  the	  remaining	  mental	  health	  policies	  and	  procedures	  

required	  by	  the	  Agreement	  should	  be	  developed	  and	  implemented.	  	  These	  include	  setting	  the	  practice	  

parameters	  for	  acute	  and	  chronic	  mental	  health	  care	  (e.g.,	  frequency	  of	  contact,	  documentation	  

requirements,	  treatment	  planning,	  individual	  and	  group	  counseling,	  medication	  management,	  etc.)	  	  A	  

mechanism	  to	  reliably	  and	  consistently	  monitor	  the	  psychiatrists’	  contracts	  should	  be	  put	  into	  place	  to	  

Carty v DeJongh

23	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 24 of 28
	  

ensure	  that	  the	  facility	  is	  actually	  receiving	  the	  30	  hours	  weekly	  specified	  in	  the	  contract.	  	  This	  virtual	  

tripling	  of	  psychiatric	  time	  should	  permit	  the	  psychiatrists	  to	  do	  more	  frequent	  medication	  monitoring	  in	  

addition	  to	  medication	  education	  and	  some	  supportive	  counseling.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  should	  not	  be	  doing	  forensic	  

evaluations	  on	  patients	  with	  whom	  he	  has	  a	  treatment	  relationship	  nor	  should	  his	  forensic	  conclusions	  

be	  documented	  in	  the	  clinical	  record.	  	  Productivity	  expectations	  (number	  of	  patients	  seen	  per	  week)	  

should	  be	  set	  and	  performance	  monitored.	  	  An	  MOU	  and/or	  contract	  to	  ensure	  access	  to	  inpatient	  care	  

must	  be	  addressed	  in	  this	  intermediate	  term.	  	  A	  psychotropic	  medication	  policy	  that	  reflects	  

contemporary	  practice	  standards	  must	  be	  adopted.	  	  It	  must	  address	  informed	  consent,	  monitoring	  for	  

side	  effects,	  laboratory	  testing	  and	  response	  to	  treatment.	  	  	  	  

	  

The	  longer	  term	  (months	  13-­‐24)	  should	  be	  used	  to	  address	  those	  items	  in	  the	  Agreement	  that	  

will	  require	  additional	  study	  and	  likely	  some	  physical	  plant	  modification.	  	  This	  includes	  the	  identification	  

and/or	  creation	  of	  appropriate	  treatment	  space	  for	  both	  individual	  and	  group	  interventions.	  	  Treatment	  

space	  must	  be	  easily	  accessible	  to	  both	  patients	  and	  staff,	  permit	  confidentiality	  while	  also	  ensuring	  

safety	  and	  security.	  	  Any	  housing	  unit	  used	  for	  mental	  health	  housing	  at	  CJC	  or	  the	  Annex	  will	  require	  

significant	  physical	  plant	  modification.	  	  Another	  long	  term	  item	  is	  staffing,	  which	  includes	  a	  mental	  

health	  staffing	  plan	  based	  on	  the	  needs	  identified	  by	  implementing	  acute	  and	  chronic	  care	  clinics,	  

mental	  health	  involvement	  in	  crisis	  intervention/suicide	  prevention	  and	  timely	  and	  comprehensive	  

release/discharge	  planning.	  	  Any	  staffing	  plan	  must	  also	  include	  an	  analysis	  of	  correctional	  officer	  

staffing	  levels	  to	  permit	  adequate	  levels	  of	  offender	  supervision,	  escort,	  transportation,	  monitoring,	  

documentation,	  staff	  safety	  and	  the	  myriad	  of	  other	  tasks	  and	  functions	  that	  are	  required	  of	  officers.	  

	  

As	  noted,	  the	  foregoing	  represents	  one	  type	  of	  plan	  intended	  to	  systematically	  address	  the	  

terms	  specified	  in	  the	  Settlement	  Agreement.	  	  It	  is	  offered	  by	  way	  of	  example	  and	  does	  not	  include	  each	  

and	  every	  item	  of	  the	  Agreement.	  	  If	  defendants	  adopt	  the	  methodology,	  all	  of	  the	  Agreement	  items	  

should	  be	  incorporated	  into	  the	  short,	  intermediate	  and	  long-­‐term	  plan	  construct.	  	  I	  remain	  available	  for	  

Carty v DeJongh

24	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 25 of 28
	  
continued	  consultation	  during	  this	  process	  or	  any	  other	  selected	  by	  defendants.	  	  I	  will	  plan	  on	  returning	  
for	  a	  second	  site	  visit	  to	  assess	  progress	  at	  the	  beginning	  of	  calendar	  year	  2015.	  
	   	   Respectfully	  submitted,	   	   /s/	   Kathryn	  A.	  Burns,	  MD,	  MPH	   17	  October	  2014	  

Carty v DeJongh

25	  

Mental Health Report 1

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 26 of 28

Record	  review

Interview

Comment

#1 Arrested	  4/2/13;	  referred	  to	  MH	  4/15/13	  (2	  weeks);	  initial	  assessment	  4/15.	  	   Reports	  he	  is	  going	  to	  court	  6/28	  and	  anticipates	  he	  will	  be	  released	  then.	  	   Chart	  notes	  of	  psychiatrist	  contain	  a	  mixture	  of	  forensic	  content	  

Treatment	  plans	  12/15/13,	  4/22/14,	  7/23/14.	  	  Tx	  Plan	  diagnoses	  are	  

Complains	  of	  leg	  and	  shoulder	  hurting	  -­‐	  he	  has	  sickle	  cell	  trait.	  	  He	  hasn't	   and	  clinical	  content	  but	  no	  increase	  in	  contact	  or	  changes	  to	  

Schizophrenia,	  chronic;	  cannabis	  dependence,	  ASPD,	  Sickle	  Cell.	  	  Has	  had	  8	   been	  seen	  by	  psychiatrist	  "for	  a	  while",	  no	  group	  treatment.	  	  Has	  right	   treatment	  plan	  when	  clearly	  	  highly	  symptomatic	  and	  ill.

psychiatric	  hospitalizations	  1983-­‐1997.	  	  Note	  by	  SW	  that	  Dr.	  Lu	  started	  

upper	  extremity	  resting	  tremor.	  	  MSE-­‐appearance	  hygiene	  fair	  but	  has	  

medication	  4/22	  but	  there	  is	  no	  apparent	  order	  for	  medication	  until	  7/24/13.	  	   body	  odor,	  lower	  teeth	  missing,	  thin;	  difficult	  to	  re-­‐direct	  from	  pain	  and	  

Psychiatry	  visits	  Lu	  7/12/13,	  9/6/13,	  9/23/13	  at	  med	  room,	  12/4/13	  "poor	   wanting	  medication	  for	  pain;	  garbled,	  mumbling	  speech;	  denied	  any	  MH	  

understanding	  of	  legal	  system	  marginally	  competent";	  1/23/14,	  2/4/14	  -­‐	   problems.

unable	  to	  assist	  his	  defense	  rationally;	  2/10,	  2/25,	  2/28	  met	  in	  med	  room;	  

visits	  with	  Napier	  3/10	  and	  4/9;	  Lu	  5/20/14.	  	  Meds	  are	  Cogentin	  0.5	  BID,	  

Trifluoperazine	  2	  BID,	  Lorezapam	  1	  QD.

#2 Arrested	  11/13/13,	  referred	  to	  MH	  11/15	  and	  seen	  for	  initial	  assessment	   Says	  he	  stopped	  taking	  the	  Depakote	  because	  the	  pills	  were	  choking	  him.	  	   Treating	  psychiatrist	  unclear;	  appear	  to	  be	  working	  at	  cross	  

11/15.	  	  No	  treatment	  plan	  until	  4/23/14	  -­‐	  Bipolar	  Affective	  Disorder,	  Alcohol	   Sometimes	  sees	  Dr.	  Lu	  by	  the	  nurse	  (when	  going	  to	  get	  meds.)	  	  Booking	   purposes	  or	  at	  least	  not	  on	  same	  page	  regarding	  medication	  

and	  cannabis	  abuse,	  cocaine	  dependence,	  Dependent	  PD.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  PN	  11/18/13	   officer	  did	  ask	  questions	  whey	  he	  arrived	  and	  he	  saw	  the	  nurse	  and	  got	   management.	  	  

indicates	  bipolar	  and	  substance	  abuse	  but	  does	  not	  indicate	  meds.	  	  3/21	   meds	  right	  away.	  	  Attends	  a	  counseling	  group	  on	  Wednesdays	  but	  some	  

Depakote	  level	  ordered	  and	  it	  is	  very	  low;	  blood	  level	  reordered	  4/30	  but	  no	   days	  they	  couldn't	  make	  it	  there.	  	  MSE-­‐	  pleasant,	  cooperative,	  denies	  

result.	  	  On	  5/15,	  Depakote	  dose	  increased	  to	  500	  BID	  liquid.	  	  5/19	  Napier	  sees	   auditory	  hallucinations	  now	  but	  says	  he	  had	  them	  when	  younger;	  

and	  reports	  calm,	  pleasant	  and	  normal	  mood.	  	  5/20	  note	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  that	   cheerful;	  concrete	  but	  answers	  questions	  appropriately;	  edentulous	  with	  

Lu	  stopped	  oral	  medication	  and	  increased	  IM	  but	  there	  is	  NO	  note	  from	  Lu	  as	   bad	  breath.

to	  why	  and	  Napier's	  note	  looks	  like	  no	  med	  changes	  were	  warranted.	  	  MAR	  

indicated	  Depakote	  500	  BID,	  Cogentin	  0.5	  BID;	  Haldol	  D	  50	  Q	  4	  wks	  but	  also	  

same	  page	  100	  Q	  4	  weeks	  -­‐	  no	  start	  or	  stop	  dates	  so	  not	  clear	  what	  he	  is	  

supposed	  to	  get.	  	  No	  informed	  consent.

#3 Arrested	  10/31/10;	  referred	  to	  MH	  11/19/10	  and	  seen	  same	  day	  for	  

Not	  interviewed.

Mixed	  forensic	  and	  treatment	  roles.	  	  Low	  dose	  traditional	  

assessment	  11/19/10.	  	  There	  is	  a	  treatment	  plan	  but	  goals	  and	  objectives	  are	  

antipsychotic	  -­‐	  no	  rationale	  provided	  as	  to	  why	  in	  the	  face	  of	  on-­‐

not	  measurable,	  nor	  do	  PN	  ever	  reflect	  back	  to	  plan.	  	  Has	  been	  in	  some	  

going	  symptoms	  dose	  is	  not	  increased	  or	  other	  agent	  tried.

groups.	  	  Most	  recent	  notes:	  1/23/14	  Lu	  notes	  that	  he	  still	  denies	  charges.	  	  

2/20/14	  Lu	  note	  that	  there	  are	  no	  active	  symptoms,	  understands	  charge	  but	  

denies	  it.	  	  3/14/14	  Napier	  notes	  chronic	  schizophrenia,	  odd	  delusions	  and	  on-­‐

going	  symptoms	  "will	  likely	  have	  low	  grade	  symptoms."	  	  No	  medication	  

changes	  made	  or	  suggested.	  	  Medication	  orders	  are	  written	  at	  intervals	  of	  1	  

to	  4	  months	  though	  none	  of	  the	  orders	  have	  end	  dates.	  	  Per	  MAR	  meds	  are	  

Fluphenazine	  2.5	  BID	  and	  Cogentin	  0.5	  BID.

#4 Arrested	  3/8/14;	  refer	  to	  MH	  3/8	  &	  initial	  assessment	  3/8;	  treatment	  plan	   This	  is	  first	  jail	  stay,	  he	  is	  an	  illegal	  from	  Dominican	  Republic.	  	  Reports	   No	  actual	  suicide	  risk	  assessment.	  	  Mixing	  of	  treatment	  vs.	  

3/13	  indicates	  Panic	  disorder	  and	  alcohol	  dependence.	  	  3/10	  -­‐	  seen	  by	  Napier	   there	  is	  nothing	  wrong	  with	  his	  brain	  but	  he	  takes	  some	  medicine	  for	   forensic	  functions	  -­‐	  should	  not	  be	  doing	  both.	  	  No	  adjustment	  to	  

who	  plans	  to	  monitor	  for	  risk	  suicide	  but	  no	  meds.	  	  3/19	  -­‐	  started	  Remeron	  to	   anxiety	  and	  problems	  sleeping.	  	  He	  is	  facing	  very	  serious	  charges	  of	  having	   medication	  regimen	  in	  spite	  of	  noting	  patient	  is	  loose,	  irrational	  

decrease	  anxiety,	  improve	  sleep	  and	  appetite.	  	  "If	  not	  helpful,	  will	  use	  Celexa	   killed	  a	  child	  when	  he	  was	  drunk.	  	  Couple	  of	  times	  Dr.	  Napier	  asked	  him	   and	  delusional.

and	  Ativan."	  4/9-­‐	  Anxiety	  better	  but	  poor	  sleep.	  Increase	  Remeron	  to	  30.	  5/15	   about	  suicide	  and	  he	  does	  sometimes	  have	  fleeting	  thoughts	  about	  it	  or	  

-­‐	  Napier	  note	  "will	  discuss	  his	  case	  with	  his	  lawyer	  tomorrow	  (he	  consents)."	  	   thinking	  that	  he'd	  be	  better	  off	  dead.	  	  Has	  no	  plan	  for	  suicide.	  	  Has	  some	  

family	  support	  (sister	  and	  aunt	  in	  NY	  came	  to	  visit	  and	  sister	  coming	  back	  

in	  July)	  and	  a	  girlfriend	  in	  the	  community	  is	  supportive.	  	  MSE	  -­‐	  appears	  

depressed,	  speech	  is	  spontaneous,	  thinking	  organized	  and	  logical,	  no	  

psychotic	  symptoms.

#5 Release	  12/18/13	  but	  back	  in	  less	  than	  a	  month.	  	  No	  discharge	  note	  from	  MH	   Not	  interviewed.

Delay	  in	  receiving	  medication	  orders.	  	  Mixed	  role	  treatment	  v	  

but	  there	  is	  some	  kind	  of	  form	  from	  medical	  in	  the	  file.	  	  Returned	  1/7/14.	  	  

forensic…Not	  clear	  which	  capacity	  Dr.	  Lu	  is	  serving	  or	  when.	  	  

Seen	  by	  Dr.	  Lu	  1/13/14	  -­‐	  chronic	  schizophrenia.	  	  Med	  orders	  written	  1/16/14	  

Should	  not	  be	  doing	  both.

for	  Haldol	  D	  50	  Q	  4	  weeks,	  Fluphenazine	  5	  QD,	  Cogentin	  0.5	  QD.	  There	  have	  

been	  no	  renewals	  or	  re-­‐write.	  	  	  5/20/14	  -­‐	  Seen	  by	  Dr.	  Lu	  -­‐	  calm	  cooperative,	  

taking	  meds	  and	  understands	  nature	  of	  charges.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 27 of 28

#6 4/12/13	  -­‐	  Depakote	  discontinued.	  4/15/13	  -­‐	  order	  that	  all	  meds	  be	  

Not	  interviewed.	  (Not	  in	  jail	  at	  time	  of	  site	  visit.	  	  File	  reviewed	  because	   Watches	  are	  poorly	  documented	  in	  the	  MH	  file;	  PN	  do	  not	  

discontinued	  (Haldol,	  Cogentin	  and	  Ziprasidone).	  4/29	  note	  from	  Dr.	  Lu	  that	   patient	  reported	  as	  having	  been	  on	  watch	  status.)

contain	  time,	  no	  documentation	  of	  assessment	  of	  risk,	  no	  

emotionally	  unstable	  and	  condition	  worsened.	  	  Warren	  note	  4/29	  that	  he	  was	  

observation	  logs,	  no	  clarity	  regarding	  placement,	  continuation,	  

placed	  on	  suicide	  watch	  and	  protocol.	  	  No	  observation	  sheets	  in	  chart.	  	  5/2	  -­‐	  

discontinuation	  of	  watch	  status	  or	  follow-­‐up.

Warren	  note	  that	  he	  still	  appears	  mad	  at	  Dr.	  Lu,	  no	  mention	  of	  watch	  status.	  

5/6	  -­‐Warren	  note	  that	  she	  will	  have	  patient	  see	  Dr.	  Lu	  regarding	  watch.	  

5/8/14	  -­‐	  See	  by	  Lu	  and	  watch	  discontinued.	  	  Next	  note	  5/20	  from	  Warren.	  	  

Apparently	  released	  from	  jail	  sometime	  but	  back	  12/13/13.

#7 Was	  on	  suicide	  watch	  2/1/13-­‐2/3/13	  though	  there	  is	  no	  note	  to	  document	   Not	  interviewed.	  	  (Not	  in	  jail	  at	  time	  of	  site	  visit.	  	  File	  reviewed	  because	   Watches	  are	  poorly	  documented	  in	  the	  MH	  file;	  PN	  do	  not	  

discontinuation	  of	  watch.	  	  2/1/13	  -­‐	  placed	  on	  suicide	  watch	  by	  RN	  Freeman;	   patient	  reported	  as	  having	  been	  on	  watch	  status.)

contain	  time,	  no	  documentation	  of	  assessment	  of	  risk,	  no	  

2/1/13	  -­‐	  note	  by	  Lu	  that	  says	  he	  interviewed	  the	  patient	  1/31	  (but	  no	  note	  for	  

observation	  logs,	  no	  clarity	  regarding	  placement,	  continuation,	  

that	  date).	  2/2/13	  note	  from	  Lu	  that	  inmate	  scratched	  wrist	  with	  a	  piece	  of	  

discontinuation	  of	  watch	  status	  or	  follow-­‐up.

Formica	  and	  he	  was	  placed	  on	  watch.	  	  2/4/13	  note	  from	  Lu	  that	  "patient	  

assured	  that	  he	  is	  not	  suicidal	  -­‐	  does	  not	  know	  charges."	  	  Note	  doesn't	  say	  

anything	  about	  watch	  status.	  	  The	  medical	  file	  could	  not	  be	  located	  to	  find	  out	  

whether	  or	  not	  there	  were	  orders	  to	  begin	  or	  discontinue	  watch.	  	  No	  

observation	  logs	  were	  in	  the	  chart	  nor	  a	  copy	  of	  the	  memo	  regarding	  watch.

#8 MH	  file	  was	  not	  reviewed.	  	  MAR	  Depakote	  250	  BID,	  Olanzapine	  10	  HS.	  	  "Give	   He	  was	  in	  jail	  last	  year	  and	  released	  in	  December,	  came	  back	  in	  April	  and	   Valproic	  acid	  level	  likely	  subtherapeutic	  given	  the	  small	  dose	  

Haldol	  IM	  and	  Ativan	  IM	  if	  pt	  refuses	  Olanzapine.	  	  If	  pt	  refuses	  Olanzapine	  for	   not	  sure	  how	  long	  he'll	  be	  in	  jail	  this	  time.	  	  He	  takes	  meds	  but	  doesn't	   prescribed.	  	  If	  diagnosis	  is	  PTSD,	  haloperidol	  and	  olanzapine	  are	  

3	  days	  consecutive,	  give	  Haldol	  D	  100	  mg	  IM."	  	  There	  is	  another	  notation	  that	   know	  what	  they	  are	  called.	  	  His	  evening	  med	  was	  doubled	  but	  it	  is	  not	   not	  appropriate	  medication	  choices.

Olanzapine	  is	  20	  HS.

having	  an	  effect	  and	  he	  is	  up	  all	  night.	  	  He	  did	  see	  Ms.	  Warren	  and	  a	  

"white	  guy"	  (Napier?)	  since	  he's	  been	  back.	  	  When	  he	  was	  booked,	  the	  CO	  

didn't	  ask	  him	  any	  questions	  about	  his	  MH	  or	  medical	  history.	  	  It	  took	  

about	  two	  weeks	  to	  see	  a	  nurse	  and	  then	  he	  saw	  Dr.	  Lu;	  after	  that,	  he	  

started	  to	  get	  his	  meds.	  	  He	  has	  never	  had	  any	  blood	  drawn	  to	  check	  his	  

blood	  levels.	  	  He	  got	  an	  injection	  because	  he	  refused	  pills.	  He	  reports	  his	  

diagnoses	  is	  PTSD	  which	  he	  developed	  as	  a	  result	  of	  combat	  in	  the	  Iraq	  

war.	  	  He	  has	  nightmares	  and	  flashbacks.

#9 MH	  file	  was	  not	  reviewed.	  	  MAR	  indicates	  medications	  are	  Haldol	  5	  BID,	  

Says	  he	  came	  back	  from	  CA	  "a	  long	  time	  ago."	  	  Speech	  is	  hard	  to	  

Remains	  symptomatic	  with	  thought	  disorganization	  but	  no	  

Trifluoperazine	  5	  BID	  and	  Cogentin	  1	  BID.

understand,	  responses	  to	  questions	  are	  disjointed	  and	  illogical.	  	  Repeats	   medication	  has	  been	  adjusted	  nor	  has	  a	  different	  or	  newer	  

every	  question	  posed	  to	  him	  (to	  give	  him	  time	  to	  think	  of	  response?)	  but	   antipsychotic	  been	  tried.	  	  (He	  is	  likely	  a	  candidate	  for	  clozapine.)

then	  he	  does	  answer.	  	  He's	  poorly	  organized	  and	  poorly	  oriented	  through	  

he	  knows	  month	  and	  year	  and	  that	  he's	  at	  "St	  Thomas	  Detention	  Center."

#10 MH	  file	  was	  not	  reviewed.	  	  MAR	  indicates	  meds	  are	  LiCO3	  450	  BID,	  Depakote	   This	  is	  his	  14th	  jail	  stay;	  has	  been	  here	  about	  2	  weeks.	  	  Has	  many	  

Improper	  and	  frankly	  dangerous	  PRN	  orders.	  	  Continues	  manic;	  

500	  QD,	  Haldol	  10	  IM	  prn	  agitation,	  Ativan	  2	  mg	  IM	  prn	  agitation	  -­‐	  no	  start,	   recommendations:	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  has	  4	  jobs	  so	  he	  is	  not	  around	  much;	  Dr.	  Napier	   quite	  likely	  due	  to	  subtherapeutic	  doses	  and	  serum	  levels	  of	  

stop	  or	  frequency

isn't	  going	  to	  work	  out	  because	  he	  doesn't	  know	  the	  local	  culture;	  they	   mood	  stabilizing	  medications.

need	  more	  psychiatrist,	  psychologist	  and	  nursing	  to	  monitor	  constantly	  

and	  prevent	  suicide;	  records	  should	  be	  digitalized/computerized;	  more	  

activities	  on	  unit;	  allow	  inmates	  to	  create	  a	  broadcasting	  program	  inside	  

the	  jail;	  there	  should	  be	  zero	  tolerance	  for	  fighting,	  etc.,	  etc.,	  etc.	  	  Has	  

never	  had	  his	  blood	  drawn	  to	  check	  serum	  levels.	  	  MSE	  -­‐	  pressured	  

speech,	  difficult	  to	  control	  or	  re-­‐direct;	  circumstantial	  and	  repetitive.

#11 There	  is	  a	  court	  order	  stating	  he	  is	  to	  be	  released	  forthwith	  on	  5/9/14.	  	  There	   Not	  interviewed.

Not	  clear	  which	  doctor	  is	  treating	   .	  	  Both	  have	  seen	  him	  but	  

is	  a	  family	  court	  order	  for	  psychiatric	  hospitalization	  and	  treatment	  but	  Dr.	  Lu	  

neither	  have	  addressed	  his	  subtherapeutic	  dosing	  of	  Depakote	  

says	  he	  doesn't	  need	  hospitalization.	  	  He	  is	  wanting	  to	  go	  to	  The	  Village	  on	  St	  

and	  Lithium.

Croix	  for	  3	  months.	  	  Seen	  by	  Dr.	  Napier	  3/20	  and	  3/26.	  	  He	  ordered	  blood	  

levels	  3/20	  of	  Depakote	  and	  Lithium	  -­‐	  both	  low	  but	  no	  action	  taken.	  	  (Prior	  lab	  

July	  2013	  -­‐	  also	  low.)	  Seen	  by	  Dr.	  Lu	  5/9	  and	  5/20.	  	  MAR	  indicates	  meds	  are	  

Depakote	  500	  BID,	  Lithium	  300	  BID	  and	  Fluphenazine	  25	  mg/ml	  q	  4	  weeks	  

(does	  not	  indicate	  that	  this	  is	  decanoate	  nor	  that	  this	  is	  the	  actual	  dose	  to	  be	  

administered	  as	  opposed	  to	  the	  concentration	  of	  the	  medication.)

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 784-1 Filed: 12/09/14 Page 28 of 28

#12 MH	  file	  was	  not	  reviewed.	  	  MAR	  indicates	  Haldol	  5	  HS	  and	  Benadryl	  25	  HS. Never	  took	  meds	  before	  coming	  to	  jail;	  no	  history	  of	  psychiatric	  

Medications	  are	  order	  for	  HS	  administration	  but	  there	  is	  no	  HS	  

hospitalization.	  	  Has	  been	  in	  jail	  about	  a	  year.	  	  Works	  as	  laundry	  worker	  4	   pill	  call.

days	  per	  week	  (M,	  T,	  Th,	  F).	  Saw	  Dr.	  Lu	  on	  Wednesday	  but	  it	  had	  been	  a	  

"long	  time"	  since	  last	  seen.	  	  Hasn't	  met	  Dr.	  Napier.	  	  Sees	  Ms.	  Warren	  

about	  every	  other	  week.	  	  Medications	  help	  her	  sleep.	  	  She	  gets	  Benadryl	  

and	  Haldol.	  	  MSE	  -­‐	  neatly	  dressed	  and	  groomed,	  little	  spontaneity	  but	  

answers	  questions	  appropriately,	  organized	  and	  logical.	  	  No	  complaints	  

about	  medications	  or	  side	  effects.

#13 MH	  file	  was	  not	  reviewed.	  	  MAR	  book	  does	  not	  indicate	  that	  patient	  is	  

Reports	  history	  of	  forced	  MH	  care	  for	  calling	  herself	  Jesus/an	  angel.	  	  Says	   Clearly	  SMI	  but	  functional	  -­‐	  at	  least	  in	  the	  jail;	  on	  outside,	  

prescribed	  any	  medication.

she	  has	  telepathic	  powers	  and	  a	  third	  eye.	  	  Charges	  were	  "supposed"	  to	   continues	  to	  get	  into	  trouble.	  	  It	  would	  be	  difficult	  to	  argue	  for	  

be	  dismissed.	  	  She	  has	  no	  current	  job	  assignment;	  she	  escaped	  (ran	  away)	   forced	  meds	  in	  jail	  setting	  and	  it's	  also	  not	  clear	  whether	  her	  

when	  she	  had	  a	  laundry	  job.	  	  She	  hasn't	  see	  Dr.	  Lu	  for	  months,	  met	  Dr.	   delusions	  would	  respond	  or	  at	  least	  reduce	  the	  likelihood	  that	  

Napier	  once	  and	  has	  seen	  Ms.	  Warren	  a	  couple	  of	  times.	  	  Wanted	  medical	   she	  would	  act	  on	  them.

marijuana	  and	  Dr.	  Lu	  told	  her	  than	  Prozac	  was	  the	  same	  time	  but	  then	  

ordered	  Zoloft	  for	  her	  without	  explaining	  risks	  or	  side	  effects.	  	  She	  took	  it	  

for	  a	  week	  but	  then	  stopped.	  	  Has	  no	  plan	  for	  her	  future	  when	  released:	  

"God	  has	  the	  plan.	  	  Man	  shouldn't	  make	  them."	  	  MSE	  -­‐	  Some	  

inappropriate	  giggling,	  religious	  delusions,	  grandiose.	  	  Denies	  MI	  now	  or	  

ever	  though	  she	  understands	  that	  others	  think	  she	  is	  "crazy."

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 1 of 42
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN	  
Carty	  v	  Mapp	   Civil	  No.	  94-­‐78	  
SECOND	  REPORT	  OF	  KATHRYN	  A.	  BURNS,	  MD,	  MPH	   ON	  COMPLIANCE	  WITH	  MENTAL	  HEALTH	  PROVISIONS	  OF	  THE	  SETTLEMENT	  AGREEMENT	  
July	  2015	  
I	  have	  completed	  a	  second	  site	  visit	  and	  assessment	  of	  the	  mental	  health	  services	  offered	  to	   inmates	  at	  the	  Criminal	  Justice	  Complex	  (CJC),	  St.	  Thomas,	  United	  States	  Virgin	  Islands.	  	  I	  did	  not	  visit	  the	   CJC	  Annex	  this	  trip	  because	  mental	  health	  care	  is	  delivered	  primarily	  at	  CJC	  and	  inmates	  with	  serious	   mental	  illness	  are	  housed	  at	  CJC	  rather	  than	  the	  Annex	  for	  the	  most	  part.	  	  The	  site	  visit	  was	  conducted	   on	  April	  20	  and	  April	  21,	  2015.	  	  I	  prepared	  a	  draft	  report	  of	  the	  visit	  and	  provided	  it	  to	  the	  parties	  for	   review	  and	  comment.	  	  This	  report	  has	  incorporated	  their	  feedback	  and	  edits	  where	  appropriate.	  
Although	  the	  baseline	  and	  April	  site	  visits	  were	  separated	  in	  time	  by	  eleven	  months,	  there	  was	   little	  difference	  in	  the	  findings:	  No	  medical	  or	  mental	  health	  care	  policies	  or	  procedures	  had	  been	   adopted,	  although	  some	  draft	  policies	  were	  provided	  to	  me	  for	  review.	  1	  Intake	  screening	  is	  conducted	   by	  correctional	  staff	  rather	  than	  health	  care	  staff,	  regardless	  of	  whether	  health	  care	  staff	  are	  on	  duty	  at	   the	  time	  of	  booking.	  	  The	  mental	  health	  social	  worker,	  Ms.	  Warren	  does	  a	  psychosocial	  and	  mental	   health	  assessment	  upon	  referral	  but	  psychiatric	  assessment/treatment	  continues	  to	  be	  delayed.	  	   Inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  do	  not	  have	  access	  to	  higher	  levels	  of	  mental	  health	  care.	  	  Mental	   health	  staffing	  levels	  have	  actually	  decreased:	  	  the	  second	  part-­‐time	  psychiatrist	  (Dr.	  Napier)	  left	  the	   island	  and	  the	  contract	  psychologist	  no	  longer	  provides	  any	  routine	  services.	  	  The	  psychology	  intern	  who	   worked	  with	  the	  psychologist	  continues	  to	  co-­‐facilitate	  group	  treatment	  with	  Ms.	  Warren	  weekly.	  	  
1	  In	  addition	  to	  the	  draft	  policies	  I	  was	  provided,	  defendants’	  response	  to	  my	  draft	  report	  stated	  the	  Bureau	  of
Corrections	  had	  begun	  developing	  a	  number	  of	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  policies,	  procedures	  and	  forms	  as	  of	   June	  15,	  2015.	  	  However,	  none	  of	  these	  most	  recent	  drafts	  have	  been	  provided	  to	  me	  and	  so	  I	  cannot	  comment	   further	  on	  them.	  
EXHIBIT A

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 2 of 42
Insufficient	  staffing	  levels	  of	  both	  treatment	  and	  custody	  staff	  continue	  endangering	  the	  lives	  and	  safety	   of	  inmates	  and	  staff.	  	  There	  is	  no	  appropriate	  safe	  housing	  for	  mentally	  ill	  inmates	  or	  those	  requiring	   placement	  on	  suicide	  precautions.	  	  Actual	  therapeutic	  treatment	  space	  for	  individual	  and	  group	   interventions	  is	  lacking.	  	  	  
The	  defendants	  did	  not	  adopt	  the	  recommendations	  from	  my	  first	  report	  that	  advised	  focus	  on	   policies	  and	  procedures	  to	  address	  high	  risk	  practices	  and	  situations	  such	  as	  the	  intake	  screening	   process,	  suicide	  prevention	  (including	  the	  creation	  of	  safety	  cells,	  risk	  assessment,	  monitoring,	   documentation	  and	  communication),	  seclusion	  and	  restraint.	  	  Instead,	  the	  defendants’	  status	  report	   indicated	  that	  all	  mental	  health	  provisions	  were	  given	  a	  Priority	  Level	  A	  rating.	  	  Specific	  details	  were	  not	   provided	  but	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  April	  visit,	  none	  of	  the	  items	  I	  suggested	  as	  immediately	  critical	  had	  been	   completed	  nor	  did	  I	  find	  any	  other	  mental	  health	  items	  completed.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  did	  conduct	  some	  basic	   training	  for	  detention	  staff	  on	  signs	  and	  symptoms	  of	  mental	  illness	  and	  suicide	  in	  corrections	  but	   without	  the	  ability	  to	  reference	  a	  policy,	  it	  is	  difficult	  to	  ascertain	  the	  utility	  and	  relevance	  of	  such	   training.	  	  I	  did	  not	  review	  staff	  training	  records	  during	  the	  visit	  and	  do	  not	  know	  whether	  all	  officers	  and	   all	  shifts	  had	  the	  training.	  	  (Ms.	  Warren	  was	  also	  called	  upon	  to	  train	  staff	  at	  St.	  Croix,	  further	   compromising	  inmate	  access	  to	  mental	  health	  care	  at	  CJC	  since	  she	  is	  the	  only	  full	  time	  mental	  health	   worker	  there.)	  	  In	  spite	  of	  the	  training,	  incident	  reports	  and	  logbooks	  continue	  to	  reflect	  the	  use	  of	  use	   physical	  force,	  steel	  restraints	  and	  lock	  down	  for	  persons	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  –	  almost	  always	   without	  consultation	  from	  mental	  health	  to	  de-­‐escalate	  situations	  and	  often	  without	  notifying	  mental	   health	  staff	  even	  after	  the	  fact	  to	  determine	  whether	  a	  treatment	  intervention	  would	  be	  helpful.	  	  	  One	   of	  the	  two	  inmates	  previously	  reported	  as	  being	  in	  the	  jail	  after	  a	  finding	  of	  not	  guilty	  by	  reason	  of	   insanity	  remains	  in	  the	  jail.	  	  He	  refuses	  medication	  and	  has	  been	  held	  in	  lockdown	  status	  in	  his	  cell	   nearly	  continuously	  for	  months.	  	  (The	  other	  inmate	  has	  been	  released	  to	  a	  treatment	  facility.)	  	  	  

Carty v Mapp

2	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 3 of 42

Areas	  of	  improvement	  were	  minimal	  in	  comparison	  to	  the	  magnitude	  of	  the	  tasks	  necessary	  to	  

comply	  with	  the	  terms	  of	  the	  Settlement	  Agreement	  and	  more	  importantly,	  for	  inmate	  health	  and	  

safety.	  	  There	  was	  more	  documentation	  of	  individual	  treatment	  contacts	  with	  Ms.	  Warren	  and	  group	  

notes	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  files	  as	  compared	  to	  the	  baseline	  review.	  	  Nursing	  documentation	  in	  the	  

Medication	  Administration	  Records	  (MARs)	  also	  appeared	  to	  have	  improved.	  	  

	  

I	  have	  used	  the	  same	  format	  for	  this	  report	  as	  in	  the	  baseline	  report.	  Findings	  are	  correlated	  

with	  specific	  items	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  I	  found	  no	  areas	  of	  compliance	  or	  even	  partial	  compliance	  with	  

any	  of	  the	  requirements	  of	  the	  Agreement	  relative	  to	  the	  provision	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  to	  inmates	  in	  

spite	  of	  the	  modest	  improvements	  in	  documentation	  noted	  above	  and	  the	  mental	  health	  training	  

sessions.	  	  	  

	  

Sources	  of	  Information:	  

	  

I	  visited	  the	  CJC	  April	  20-­‐21,	  2015.	  	  Prior	  to	  the	  visit,	  I	  re-­‐reviewed	  the	  Settlement	  Agreement	  

and	  requested	  the	  following	  documents	  from	  defendants	  in	  order	  to	  prepare	  for	  the	  visit	  with	  updated	  

information.	  	  (Note	  -­‐	  This	  is	  essentially	  the	  same	  list	  of	  documents	  requested	  prior	  to	  the	  baseline	  visit	  in	  

May	  2014	  and	  will	  continue	  to	  be	  requested	  routinely	  in	  preparation	  for	  a	  site	  visit.)	  

1. All	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  policies	  and	  procedures	  including:	   a. Receiving	  Screening/Intake	   b. Mental	  Health	  Screening	  and	  Assessment	   c. Medication	  administration,	  including	  daily	  administration	  times	   d. Health	  care	  requests/referrals	  including	  any	  logs	  tracking	  this	  information	   e. Mental	  health	  classification	   f. Suicide	  Prevention	  including	  any	  risk	  assessment	  instruments,	  observation	  forms	  and	   logs	  tracking	  the	  number	  and	  duration	  of	  watches	   g. Disciplinary	  policy	   h. Mental	  health	  treatment	  planning	  

Carty v Mapp

3	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 4 of 42

i. Psychotropic	  medication	  

j. Therapeutic	  seclusion	  and	  restraint	  policy	  and	  procedures	  including	  any	  observation	  

logs,	  assessment	  instruments	  and	  logs	  tracking	  the	  number	  of	  episodes	  requiring	  

seclusion	  or	  restraint	  and	  the	  duration	  of	  the	  episode(s)	  

k. Discharge/Release	  policy	  and	  procedure	  	  

l. Any	  policy	  that	  describes	  the	  provision	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  to	  inmates	  in	  segregation	  

m. Quality	  Improvement	  

n. Management	  information	  system	  

o. Specialized	  mental	  health	  housing	  unit	  

2. Staff	  training	  materials	  related	  to	  intake	  screening,	  suicide	  prevention,	  signs	  and	  symptoms	  of	  

mental	  illness	  and	  responding	  to	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  crises	  

3. Complete	  psychotropic	  medication	  formulary	  

4. Staffing	  plan	  and	  current	  table	  of	  organization	  including	  whether	  positions	  are	  filled	  or	  vacant;	  

CVs	  of	  all	  mental	  health	  staff	  including	  verification	  of	  current	  licensure.	  

5. Program	  descriptions	  for	  mental	  health	  care	  provided,	  psychiatric	  services	  and	  any	  specialized	  

mental	  health	  housing.	  

6. Basic	  population	  information	  about	  the	  facility	  (average	  number	  of	  inmates	  at	  the	  facility	  and	  

length	  of	  stay;	  number	  of	  intakes	  and	  releases	  per	  month	  for	  last	  12	  months)	  

7. Number	  of	  inmates	  on	  mental	  health	  caseload,	  number	  of	  inmates	  prescribed	  psychotropic	  

medication	  

8. Mental	  health	  crisis	  care	  information:	  	  suicide	  or	  crisis	  watch	  logs	  for	  past	  year	  including	  

transfers	  to	  inpatient	  psychiatric	  care	  	  

9. Inmate	  deaths	  for	  the	  past	  2	  years	  including	  date	  of	  death,	  cause	  and	  manner	  of	  death	  (suicide,	  

homicide,	  accident	  or	  natural)	  

10. Any	  contracts	  of	  memoranda	  of	  understanding	  regarding	  the	  transfer	  and	  provision	  of	  mental	  

health	  care	  to	  prisoners	  in	  outside	  treatment	  facilities	  such	  as	  inpatient	  hospitalization	  

11. Any	  and	  all	  mental	  health	  care	  staff	  meeting	  minutes	  that	  address	  mental	  health	  care	  

operations	  and	  coordination	  of	  care;	  and	  any	  written	  communication	  to	  the	  Director	  or	  

Associate	  Director	  regarding	  mental	  health	  care	  as	  a	  result	  of	  these	  meetings.	  

	  

	  

Documents	  received	  in	  response	  included	  intake	  forms	  and	  flow	  sheet	  (1.a.);	  Mental	  Health	  

Services	  Intake	  Screening	  -­‐	  undated	  (1.b.);	  Mental	  Health	  Service	  policy	  (same	  number	  as	  Intake	  

Carty v Mapp

4	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 5 of 42

Screening	  and	  also	  covers	  mental	  health	  screening,	  assessment,	  suicide	  watch,	  medical,	  medications,	  

release	  planning,	  records,	  physical	  plant,	  training	  and	  ends	  with	  screening	  and	  referral);	  Suicide	  

Prevention	  Policy	  and	  Procedure	  dated	  2009	  (1.f.);	  written	  training	  materials	  covering	  signs	  and	  

symptoms	  of	  mental	  illness	  and	  suicide	  prevention	  (2);	  medication	  formulary	  dated	  2014	  (3);	  a	  list	  of	  

mental	  health	  services	  and	  psychological	  tests	  (5);	  list	  of	  inmates	  on	  the	  mental	  health	  caseload	  and	  

those	  prescribed	  medication	  (7);	  suicide	  watch	  observation	  logs	  (8);	  inmate	  death	  (9)	  and	  some	  meeting	  

minutes	  (11).	  	  Relevant	  documents	  will	  be	  discussed	  in	  the	  report	  sections	  that	  follow,	  but	  as	  noted,	  

defendants	  informed	  me	  that	  the	  draft	  policies	  they	  provided	  in	  response	  to	  the	  document	  request	  are	  

no	  longer	  relevant	  since	  they	  began	  developing	  policies	  and	  procedures	  in	  June	  and	  so	  earlier	  comments	  

on	  items	  1.a.	  and	  1.b.	  have	  been	  omitted/revised	  since	  the	  draft	  report	  was	  shared	  with	  the	  parties.	  	  	  It	  

is	  important	  to	  note	  that	  the	  defendants	  reported	  they	  began	  developing	  the	  policies	  in	  June	  2015.	  	  No	  

timelines	  for	  completion,	  adoption,	  implementation	  or	  staff	  training	  were	  provided.	  	  The	  full	  list	  of	  items	  

under	  development	  may	  be	  found	  in	  Appendix	  B.	  The	  majority	  of	  them	  have	  some	  relevance	  or	  

application	  to	  mental	  health	  care	  and	  as	  they	  are	  developed,	  I	  am	  available	  to	  review,	  comment	  and	   assist	  in	  the	  intervals	  between	  site	  visits.2	  	  I	  have	  also	  included	  comments/recommendations	  regarding	  

items/requirements	  for	  policies	  in	  specific	  sections	  of	  this	  report.	  	  

	  

No	  contracts	  or	  memoranda	  of	  understanding	  regarding	  the	  transfer	  and	  provision	  of	  mental	  

health	  care	  to	  prisoners	  in	  outside	  treatment	  facilities	  including	  hospitalization	  were	  provided.	  	  No	  

staffing	  plan	  or	  table	  of	  organization	  was	  provided	  though	  staffing	  information	  was	  available	  during	  

interviews	  on	  site.	  	  	  

	  

During	  the	  site	  visit,	  I	  toured	  the	  housing	  units	  called	  Cluster	  1	  (the	  “mental	  health”	  housing	  unit	  

for	  male	  inmates),	  Cluster	  6	  (segregation	  unit)	  and	  the	  inmate	  “library”	  which	  is	  currently	  also	  used	  for	  

mental	  health	  treatment	  groups.	  	  I	  reviewed	  classification	  records,	  mental	  health	  records,	  medical	  

records,	  medication	  administration	  records,	  some	  housing	  unit	  logbooks	  and	  portions	  of	  the	  main	  

control	  log.	  	  I	  interviewed	  mental	  heath	  director/social	  worker	  Ms.	  Warren	  and	  ten	  inmates	  of	  the	  37	  

inmates	  reported	  as	  being	  on	  the	  mental	  health	  caseload.	  	  I	  attempted	  to	  meet	  with	  Dr.	  Lu,	  the	  

psychiatrist,	  but	  he	  was	  not	  available	  to	  me;	  he	  left	  the	  facility	  on	  the	  first	  day	  without	  meeting	  with	  me	  

and	  was	  not	  at	  the	  jail	  on	  the	  second	  day	  of	  my	  site	  visit.	  	  I	  subsequently	  reviewed	  some	  incident	  reports	  

and	  other	  information	  pertaining	  to	  the	  inmate	  suicide	  that	  occurred	  in	  December	  2014.	  

	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
2	  There	  had	  been	  some	  discussion	  about	  my	  drafting	  an	  administrative	  directive	  regarding	  suicide	  prevention	  for	  
the	  facility	  but	  I	  was	  told	  that	  the	  BOC	  policy	  was	  nearly	  complete	  at	  the	  time	  of	  my	  site	  visit,	  so	  I	  did	  not	  draft	  a	  
directive.	  	  	  

Carty v Mapp

5	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 6 of 42

Report	  Format:	  

	  

As	  with	  the	  baseline	  report,	  this	  one	  is	  also	  focused	  primarily	  on	  mental	  health	  requirements	  

articulated	  in	  the	  Settlement	  Agreement,	  Section	  V.	  Medical	  and	  Mental	  Health	  Care	  and	  particularly	  

Section	  V.2.x.	  Mental	  Health	  Care	  and	  Treatment.	  	  I	  have	  again	  grouped	  the	  mental	  health	  care	  

requirements	  into	  the	  following	  larger	  categories	  for	  purposes	  of	  reporting.	  	  

• Intake	  screening	   • Mental	  health	  assessment	   • Medication	  management	   • Access	  to	  off	  site	  consultation	  and	  specialty	  care,	  including	  inpatient	  and	  emergency	  care	   • Suicide	  prevention	   • Staffing	   • Segregation	   • Mental	  health	  levels	  of	  care,	  access	  to	  inpatient	  or	  intermediate	  care,	  psychotropic	  medications	  
and	  special	  procedures	  (seclusion	  and	  restraint)	  	  

	  

There	  are	  a	  number	  of	  over-­‐arching	  provisions	  more	  broadly	  related	  to	  the	  provision	  of	  

appropriate	  mental	  health	  care	  as	  well	  such	  as	  inmate	  safety	  and	  supervision	  (Agreement	  Section	  IV)	  

and	  the	  provision	  of	  timely	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  care	  consistent	  with	  community	  standards	  

(Section	  V.1	  and	  V.2.e.)	  contained	  in	  the	  Settlement	  Agreement	  as	  well.	  	  Findings	  related	  to	  some	  of	  the	  

specific	  requirement	  areas	  are	  also	  relevant	  to	  these	  larger	  concepts/requirements.	  	  (The	  example	  

provided	  in	  the	  first	  report	  was	  that	  of	  a	  suicide	  prevention	  program	  requiring	  a	  relevant	  policy	  and	  

procedure;	  mental	  health	  staffing	  to	  assess	  risk	  and	  provide	  treatment;	  enough	  correctional	  staff	  to	  

identify	  inmates	  at	  risk	  of	  suicide,	  closely	  monitor	  inmates	  placed	  on	  suicide	  watch	  and	  provide	  

emergency	  intervention	  in	  the	  event	  of	  a	  suicide	  attempt;	  safe	  housing	  and	  appropriate	  property	  

management;	  proper	  prescription	  and	  administration	  of	  medications;	  access	  to	  psychiatric	  inpatient	  

care	  if	  suicide	  risk	  is	  not	  abated	  by	  treatment	  measures	  employed	  at	  the	  jail;	  training	  for	  correctional	  

Carty v Mapp

6	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 7 of 42

staff	  on	  signs	  of	  suicide,	  mental	  illness,	  emergency	  intervention	  and	  practice	  drills.)	  As	  previously,	  I	  will	  

attempt	  to	  indicate	  when	  there	  are	  broader	  implications	  for	  larger,	  over-­‐arching	  Agreement	  provisions	  

in	  the	  specific	  sections	  where	  relevant.	  	  	  

	  

Record	  reviews	  and	  interview	  information	  of	  individual	  patients	  are	  summarized	  in	  Appendix	  A	  

that	  accompanies	  this	  report.	  

	  

Mental	  Health	  components	  of	  Settlement	  Agreement	  

	  

	  

Intake	  Screening	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  	  V.2.a.	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

The	  Settlement	  Agreement	  requires	  that	  screening	  be	  conducted	  by	  qualified	  medical	  and	  

mental	  health	  professionals	  and	  that	  all	  inmates	  with	  a	  positive	  screen	  receive	  timely	  and	  appropriate	  

care,	  including	  transfer	  to	  a	  hospital	  when	  indicated.	  	  If	  nursing	  staff	  is	  not	  available	  for	  the	  intake	  

screening,	  a	  specially	  trained	  corrections	  officer	  shall	  administer	  an	  initial	  needs	  survey.	  

	  

A	  Mental	  Health	  Intake	  Screening	  policy	  was	  provided	  (undated	  but	  identified	  as	  Policy	  Number	  

MH-­‐01)	  to	  me	  originally	  but	  I	  was	  told	  that	  it	  is	  no	  longer	  relevant	  or	  applicable	  given	  the	  development	  

of	  policies	  listed	  in	  Appendix	  B.	  	  The	  BOC	  should	  take	  this	  opportunity	  to	  ensure	  that	  the	  new	  policy	  is	  

consistent	  with	  the	  requirements	  of	  the	  Agreement:	  nursing	  staff	  (rather	  than	  correctional	  officers)	  

must	  conduct	  the	  screening	  during	  regular	  hours;	  correctional	  staff	  who	  do	  the	  screening	  in	  off-­‐hours	  

require	  special	  training	  for	  the	  task.	  	  (The	  policy	  that	  I	  was	  given	  indicated	  that	  medical,	  mental	  health	  or	  

correctional	  staff	  could	  conduct	  screening.)	  	  The	  intake	  policy	  should	  also	  specify	  timeframes	  to	  address	  

identified	  needs	  including	  mental	  health	  assessments	  of	  routine	  and	  emergency	  referrals,	  medication	  

continuity,	  suicide	  prevention	  and	  the	  mechanism	  to	  ensure	  immediate	  transfers	  to	  a	  hospital	  when	  

necessary.	  

Carty v Mapp

7	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 8 of 42

As	  observed	  in	  the	  files	  reviewed,	  correctional	  staff	  continue	  to	  complete	  the	  intake	  screening	  at	  

all	  times.	  	  Medical	  nurses	  see	  the	  newly	  arrived	  inmate	  the	  same	  day	  or	  the	  following	  day	  depending	  on	  

the	  time	  of	  arrival.	  	  (Nurses	  are	  at	  the	  facility	  8	  AM	  -­‐	  6	  PM	  daily.)	  	  	  	  The	  “Intake	  Health	  Services”	  form	  

utilized	  by	  the	  medical	  nurses	  does	  not	  contain	  sufficient	  mental	  health	  information	  to	  adequately	  

screen	  for	  mental	  health	  needs	  or	  suicide	  risk.	  	  (This	  form	  was	  produced	  in	  response	  to	  the	  document	  

request	  item	  1.a.)	  	  Referrals	  are	  generated	  to	  the	  mental	  health	  social	  worker,	  Ms.	  Warren.	  	  Referrals	  

are	  primarily	  inmates	  who	  have	  previously	  been	  at	  the	  facility	  with	  known	  mental	  health	  needs	  and/or	  

inmates	  arriving	  with	  prescription	  psychotropic	  medications.	  	  	  

	  

The	  policy	  under	  development	  not	  withstanding,	  at	  the	  time	  of	  my	  visit	  in	  April,	  there	  were	  no	  

changes	  to	  the	  findings	  in	  my	  baseline	  report:	  	  “The	  current	  practice	  is	  not	  compliant	  with	  the	  

Agreement	  and	  is	  not	  set	  forth	  in	  policy.	  	  Correctional	  officers,	  with	  no	  specialized	  training,	  are	  doing	  all	  

of	  the	  initial	  screening,	  even	  when	  nurses	  are	  on	  duty.	  	  Furthermore,	  the	  current	  instrument	  is	  too	  

narrow	  and	  misses	  cases	  of	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  health	  needs	  at	  the	  front	  door.“	  	  Continuing	  

from	  the	  first	  report:	  	  “Patients	  with	  schizophrenia	  and	  other	  psychiatric	  illnesses	  are	  at	  elevated	  risk	  of	  

suicide	  and	  may	  present	  an	  increased	  risk	  of	  harm	  to	  others	  as	  well	  when	  they	  are	  psychotic.	  	  Rapid	  

identification	  is	  vitally	  important	  so	  that	  treatment	  may	  begin	  or	  continue	  as	  soon	  as	  possible.	  	  Clinical	  

studies	  have	  also	  demonstrated	  that	  the	  longer	  that	  treatment	  is	  delayed	  (such	  as	  in	  this	  case),	  the	  

longer	  it	  takes	  for	  it	  to	  work	  and	  degree	  of	  improvement	  eventually	  achieved	  is	  less	  than	  it	  would	  have	  

been	  had	  treatment	  been	  timely.	  	  The	  intake	  screening	  instrument	  must	  be	  revised	  to	  reflect	  important	  

areas	  of	  mental	  health	  inquiry	  so	  that	  serious	  mental	  health	  needs	  are	  not	  missed	  and	  treatment	  

delayed.	  	  Screening	  instruments	  are	  intended	  to	  cast	  a	  broad	  net	  to	  "catch"	  both	  known	  (obvious)	  cases	  

as	  well	  as	  persons	  displaying	  more	  subtle	  signs	  of	  difficulties.	  	  Thereafter,	  a	  mental	  health	  professional	  

can	  further	  assess	  and	  refer	  the	  inmate	  to	  the	  appropriate	  level	  of	  mental	  health	  care,	  including	  

psychiatric	  hospitalization	  when	  necessary.	  	  	  

Carty v Mapp

8	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 9 of 42

	  

There	  are	  multiple	  deficiencies	  that	  must	  be	  addressed	  to	  come	  into	  compliance	  with	  the	  

Agreement:	  policy	  and	  procedure,	  revised	  instrument;	  nursing	  to	  conduct	  screening	  during	  regular	  

hours,	  special	  training	  for	  officers	  to	  do	  the	  initial	  screening	  when	  nurses	  are	  not	  present;	  mechanism	  to	  

ensure	  immediate	  continuation	  of	  prescription	  medications,	  and	  timely	  referral	  to	  and	  assessment	  by	  a	  

psychiatrist.	  Policy,	  procedure	  and	  actual	  practice	  are	  also	  required	  demonstrating	  that	  acutely	  ill	  and	  

unstable	  inmates	  are	  transferred	  emergently	  for	  hospitalization	  when	  necessary.	  	  No	  such	  policy	  or	  

procedure	  was	  provided	  nor	  was	  there	  any	  evidence	  that	  acutely	  ill	  inmates	  have	  access	  to	  emergency	  

care	  and	  psychiatric	  hospitalization.”	  

	  

Case	  examples	  in	  the	  Appendix	  that	  illustrate	  the	  problems	  with	  the	  current	  intake	  screening	  

process	  include	  cases	  1,	  6,	  7,	  9	  and	  11.	  	  These	  cases	  demonstrate	  psychiatric	  assessments	  delayed	  for	  

weeks	  or	  months	  with	  subsequent	  worsening	  of	  inmates’	  mental	  conditions	  as	  well	  as	  examples	  of	  

inmates	  that	  should	  have	  been	  diverted	  to	  psychiatric	  hospitalization	  at	  the	  front	  door	  of	  the	  jail	  for	  

immediate	  and	  intensive	  treatment.	  

	  

Mental	  health	  assessments	  –	  as	  follow-­‐up	  from	  positive	  intake	  screening,	  conducted	  by	  qualified	  

mental	  health	  professional	  within	  3	  days	  of	  admission	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2b	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

The	  Mental	  Health	  Service	  policy	  (undated,	  also	  numbered	  MH-­‐01)	  provided	  to	  me	  indicated	  a	  

“complete	  mental	  health	  assessment”	  and	  “psycho-­‐social	  evaluation”	  is	  completed	  by	  a	  “mental	  health	  

worker”	  when	  “it	  is	  determined	  that	  further	  mental	  health	  or	  substance	  abuse	  intervention	  is	  

warranted.”	  	  This	  policy	  is	  not	  consistent	  with	  the	  terms	  of	  the	  Agreement.	  	  	  As	  previously	  noted,	  the	  

social	  worker,	  Ms.	  Warren,	  does	  a	  psychosocial	  and	  initial	  assessment,	  but	  she	  is	  not	  a	  qualified	  mental	  

health	  professional	  as	  defined	  by	  the	  Agreement.	  	  (Qualified	  mental	  health	  professional	  is	  defined	  as	  a	  

psychiatrist	  or	  psychiatric	  nurse	  practitioner.)	  	  Ms.	  Warren’s	  assessments	  are	  documented	  in	  an	  inmate-­‐

Carty v Mapp

9	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 10 of 42

specific	  mental	  health	  file	  (which	  is	  maintained	  separately	  from	  the	  inmate’s	  medical	  file.)3	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  

refers	  inmates	  to	  Dr.	  Lu,	  the	  psychiatrist,	  for	  further	  assessment	  and	  medication	  management.	  	  The	  

psychiatric	  assessments	  are	  frequently	  quite	  delayed	  and	  impact	  inmate	  access	  to	  treatment.	  	  Without	  

treatment,	  psychiatric	  symptoms	  worsen	  and	  increase	  the	  risk	  of	  suicide,	  the	  potential	  for	  harm	  to	  

others	  and	  vulnerability	  in	  the	  inmate	  population.	  	  Additionally,	  as	  stated	  above,	  delays	  in	  treatment	  

have	  been	  shown	  to	  delay	  the	  rate	  of	  improvement	  and	  negatively	  impact	  the	  degree	  of	  improvement.	  	  

(The	  response	  to	  treatment	  is	  not	  as	  robust	  as	  it	  would	  have	  been	  had	  treatment	  been	  more	  

immediate.)	  	  The	  Agreement	  requires	  a	  mental	  health	  assessment	  by	  a	  psychiatrist	  or	  nurse	  practitioner	  

within	  three	  days	  of	  admission	  for	  these	  reasons.	  

	  

The	  following	  cases	  in	  Appendix	  A	  illustrate	  delayed	  mental	  health	  assessments:	  	  1,	  2,	  4,	  5,	  8,	  9,	  

10,	  11,	  12	  and	  13.	  	  (Psychiatrist	  assessment	  delayed	  by	  several	  days,	  to	  weeks	  to	  as	  many	  as	  several	  

months.)	  

	  

Medication	  management	  -­‐	  continuity,	  administration	  &	  management	  of	  medications	  that	  address	  a	   number	  of	  factors	  including	  continuity,	  timely	  responses	  to	  medication	  orders	  and	  labs,	  professional	   medication	  administration	  procedures,	  monitoring	  for	  effectiveness	  and	  side	  effects,	  discharge	   medications;	  timely	  access	  to	  a	  psychiatrist	  and	  psychiatric	  review	  of	  medications;	  and	  the	  Agreement’s	   general	  provisions	  for	  timely	  and	  appropriate	  care,	  including	  psychiatric	  care.	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2f	  sections	  i-­‐vi;	  V2x	  section	  iv;	  V2e;	   Not	  compliant	   V1	  

	  

	  

	  

There	  is	  no	  medication	  or	  psychotropic	  medication	  policy	  currently	  in	  effect.	  	  A	  policy	  is	  required	  

by	  the	  Agreement	  to	  address	  continuity,	  administration	  and	  management	  of	  medications.	  	  Defendants	  

indicated	  that	  policies	  entitled	  Medication	  Services	  and	  Psychotropic	  Medication	  are	  among	  those	  under	  

development	  in	  response	  to	  my	  draft	  report.	  

	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
3	  Maintaining	  separate	  mental	  health	  and	  medical	  files	  can	  create	  problems	  with	  health	  care	  and	  mental	  health	  
staff	  being	  able	  to	  access	  and	  review	  medication	  orders	  and	  other	  health-­‐related	  information.	  	  This	  can	  be	   overcome	  if	  the	  records	  are	  stored	  in	  the	  same	  place	  so	  that	  all	  health	  providers	  with	  a	  need	  to	  know	  can	  access	  
both	  records.	  	  However,	  at	  CJC,	  the	  medical	  records	  are	  kept	  in	  the	  medical	  area	  and	  the	  mental	  health	  files	  are	  
maintained	  by	  Ms.	  Warren.	  	  	  

Carty v Mapp

10	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 11 of 42

	  

Record	  reviews	  indicated	  previously	  identified	  problems	  persisted:	  	  there	  were	  breaks	  in	  

continuity	  of	  medication	  management	  (orders	  not	  written	  timely);	  inmates	  were	  not	  monitored	  closely	  

for	  side	  effects	  or	  response	  to	  prescribed	  medications;	  inmates	  were	  not	  seen	  in	  response	  to	  new	  or	  

worsening	  symptoms;	  medication	  orders	  and	  changes	  without	  documentation	  of	  a	  face-­‐to-­‐face	  

examination;	  and	  orders	  for	  injectable	  medications,	  including	  long-­‐acting	  injectable	  medication	  without	  

inmate	  consent	  and/or	  appropriate	  legal	  or	  clinically	  appropriate	  administrative	  authorization.	  	  

Psychotropic	  medication	  continuity	  is	  extremely	  important	  and	  when	  there	  are	  breaks	  in	  continuity	  or	  

medications	  aren’t	  ordered	  timely,	  psychiatric	  symptoms	  return.	  	  These	  include	  suicidal	  thoughts	  and	  

behaviors,	  aggression,	  impulsivity	  and	  other	  symptoms	  that	  create	  a	  risk	  of	  self-­‐harm,	  harm	  to	  others	  

and	  management	  problems	  in	  the	  jail.	  	  	  

In	  contrast	  to	  the	  initial	  site	  visit,	  Dr.	  Lu	  appeared	  to	  have	  begun	  to	  use	  more	  of	  the	  newer	  

antipsychotic	  medications	  in	  addition	  to	  the	  older	  medications.	  	  However,	  there	  was	  still	  no	  evidence	  of	  

monitoring	  inmates	  regularly	  for	  the	  development	  of	  either	  metabolic	  syndrome	  (a	  potential	  side	  effect	  

of	  the	  newer	  medications)	  or	  movement	  disorders	  (common	  side	  effects	  of	  the	  older	  medications.)	  	  

	  

Dr.	  Lu	  now	  appears	  to	  re-­‐write	  medication	  orders	  at	  monthly	  intervals.	  	  However,	  when	  he	  

changes	  medications	  or	  doses,	  it	  remains	  unclear	  in	  terms	  of	  intent	  since	  he	  does	  not	  discontinue	  

previous	  orders	  and	  they	  do	  not	  have	  a	  “Stop”	  date.	  	  (In	  other	  words,	  it	  is	  ambiguous	  whether	  the	  

earlier	  order	  is	  to	  be	  continued	  in	  addition	  to	  the	  new	  order	  or	  whether	  only	  the	  new	  order	  is	  in	  effect.)	  

	  

A	  complete	  medication	  formulary	  was	  produced	  in	  response	  to	  the	  second	  request.	  It	  does	  not	  

contain	  specific	  psychotropic	  medications	  for	  the	  treatment	  of	  psychosis,	  depression	  or	  mood	  

stabilization.	  	  However,	  Dr.	  Lu	  previously	  explained	  that	  he	  is	  able	  to	  prescribe	  whatever	  medication	  he	  

believes	  necessary	  for	  treatment	  of	  serious	  mental	  illnesses	  –	  it	  does	  not	  need	  to	  be	  listed	  on	  the	  

formulary.	  	  Nursing	  staff	  corroborated	  his	  statement;	  nurses	  simply	  order	  whatever	  medication	  is	  

Carty v Mapp

11	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 12 of 42

prescribed	  by	  Dr.	  Lu	  from	  the	  pharmacy	  and	  it	  is	  available	  for	  administration.	  	  Nursing	  staff	  were	  

unaware	  of	  any	  restrictions	  with	  respect	  to	  psychotropic	  medications.	  

	  

The	  medication	  administration	  records	  (MARs)	  documentation	  had	  improved	  since	  the	  baseline	  

visit.	  	  The	  records	  were	  monthly	  and	  each	  medication	  was	  written	  on	  a	  separate	  line.	  	  	  (I	  did	  not	  check	  

the	  injection	  medication	  log	  this	  visit	  so	  do	  not	  know	  whether	  or	  not	  there	  had	  been	  improvements.)	  	  

	  

Case	  reviews	  that	  illustrate	  the	  areas	  of	  serious	  problems	  with	  the	  medication	  practices	  include	  

all	  but	  case	  8	  in	  Appendix	  A.	  	  	  The	  other	  14	  cases	  are	  highly	  problematic	  and	  include	  delays	  in	  

assessment	  and	  medication	  orders;	  failure	  to	  monitor	  (follow-­‐up	  examinations,	  laboratory	  studies,	  etc.);	  

involuntary	  medication	  administration	  ordered	  without	  legal	  authority	  to	  do	  so;	  failure	  to	  petition	  for	  

permission	  to	  medicate	  involuntarily	  in	  other	  instances	  and	  no	  evidence	  of	  informed	  consent.	  

	  

Off	  site	  specialty	  care	  and	  consultation,	  emergency	  care	  and	  systems	  to	  track	  and	  monitor	  inmates	  

with	  mental	  health	  and	  medical	  needs	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2g;V2i	  section	  i-­‐vii;V2j;	  V2p;	  V2q	  	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

There	  was	  no	  change	  from	  baseline	  report	  with	  respect	  to	  these	  sections:	  	  	  

	  

“No	  policy	  or	  training	  curriculum	  for	  staff	  in	  recognizing	  and	  responding	  to	  emergencies	  

were	  provided.	  	  No	  protocol	  for	  periodic	  assessment	  of	  the	  facility’s	  compliance	  with	  policies	  

and	  procedures	  regarding	  the	  identification,	  handling	  and	  care	  of	  detainees	  and	  prisoners	  with	  

serious	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  conditions	  was	  provided.	  	  These	  items	  are	  required	  by	  the	  

Agreement.	  

	  

No	  contracts	  or	  memoranda	  of	  understanding	  regarding	  the	  transfer	  and	  provision	  of	  

mental	  health	  care	  to	  prisoners	  in	  outside	  treatment	  facilities	  such	  as	  inpatient	  hospitalization	  

were	  provided.	  	  No	  system	  to	  classify,	  track	  or	  monitor	  inmates’	  mental	  health	  needs	  was	  in	  

effect.	  	  

Carty v Mapp

12	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 13 of 42

	  

Documentation	  of	  response	  to	  mental	  health	  crises	  was	  inconsistent;	  sometimes	  

progress	  notes	  were	  present	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  file	  indicating	  that	  treatment	  staff	  were	  

notified	  of	  a	  crisis	  and	  responded	  while	  in	  other	  situations,	  there	  was	  a	  notation	  in	  the	  housing	  

unit	  log	  that	  an	  inmate	  was	  placed	  on	  lock-­‐down	  for	  self-­‐injurious	  or	  other	  crisis	  behavior	  but	  no	  

corresponding	  referral	  to	  mental	  health	  or	  treatment	  intervention.	  	  Inmates	  experiencing	  

mental	  health	  crises	  are	  not	  receiving	  treatment	  to	  address	  or	  eliminate	  the	  crises.	  	  This	  creates	  

an	  increased	  risk	  of	  harm,	  including	  self-­‐injury,	  inmate	  on	  inmate	  or	  staff	  injury	  and	  staff	  on	  

inmate	  injury	  when	  untrained	  correctional	  officers	  using	  physical	  force	  to	  place	  inmates	  in	  

lockdown	  status	  or	  steel	  restraints…”	  

	  

	  

Appendix	  A	  includes	  case	  examples	  demonstrating	  the	  need	  for	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  

illness	  to	  receive	  emergency	  treatment	  including	  hospitalization.	  	  In	  one	  case,	  a	  psychotic	  inmate	  struck	  

a	  peer	  in	  misperceived	  self-­‐defense.	  	  He	  remains	  psychotic	  and	  an	  imminent	  and	  serious	  danger	  to	  

others.	  	  He	  has	  not	  been	  referred	  for	  hospitalization	  and	  is	  not	  housed	  on	  Cluster	  1	  for	  his	  own	  safety	  to	  

prevent	  the	  possibility	  of	  retaliation.	  	  Efforts	  at	  treatment	  have	  not	  been	  intensified.	  (Case	  1)	  	  Two	  other	  

inmates	  were	  on	  watch	  status	  for	  mental	  health	  crises	  10/27/14-­‐11/7/14	  but	  neither	  were	  taken	  to	  an	  

emergency	  room	  or	  hospitalized.	  	  (One	  of	  them,	  case	  15,	  committed	  suicide	  the	  following	  month.)	  	  

Another	  inmate,	  who	  remains	  psychotic,	  manic	  and	  out	  of	  control	  has	  sustained	  multiple	  injuries	  as	  a	  

consequence	  of	  officers	  attempting	  to	  manage	  his	  behavior	  through	  the	  use	  of	  physical	  force.	  	  (Case	  4)	  	  

Still	  another	  has	  been	  locked	  down	  in	  his	  cell	  without	  treatment	  since	  May	  2014.	  (Case	  5)	  	  All	  of	  these	  

cases	  and	  others	  demonstrate	  the	  serious	  harm	  resulting	  from	  failure	  to	  hospitalize	  acutely	  ill	  inmates.	  	  

(See	  also	  cases	  2,	  3,	  6,	  7,	  8,	  9	  and	  11	  in	  	  Appendix	  A.)	  

	  

	  

Carty v Mapp

13	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 14 of 42

Suicide	  prevention	  –	  calls	  for	  policy	  and	  procedures	  that	  include	  precautions,	  safety	  cells,	  monitoring,	  

communication,	  treatment,	  follow-­‐up	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2l	  sections	  i-­‐xii;	  IVB1d	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

The	  Suicide	  Prevention	  Policy	  and	  Procedure	  provided,	  dated	  2009,	  was	  not	  consistent	  with	  the	  

information	  provided	  in	  the	  training	  materials	  or	  documentation	  in	  the	  records.	  	  The	  Mental	  Health	  

Services	  policy	  produced	  (undated)	  also	  contained	  suicide	  prevention	  information.	  	  I	  have	  been	  told	  that	  

neither	  of	  these	  is	  in	  effect	  and	  a	  new	  Suicide	  Prevention	  policy	  is	  under	  development.	  	  The	  new	  policy	  

must	  track	  the	  requirements	  spelled	  out	  in	  the	  Agreement	  (e.g.,	  appropriate	  and	  timely	  assessment	  by	  

adequately	  trained	  staff;	  a	  protocol	  for	  constant	  observation	  of	  suicidal	  inmates;	  application	  of	  a	  risk	  

assessment	  instrument	  by	  a	  qualified	  mental	  health	  professional;	  suicide	  precaution	  orders	  and	  daily	  

face-­‐to-­‐face	  assessment	  by	  a	  psychiatrist,	  etc.)	  	  The	  policy	  should	  also	  contain	  provisions	  for	  training,	  

communication	  among	  facility	  staff	  and	  with	  the	  inmate,	  safe	  housing,	  observation,	  treatment,	  

intervention	  in	  the	  event	  of	  a	  suicide	  and	  morbidity	  and	  mortality	  review.	  	  	  	  	  

	  

Problems	  previously	  identified	  –	  failure	  to	  adequately	  screen	  and	  assess	  potentially	  suicidal	  

inmates,	  house	  them	  safely,	  monitor	  them	  appropriately	  and	  transfer	  them	  to	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  care	  

persist.	  	  Training	  materials	  presented	  to	  correctional	  staff	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  regarding	  suicide	  prevention	  

were	  provided	  but	  they	  do	  not	  correspond	  to	  any	  policy	  or	  procedure,	  because	  there	  is	  no	  single	  policy	  

or	  procedure	  in	  effect.	  	  Even	  when	  Dr.	  Lu	  is	  involved	  in	  the	  assessment	  of	  inmates	  placed	  on	  watch,	  

there	  is	  no	  increase	  in	  treatment	  intensity	  in	  response	  to	  mental	  health	  crisis	  or	  placement	  on	  suicide	  

watch.	  	  He	  does	  not	  re-­‐evaluate	  patients	  on	  watch	  status	  every	  day.	  	  There	  is	  still	  no	  adequate	  safe	  cell	  

to	  house	  inmates	  placed	  on	  watch	  in	  CJC.	  	  	  

	  

Serious	  problems	  with	  correctional	  officer	  monitoring	  of	  inmates	  persist.	  	  For	  example,	  a	  

document	  titled	  “Bureau	  of	  Corrections	  Suicidal	  Attempts/Ideations”	  was	  produced.	  	  It	  indicated	  two	  

inmates	  were	  on	  watch	  status	  from	  October	  27,	  2014	  to	  November	  7,	  2014.	  	  The	  mental	  health	  file	  and	  

medical	  files	  clearly	  indicate	  the	  placement	  on	  watch	  date	  and	  time	  as	  well	  as	  the	  discontinuation	  of	  the	  

Carty v Mapp

14	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 15 of 42

watch	  status.	  	  However,	  the	  observation/monitoring	  logs	  completed	  by	  correctional	  staff	  were	  only	  

provided	  for	  10/27/14	  and	  10/28/14	  even	  though	  the	  watch	  was	  not	  discontinued	  for	  another	  week.	  	  

(There	  should	  have	  been	  a	  log	  for	  every	  day	  of	  the	  watch.)	  	  Additionally,	  housing	  unit	  logbooks	  indicate	  

one	  of	  the	  inmates	  	  was	  permitted	  off	  the	  housing	  unit	  to	  go	  to	  the	  library	  during	  this	  supposed	  “watch”	  

period	  as	  well	  -­‐	  -­‐	  -­‐	  with	  no	  correctional	  monitoring.	  	  Even	  when	  monitoring	  was	  documented	  on	  October	  

27	  and	  28,	  monitoring	  intervals	  exceeded	  the	  15-­‐minute	  time	  frame	  specified	  by	  mental	  health	  staff.	  	  

Observations	  were	  made	  only	  at	  intervals	  of	  an	  hour	  or	  longer	  in	  some	  instances.	  	  The	  same	  problems	  

with	  documentation	  and	  improper	  monitoring	  were	  present	  on	  all	  watch	  logs	  reviewed.	  	  (Cases	  10	  and	  

15	  in	  Appendix	  A.)	  	  

	  

There	  had	  been	  no	  completed	  suicides	  in	  the	  two	  years	  preceding	  the	  inmate’s	  death	  by	  suicide	  

in	  December	  2014.	  	  Although	  she	  was	  not	  officially	  on	  a	  watch	  at	  the	  time	  of	  her	  death,	  a	  review	  of	  the	  

logs,	  incident	  reports,	  timelines	  and	  videos	  identifies	  a	  number	  of	  very	  serious	  problems	  at	  CJC	  with	  

respect	  to	  suicide	  prevention.	  	  When	  she	  was	  discovered	  by	  a	  fellow	  inmate	  and	  correctional	  staff	  were	  

summoned,	  there	  is	  no	  indication	  that	  any	  correctional	  officer	  retrieved	  the	  cut	  down	  tool	  from	  control	  

when	  responding.	  	  Some	  officers	  attempted	  to	  untie	  the	  plastic	  bag	  that	  the	  inmate	  had	  fashioned	  into	  a	  

noose	  and	  tied	  to	  the	  upper	  bunk	  in	  her	  cell.	  	  One	  of	  the	  officers	  did	  eventually	  cut	  it	  off	  of	  the	  bed	  

though	  it	  is	  not	  clear	  what	  he	  used	  to	  cut	  it.	  	  There	  is	  no	  documentation	  that	  any	  of	  the	  correctional	  

responders	  initiated	  first	  aid	  or	  CPR	  to	  the	  inmate	  while	  awaiting	  the	  arrival	  of	  outside	  EMS.	  	  The	  

inmates	  was	  pronounced	  her	  dead	  at	  the	  scene	  when	  they	  arrived.	  	  (Matters	  of	  just	  a	  few	  minutes	  are	  

absolutely	  critical	  in	  situations	  such	  as	  these	  and	  can	  make	  the	  difference	  between	  life	  and	  death.)	  	  

Further,	  the	  videos	  from	  Cluster	  7	  reflect	  that	  correctional	  officer	  welfare	  rounds	  did	  not	  occur	  routinely	  

as	  required.	  	  In	  fact,	  it	  appears	  that	  the	  inmate	  had	  not	  been	  seen	  by	  correctional	  staff	  for	  several	  hours	  

prior	  to	  her	  discovery	  in	  the	  afternoon.	  	  Although	  the	  video	  recordings	  do	  not	  reflect	  rounds,	  the	  Cluster	  

7	  logbook	  appears	  to	  reflect	  that	  welfare	  rounds/head	  counts	  were	  completed	  every	  hour	  of	  the	  night	  

Carty v Mapp

15	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 16 of 42

and	  day.	  	  This	  is	  highly	  problematic	  and	  places	  inmates	  in	  grave	  danger.	  	  Other	  problems	  identified	  

include	  issues	  with	  reporting	  and	  communication:	  the	  warden	  learned	  of	  this	  serious	  incident	  from	  his	  

wife	  who	  received	  a	  phone	  call	  from	  a	  neighbor	  rather	  than	  hearing	  about	  it	  from	  his	  staff.	  	  No	  quality	  

assurance/improvement	  reviews	  or	  mortality	  reports	  of	  the	  incident	  have	  been	  conducted	  and	  so	  no	  

corrective	  action	  plan	  has	  been	  considered	  or	  implemented	  to	  address	  deficiencies.	  

	  

As	  recommended	  in	  the	  baseline	  report,	  it	  is	  absolutely	  imperative	  that	  a	  comprehensive	  suicide	  

prevention	  program	  be	  developed	  immediately	  to	  minimize	  the	  risk	  of	  completed	  suicide	  at	  CJC.	  	  

Correctional	  staff	  must	  monitor	  inmate	  welfare	  at	  all	  times	  and	  be	  alert	  to	  changes	  in	  behavior	  that	  

could	  signal	  potential	  suicide	  risk.	  The	  policy	  must	  also	  include	  and	  permit	  transfer	  to	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  

care	  than	  that	  which	  can	  be	  provided	  in	  the	  jail	  when	  necessary.	  

	  

Cases	  10	  and	  15	  in	  Appendix	  A	  illustrate	  the	  problems	  with	  the	  current	  suicide	  prevention	  

practice.	  

	  

	  

Staffing	  –	  adequate	  professional	  staffing	  with	  periodic	  analysis	  and	  plans;	  adequate	  correctional	  staffing	  

to	  support	  mental	  health	  mission	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  V2m	  section	  ii,vii,viii;	  V2n;	  IVB1d	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

There	  are	  no	  positive	  changes	  in	  staffing	  levels	  to	  report.	  	  The	  second	  psychiatrist,	  Dr.	  Napier,	  

left	  the	  island	  to	  return	  to	  his	  home	  in	  Canada.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  is	  contracted	  to	  provide	  two	  hours	  of	  service	  daily	  

Monday	  through	  Friday.	  	  His	  time	  is	  not	  verified.	  	  Main	  control	  logbook	  entries	  for	  one	  week	  in	  January,	  

February	  and	  March	  were	  reviewed	  to	  calculate	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  time	  on	  site	  and	  revealed	  the	  following:	  

Date	   1/12/15	   1/13/15	   1/14/15	   1/15/15	   1/16/15	   2/23/15	   2/24/15	   2/25/15	  

Time	  into	  jail	   914A	   817A	   824A	   823A	   Not	  recorded	   828A	   824A	   919A	  

Time	  of	  exit	  	   945A	   1005A	   944A	   953A	   1005A	   953A	   929A	   950A	  

Carty v Mapp

16	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 17 of 42

2/26/15	   853A	  

945A	  

2/27/15	   832A	  

Not	  recorded	  

3/16/15	   Not	  recorded	   1012A	  

3/17/15	   837A	  

Not	  recorded	  

3/18/15	   858A	  

1006A	  

3/19/15	   904A	  

Not	  recorded	  

3/20/15	   848A	  

1007A	  

	  

Although	  not	  every	  time	  is	  recorded	  in	  the	  main	  control	  logbook,	  it	  is	  the	  only	  verification	  of	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  

time	  that	  is	  available	  for	  review	  since	  it	  is	  not	  monitored	  in	  any	  fashion.	  	  The	  times	  that	  are	  recorded	  

demonstrate	  that	  Dr.	  Lu	  is	  at	  the	  jail	  generally	  for	  an	  hour	  or	  90	  minutes	  daily	  rather	  than	  the	  two	  hours	  

specified	  in	  his	  contract.	  	  This	  is	  not	  enough	  psychiatric	  time	  to	  provide	  an	  adequate	  level	  of	  care.	  	  In	  

addition,	  documentation	  in	  the	  files	  demonstrates	  that	  Dr.	  Lu	  continues	  to	  perform	  forensic	  evaluations	  

for	  the	  court	  during	  some	  portion	  of	  his	  time	  in	  the	  jail,	  further	  compromising	  the	  time	  available	  to	  take	   care	  of	  patients	  as	  well	  as	  posing	  serious	  ethical	  issues	  regarding	  his	  role.4	  	  	  

I	  have	  been	  provided	  no	  information	  that	  there	  is	  a	  relief	  psychiatrist	  when	  Dr.	  Lu	  is	  unavailable	  

or	  documentation	  of	  24-­‐hour	  on-­‐call	  coverage	  by	  a	  psychiatrist	  as	  required	  by	  the	  Agreement.	  	  There	  

does	  not	  appear	  to	  be	  a	  relief	  psychiatrist.	  	  (In	  a	  note	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  dated	  12/18/14,	  she	  indicated	  a	  

referral	  to	  psychiatry	  would	  be	  not	  be	  seen	  until	  12/24/14	  when	  Dr.	  Lu	  was	  scheduled	  to	  return.	  	  The	  

inmate	  committed	  suicide	  12/21/14.)	  	  	  

	  

Ms.	  Warren,	  the	  mental	  health	  social	  worker	  is	  still	  at	  the	  jail	  and	  works	  full	  time.	  	  The	  

psychologist	  (Thompson)	  no	  longer	  contracts	  with	  the	  jail	  although	  the	  psychology	  intern	  (Livingston)	  

has	  continued	  to	  co-­‐facilitate	  weekly	  group	  treatment	  with	  Ms.	  Warren.	  	  (They	  are	  currently	  providing	  

two	  group	  sessions	  weekly	  for	  groups	  of	  8-­‐10	  inmates.)	  	  	  

	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
4	  I	  suggested	  that	  the	  Territory	  consider	  using	  videoconferencing	  with	  a	  psychological	  or	  psychiatric	  forensic	  expert	  
for	  court	  reports	  to	  allow	  Dr.	  Lu	  to	  focus	  solely	  on	  his	  treatment	  role	  rather	  than	  mixing	  forensic	  and	  treating	   functions	  which	  compromises	  his	  time	  and	  relationships	  with	  inmates.	  	  The	  use	  of	  videoconferencing	  would	  also	   increase	  the	  potential	  pool	  of	  experts	  that	  could	  be	  used	  for	  forensic	  evaluations	  since	  they	  wouldn’t	  have	  to	  be	   physically	  located	  on	  the	  island.	  

Carty v Mapp

17	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 18 of 42

	  

Staffing	  levels	  of	  correctional	  officers	  remains	  inadequate	  to	  support	  a	  mental	  health	  mission:	  	  

suicide	  watches	  cannot	  be	  conducted	  appropriately;	  posts	  continue	  to	  be	  completely	  unmanned	  at	  

times	  and	  at	  other	  times,	  officers	  are	  called	  off	  their	  posts	  to	  assist	  other	  officers	  in	  routine	  tasks	  such	  as	  

meal	  distribution	  (leaving	  posts	  completely	  unmanned)	  to	  name	  just	  a	  few	  examples	  that	  highlight	  the	  

inadequate	  correctional	  officer	  staffing	  levels.	  	  The	  review	  of	  videos	  relating	  to	  the	  time	  of	  the	  

December	  suicide	  demonstrates	  that	  routine	  welfare	  rounds	  are	  not	  conducted	  as	  required	  leaving	  the	  

inmates	  in	  grave	  danger.	  

	  

As	  concluded	  in	  the	  initial	  report,	  CJC	  is	  not	  compliant	  with	  the	  staffing	  terms	  articulated	  in	  the	  

Agreement.	  	  Professional	  staffing	  is	  not	  clinically	  adequate	  to	  provide	  mental	  health	  treatment	  

programs,	  nor	  is	  there	  sufficient	  correctional	  staff	  to	  support	  that	  mission.	  	  There	  continues	  to	  be	  no	  

system	  of	  accountability	  for	  contracted	  hours	  of	  psychiatric	  time	  and	  evidence	  that	  contracted	  

psychiatric	  hours	  are	  not	  actually	  provided.	  	  Serious	  concerns	  about	  clinical	  productivity	  and	  practice	  

persist	  (e.g.,	  failure	  to	  conduct	  timely	  assessments,	  failure	  to	  monitor	  inmates	  for	  response	  to	  

prescribed	  medication	  and	  side	  effects,	  failure	  to	  examine	  inmates	  at	  appropriate	  intervals	  or	  increase	  

treatment	  interventions	  during	  mental	  health	  crises,	  etc.)	  	  	  	  	  

	  

Segregation	  –	  includes	  procedures	  for	  rounds	  as	  surveillance	  for	  inmates	  experiencing	  difficulty,	  

prohibition	  against	  placing	  mentally	  ill	  into	  segregation,	  mental	  health	  input	  to	  disciplinary	  process,	  and	  

use	  of	  force	  incidents,	  minimize	  segregation	  time,	  adequate	  out	  of	  cell	  time	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  IVH1f;	  V2t,	  V2u,	  V2v,	  V2w	  

Not	  compliant	  

	  

	  

There	  is	  no	  update	  to	  the	  information	  contained	  in	  the	  baseline	  report.	  	  I	  have	  simply	  repeated	  

it	  here	  for	  reference.	  	  	  

	  

“No	  policies	  or	  procedures	  regarding	  segregation	  were	  provided.	  	  There	  was	  no	  

evidence	  that	  actual	  practice	  prohibits	  housing	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  (SMI)	  in	  

isolation	  or	  any	  evidence	  of	  review	  to	  minimize	  time	  in	  segregation	  or	  provide	  adequate	  out-­‐of-­‐

Carty v Mapp

18	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 19 of 42

cell	  time	  as	  required	  by	  the	  Agreement.	  	  There	  was	  no	  documentation	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  files	  

that	  any	  sort	  of	  mental	  health	  review	  or	  consultation	  is	  provided	  at	  any	  time	  in	  the	  disciplinary	  

process	  as	  required	  in	  the	  Agreement.	  	  This	  provision	  is	  important	  because	  inmate	  behaviors	  

may	  be	  a	  manifestation	  of	  psychiatric	  illness;	  it	  can	  be	  identified	  and	  treated	  rapidly	  if	  inmates	  

receiving	  disciplinary	  reports	  are	  referred	  to	  mental	  health	  staff.	  	  If	  not	  referred,	  and	  given	  a	  

lockdown	  sanction,	  access	  to	  care	  is	  impeded,	  mental	  conditions	  worsen	  and	  treatment	  is	  

delayed.	  	  	  

	  

Additionally,	  some	  inmates	  are	  locked	  down	  on	  regular	  housing	  units,	  including	  the	  

mental	  health	  treatment	  housing	  unit,	  cluster	  1.	  	  Although	  not	  technically	  “segregation”,	  the	  

conditions	  experienced	  by	  the	  locked	  down	  inmates	  are	  similar	  to	  those	  of	  segregation	  in	  terms	  

of	  out-­‐of-­‐cell	  time,	  access	  to	  care,	  property	  restriction,	  etc.,	  and	  should	  be	  considered	  when	  the	  

policy	  and	  procedures	  are	  developed	  for	  this	  area	  of	  the	  Agreement.”	  

	  

	  

Appendix	  A	  case	  5	  illustrates	  the	  use	  of	  lockdown	  status	  on	  the	  mental	  health	  unit	  of	  an	  inmate	  

with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  who	  has	  been	  confined	  to	  his	  cell	  for	  months.	  	  His	  condition	  continues	  to	  

deteriorate	  and	  he	  is	  refusing	  treatment.	  Symptoms	  of	  persons	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  get	  worse	  

with	  segregation	  and	  such	  appears	  to	  be	  the	  case	  with	  this	  man.	  	  He	  is	  at	  increased	  risk	  of	  suicide	  and	  is	  

potentially	  at	  risk	  of	  harm	  from	  other	  inmates	  and	  officers	  who	  are	  ill	  prepared	  to	  manage	  him	  except	  

through	  the	  application	  of	  physical	  force	  and	  restraint	  (as	  in	  case	  4).	  	  The	  inmate’s	  condition	  is	  not	  going	  

to	  improve	  without	  treatment.	  	  He	  has	  had	  no	  psychotropic	  medication	  since	  November	  2014,	  and	  even	  

if	  it	  were	  re-­‐started	  today,	  it	  would	  likely	  take	  months	  to	  evidence	  some	  improvement.	  	  He	  requires	  

transfer	  to	  a	  treatment	  facility;	  keeping	  him	  confined	  in	  his	  cell/segregation	  is	  not	  an	  appropriate	  

placement	  and	  is	  making	  him	  worse.	  	  Further,	  he	  has	  no	  legal	  charges	  against	  him	  at	  this	  time	  and	  

shouldn’t	  even	  be	  in	  jail,	  much	  less	  maintained	  in	  a	  segregation	  status.	  	  	  

	  

Carty v Mapp

19	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 20 of 42

Mental	  health	  care	  –	  includes	  timely	  access	  acute	  and	  chronic	  care,	  access	  to	  inpatient	  or	  intermediate	  

care	  if	  clinically	  appropriate,	  psychotropic	  medications,	  staff	  training,	  special	  procedures	  (seclusion	  and	  

restraint),	  appropriate	  housing,	  adequate	  treatment	  space	  

Settlement	  Agreement	  Sections:	  IVB1d;	  IVIe;	  IVF7;V2e;	  V2w;	  V2x	  

Not	  compliant	  

(sections	  i-­‐xii)	  

	  

	  

As	  previously	  reported,	  the	  institution	  provided	  information	  that	  mental	  health	  care	  services	  

include	  individual	  assessments,	  psychosocial	  assessments,	  individual	  and	  group	  therapy,	  referral	  and	  

education	  services;	  discharge	  planning	  and	  linkage	  to	  community	  services.	  	  With	  the	  exception	  of	  co-­‐

facilitated	  group	  weekly	  group	  treatment,	  these	  services	  are	  provided	  almost	  exclusively	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  

as	  her	  time	  permits.	  	  Mental	  health	  staffing	  is	  insufficient	  to	  actually	  do	  a	  course	  of	  individual	  therapy	  

for	  a	  specific	  problem	  or	  issue	  but	  Ms.	  Warren	  can	  and	  does	  provide	  supportive	  counseling	  sessions	  

primarily	  on	  an	  as-­‐needed	  or	  requested	  basis.	  	  She	  has	  also	  begun	  to	  better	  document	  her	  clinical	  

encounters	  with	  inmates	  on	  the	  mental	  health	  caseload.	  	  She	  interacts	  with	  them	  individually	  at	  

intervals	  of	  one	  or	  two	  weeks	  and	  some	  of	  the	  mental	  health	  caseload	  inmates	  have	  also	  participated	  in	  

a	  number	  of	  group	  sessions	  offered	  as	  well.	  	  There	  has	  been	  no	  increase	  in	  the	  number	  of	  group	  sessions	  

offered	  since	  the	  last	  site	  visit.	  	  

	  

	  There	  is	  no	  policy	  addressing	  levels	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  or	  written	  protocols	  to	  describe	  the	  

frequency	  or	  types	  of	  contacts	  to	  be	  provided	  for	  chronic	  or	  acute	  conditions.	  	  Although	  Ms.	  Warren	  is	  

works	  full	  time	  and	  tries	  to	  do	  as	  much	  as	  possible	  inmates	  on	  the	  mental	  health	  caseload,	  the	  fact	  is	  

that	  CJC	  mental	  health	  staffing	  levels	  simply	  do	  not	  permit	  appropriate	  levels	  of	  mental	  health	  care;	  

neither	  is	  the	  physical	  plant	  conducive	  to	  meeting	  the	  treatment	  needs	  of	  acutely	  or	  chronically	  

mentally	  ill	  inmates.	  

	  

I	  asked	  Ms.	  Warren	  to	  name	  the	  three	  inmates	  about	  whom	  she	  had	  the	  most	  concern	  with	  

respect	  to	  managing	  in	  the	  jail.	  	  She	  immediately	  listed	  five	  inmates	  (cases	  5,	  3,	  4,	  8	  and	  7)	  and	  quickly	  

added	  another	  three	  (cases	  1,	  2	  and	  6).	  	  All	  were	  inmates	  with	  serious	  and	  persistent	  mental	  illness	  who	  

would	  be	  better	  managed	  in	  a	  treatment	  facility	  than	  the	  jail.	  	  	  One	  of	  the	  persons	  identified	  continues	  

Carty v Mapp

20	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 21 of 42

to	  be	  the	  man	  who	  was	  found	  not	  guilty	  by	  reason	  of	  insanity	  who	  is	  still	  being	  held	  in	  the	  jail	  in	  spite	  of	  

having	  no	  pending	  legal	  charges.	  	  He	  has	  refused	  treatment	  with	  medication	  and	  displays	  disturbed	  and	  

aggressive	  behavior.	  	  He	  is	  being	  managed	  only	  by	  being	  locked	  down	  in	  his	  cell	  where	  he	  has	  remained	  

for	  months.	  	  I	  interviewed	  all	  of	  the	  inmates	  identified	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  as	  they	  are	  on	  the	  mental	  health	  

caseload	  (except	  case	  5	  who	  refused)	  and	  agree	  that	  these	  men	  need	  more	  treatment	  than	  can	  be	  

provided	  at	  the	  CJC	  –	  there	  is	  insufficient	  treatment	  space,	  no	  appropriate	  housing	  and	  insufficient	  

staffing	  resources	  there	  to	  provide	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  mental	  health	  care.	  	  These	  are	  the	  very	  type	  of	  

inmates	  that	  the	  Agreement	  requirement	  for	  “development	  and	  implementation	  of	  a	  memoranda	  of	  

understanding	  to	  ensure	  timely	  transfers	  of	  seriously	  mentally	  ill	  prisoners	  in	  need	  of	  inpatient	  or	  

intermediate	  care,	  or	  those	  in	  need	  of	  acute	  stabilization,	  to	  an	  appropriate	  hospital	  or	  mental	  health	  

facility”	  was	  intended	  to	  address.	  	  Cases	  1,	  4,	  5,	  6,	  9,	  12	  and	  15	  required	  inpatient	  care;	  cases	  2,	  3	  and	  11	  

require	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  than	  can	  be	  provided	  at	  the	  jail	  but	  could	  be	  managed	  in	  an	  

intermediate	  care	  facility.	  	  

	  

Cluster	  1,	  the	  “mental	  health	  unit”,	  is	  not	  therapeutic	  and	  continues	  to	  be	  frankly	  unsafe.	  	  The	  

population	  housed	  there	  contains	  vulnerable	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  and	  predatory	  inmates.	  	  

(See	  case	  3	  and	  13	  in	  the	  Appendix	  for	  examples.)	  	  More	  recent	  incident	  reports	  and	  logs	  continue	  to	  

document	  inmate-­‐on-­‐inmate	  physical	  fights,	  assaults	  and	  attacks	  requiring	  emergency	  transport	  to	  the	  

outside	  hospital	  for	  physical	  care.	  There	  are	  also	  incident	  reports	  of	  officers	  using	  force	  to	  manage	  

inmates	  in	  Cluster	  1	  resulting	  in	  inmate	  injury	  and	  emergency	  transport	  to	  the	  outside	  hospital.	  	  (Case	  4)	  	  

Some	  of	  these	  uses	  of	  physical	  force	  incidents	  appear	  to	  be	  excessive	  and	  in	  response	  to	  behaviors	  

resulting	  from	  mental	  illness.	  	  Although	  Ms.	  Warren	  has	  provided	  some	  training	  to	  some	  officers	  since	  

the	  last	  site	  visit,	  the	  need	  for	  additional	  instruction	  in	  how	  to	  deal	  with	  or	  manage	  inmates	  with	  serious	  

mental	  illness	  is	  obvious.	  	  As	  previously	  stated,	  such	  training	  would	  assist	  officers	  in	  better	  

communicating	  with	  special	  needs	  inmates,	  help	  de-­‐escalate	  crises	  to	  reduce	  the	  need	  for	  using	  force,	  

Carty v Mapp

21	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 22 of 42

lockdown	  and	  physical	  restraint.	  	  There	  is	  no	  mental	  health	  group	  treatment	  or	  programming	  offered	  to	  

the	  men	  housed	  on	  this	  unit	  which	  would	  be	  useful	  in	  helping	  inmates	  manage/deal	  with	  psychiatric	  

symptoms,	  improve	  socialization	  skills	  and	  engage	  them	  in	  activities	  to	  reduce	  boredom	  and	  

unproductive	  idle	  time.	  	  	  

	  

The	  Agreement	  requires	  implementation	  of	  special	  policies	  on	  the	  use	  of	  seclusion	  and	  restraint	  

consistent	  with	  professional	  guidelines	  that	  include	  face-­‐to-­‐face	  assessments	  by	  a	  psychiatrist	  and	  

monitoring	  by	  nursing	  and	  limited	  duration.	  	  None	  of	  these	  special	  policies	  have	  been	  produced.	  	  It	  

appears	  that	  correctional	  staff	  continue	  to	  make	  unilateral	  decisions	  regarding	  placement	  of	  inmates	  in	  

lockdown	  status	  or	  restraint.	  	  Case	  5	  had	  been	  locked	  down	  in	  his	  cell	  for	  nearly	  a	  year	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  

site	  visit	  and	  cases	  4	  and	  10	  were	  restrained	  by	  correctional	  staff	  without	  involvement	  or	  notice	  to	  

mental	  health.	  

Conclusions:	  	  	   	  

My	  conclusions	  following	  the	  second	  site	  visit	  are	  unchanged:	  	  “Mental	  health	  care	  at	  CJC	  

remains	  deficient	  in	  virtually	  every	  aspect:	  	  inadequate	  treatment	  space;	  inappropriate	  housing	  

including	  deficient	  “safety	  cells”	  for	  suicidal	  inmates	  or	  those	  experiencing	  crises;	  insufficient	  mental	  

health	  staffing	  levels;	  minimal	  treatment	  other	  than	  psychotropic	  medication;	  inadequate	  security	  

staffing;	  no	  capacity	  to	  increase	  or	  respond	  to	  need	  for	  higher	  level	  of	  care;	  and	  no	  policies	  or	  

procedures	  including	  those	  for	  high	  risk	  occurrences	  (suicide	  watch,	  restraint,	  therapeutic	  seclusion).	  	  

Ms.	  Warren	  is	  a	  hard	  working,	  organized	  and	  dedicated	  mental	  health	  professional	  but	  one	  person	  

simply	  cannot	  do	  everything.	  	  Additional	  treatment	  providers	  are	  necessary	  and	  the	  psychiatrist	  must	  be	  

held	  accountable	  for	  his	  time	  and	  productivity	  in	  terms	  of	  patient	  care.	  	  Inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  

illnesses	  are	  not	  seen	  timely	  by	  psychiatry	  nor	  are	  they	  seen	  at	  regular	  intervals.	  	  Additionally,	  some	  

interactions	  are	  not	  conducted	  in	  private	  or	  confidential	  settings…	  The	  Agreement	  requires	  adequate	  

mental	  health	  programs	  for	  all	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness	  and	  includes	  psychosocial	  

Carty v Mapp

22	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 23 of 42

rehabilitation	  services.	  	  These	  types	  interventions	  serve	  as	  an	  adjunct	  to	  treatment	  with	  medication,	  

help	  inmates	  manage	  their	  illnesses/deal	  with	  symptoms,	  increase	  pro-­‐social	  skills,	  prepare	  for	  release	  

and	  ultimately,	  reduce	  criminal	  recidivism.	  	  Additionally,	  engaging	  inmates	  in	  structured	  activities	  is	  also	  

extremely	  helpful	  in	  terms	  of	  jail	  population	  management	  –	  inmates	  have	  less	  idle,	  unproductive	  time	  

and	  fewer	  incidents	  result.	  	  Also,	  as	  stated	  a	  number	  of	  times,	  correctional	  officers	  must	  be	  present	  in	  

sufficient	  numbers	  and	  receive	  appropriate	  training	  to	  manage	  inmates	  with	  serious	  mental	  illness.	  	  	  

There	  are	  no	  contracts	  or	  memoranda	  of	  understanding	  regarding	  the	  transfer	  and	  provision	  of	  

mental	  health	  care	  to	  prisoners	  in	  outside	  treatment	  facilities	  such	  as	  inpatient	  hospitalization	  or	  

intermediate	  care.	  	  The	  Agreement	  requires	  timely	  transfer	  to	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  care	  when	  clinically	  

necessary.”	  	  This	  does	  not	  happen.	  	  Even	  Ms.	  Warren	  identified	  at	  least	  eight	  inmates	  that	  needed	  a	  

higher	  level	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  than	  could	  be	  provided	  at	  the	  jail.	  	  	  “…Clinical	  studies	  demonstrate	  

that	  timely	  access	  to	  care	  is	  vital	  to	  ensure	  a	  positive	  outcome/treatment	  response.	  	  If	  care	  is	  delayed,	  

the	  response	  to	  treatment	  is	  less	  complete/robust	  and	  takes	  longer	  to	  achieve	  than	  when	  care	  is	  

provided	  timely	  –	  and	  people	  continue	  to	  suffer.”	  

	  

Mental	  health	  care	  is	  not	  compliant	  with	  the	  specific	  terms	  of	  the	  Agreement	  or	  the	  over-­‐

arching	  requirement	  for	  “timely	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  care	  consistent	  with	  community	  standards	  

and	  constitutional	  requirements	  including	  screening,	  assessment,	  treatment	  and	  monitoring	  of	  

prisoners’	  medical	  and	  mental	  health	  needs.”	  	  (Section	  V.1.)	  

	  

In	  the	  first	  report,	  I	  made	  a	  number	  of	  recommendations	  regarding	  the	  development	  of	  a	  plan	  

to	  prioritize	  and	  address	  the	  Agreement	  mental	  health	  requirements	  in	  a	  staged	  or	  phased	  manner.	  	  The	  

Territory	  has	  not	  adopted	  this	  recommendation	  for	  mental	  health	  care	  specifically.	  	  Rather,	  all	  

provisions	  of	  the	  Agreement	  were	  given	  a	  priority	  level	  rating	  of	  A,	  B	  or	  C.	  	  Priority	  level	  A	  are	  those	  

items	  deemed	  “most	  critical	  to	  safety,	  security	  and	  health	  care”;	  Priority	  B	  items	  are	  “very	  important	  to	  

safety,	  security	  and	  health	  care”;	  and	  Priority	  C	  items	  are	  “important	  to	  safety,	  security	  and	  health	  

Carty v Mapp

23	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 24 of 42

care.”	  	  	  All	  of	  mental	  health	  was	  assigned	  priority	  level	  A	  but	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit,	  even	  the	  most	   basic	  of	  the	  required	  policies	  had	  not	  been	  completed.	  	  I	  found	  no	  areas	  of	  compliance	  or	  even	  partial	   compliance	  with	  any	  of	  the	  mental	  health	  terms	  of	  the	  Agreement.	  	  In	  light	  of	  this	  lack	  of	  progress,	  I	   continue	  to	  recommend	  the	  BOC	  focus	  on	  addressing	  high-­‐risk	  practices	  and	  situations	  as	  the	  first	   priority:	  	  revision	  of	  the	  intake	  screening	  process	  to	  ensure	  that	  emergency	  needs	  are	  identified,	   continuity	  of	  care	  is	  preserved	  and	  mental	  health	  referrals	  and	  referral	  responses	  are	  timely.	  	  Suicide	   prevention	  policy	  and	  procedure	  must	  be	  revised	  to	  include	  the	  creation	  of	  safety	  cells;	  improvement	  in	   monitoring,	  documentation	  and	  communication	  among	  staff;	  standardized	  risk	  assessment	  and	   procedures	  that	  call	  for	  increased	  frequency	  and	  intensity	  of	  mental	  health	  treatment	  efforts	  during	   periods	  of	  increased	  suicide	  risk.	  	  This	  includes	  the	  option	  to	  hospitalize	  inmates	  requiring	  a	  higher	  level	   of	  care	  rather	  than	  maintaining	  them	  in	  the	  jail	  with	  limited	  treatment	  resources.	  	  As	  the	  December	   suicide	  illustrated,	  correctional	  staff	  need	  instruction	  and	  training	  in	  how	  to	  handle	  a	  suicide	  in	  progress	   or	  when	  a	  suicide	  is	  discovered.	  	  Policies	  and	  procedures	  for	  the	  use	  of	  seclusion	  and	  restraint	  must	  also	   be	  updated	  to	  reflect	  contemporary	  treatment	  standards	  which	  include	  authorization	  by	  psychiatry,	   monitoring	  by	  correctional	  and	  health	  care	  staff	  and	  use	  as	  a	  last	  resort	  when	  other	  methods	  to	  manage	   the	  inmate	  have	  been	  tried	  and	  failed	  or	  are	  impractical	  given	  the	  degree	  of	  danger	  posed	  by	  the	   inmate’s	  behavior	  (such	  as	  intervening	  when	  an	  inmate	  is	  in	  the	  act	  of	  attempting	  suicide.)	  	  The	  policies,	   procedures	  and	  practices	  for	  screening	  and	  evaluation,	  suicide	  prevention	  and	  seclusion	  and	  restraint	   are	  absolutely	  critical	  to	  inmate	  health	  and	  safety	  as	  well	  as	  the	  safety	  of	  staff	  and	  must	  be	  addressed	   immediately.	   	   Respectfully	  submitted,	   	   /s/	   Kathryn	  A.	  Burns,	  MD,	  MPH	   July	  25,	  2015	  

Carty v Mapp

24	  

Mental Health Report 2

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 25 of 42
	  
APPENDIX	  	  A:	  	  INMATE	  SUMMARIES	  
Case	  1	   	  
Arrested	  1/18/15;	  referred	  to	  mental	  health	  1/21/15.	  	  Initial	  MH	  assessment	  conducted	  1/23/15	  that	   concluded	  “no	  mental	  health	  treatment	  needed”	  but	  he	  was	  referred	  to	  Dr.	  Lu	  for	  assessment.	  	  Sgt.	   Gumbs	  referred	  him	  to	  mental	  health	  1/20/15.	  
Seen	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  during	  cluster	  visits	  1/23/15;	  1/28/15.	  	  Next	  documentation	  is	  3/9/15	  when	  he	  was	   seen	  following	  a	  referral	  by	  Assistant	  Warden	  Williams.	  	  Inmate	  was	  talking	  to	  himself	  and	  withdrawn.	  	   Ms.	  Warren	  saw	  inmate	  again	  3/11/15	  after	  he	  had	  a	  physical	  altercation	  with	  another	  inmate.	  	  He	  said	   he	  feared	  the	  other	  inmate	  and	  so	  attacked	  him	  first.	  
Dr.	  Lu	  examined	  3/13/15:	  	  “Schizophreniform	  disorder;	  Schizoid?;	  Paranoid?”	  Ordered	  medication	   (Fluphenazine	  2.5	  mg	  and	  Sertraline	  25	  mg	  daily)	  which	  inmate	  refused.	  	  	  
Seen	  during	  cluster	  visits	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  3/16/15,	  3/23/14	  (with	  Dr.	  Lu);	  4/10/15	  (with	  Dr.	  Lu.)	  	  Ms.	   Warren	  also	  attempted	  to	  see	  him	  4/8/15,	  but	  he	  refused.	  	  She	  also	  spoke	  with	  his	  mother	  4/9/15	  and	   learned	  that	  his	  brother	  was	  mentally	  ill	  and	  prescribed	  medication.	  
At	  visit	  4/10/15	  with	  Dr.	  Lu	  and	  Ms.	  Warren,	  both	  noted	  bizarre	  behavior,	  disorganization	  and	  confusion.	  	   Dr.	  Lu	  changed	  diagnosis	  to	  Schizophrenia	  and	  noted	  inmate	  to	  be	  “disorganized,	  irrational,	  reacting	  to	   internal	  stimuli.”	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  ordered	  different	  medications:	  	  Haldol	  5	  mg	  and	  Cogentin	  twice	  daily,	  Sertraline	   25	  mg	  twice	  daily.	  	  (Previous	  orders	  for	  Fluphenazine	  and	  Sertraline	  were	  not	  discontinued.)	  
Inmate	  is	  refusing	  to	  take	  oral	  medications.	  	  He	  remains	  psychotic.	  	  He	  was	  moved	  out	  of	  the	  mental	   health	  cluster	  following	  the	  altercation	  with	  another	  inmate	  in	  Cluster	  1	  for	  his	  own	  protection	  against	   retaliation.	  	  He	  was	  housed	  in	  cluster	  3	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit.	  
Interview:	  	  Not	  sure	  of	  his	  charges,	  how	  long	  he's	  been	  in	  the	  jail	  or	  how	  long	  he	  has	  to	  stay	  in	  jail.	  	  He	   denies	  any	  symptoms	  but	  is	  guarded	  in	  his	  responses,	  appears	  preoccupied	  (as	  if	  hallucinating);	   mumbles	  indistinct	  responses	  to	  questions;	  flat	  affect	  &	  poverty	  of	  speech.	  	  Refuses	  medication	  because	   he	  "ain't	  crazy."	  
Comment:	  	  Delayed	  screening;	  psychiatric	  assessment	  delayed	  nearly	  2	  months	  leading	  to	  worsening	  of	   condition.	  	  Psychotic	  thought	  processes	  influencing	  behavior	  –	  struck	  another	  inmate	  out	  of	   misperceived	  self-­‐defense.	  	  He	  is	  an	  imminent	  and	  serious	  danger	  to	  self	  and	  others	  as	  a	  result	  of	  his	   untreated	  mental	  illness.	  	  Remains	  acutely	  psychotic,	  refusing	  psychotropic	  medication.	  	  Not	  housed	  in	   MH	  cluster.	  	  This	  man	  needs	  psychiatric	  hospitalization	  for	  his	  protection	  and	  the	  safety	  of	  others	  and	  to	   initiate	  involuntary	  treatment	  proceedings.	  
	  
	  

	  

1	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 26 of 42
	  
Case	  2	   	  
Received	  into	  jail	  1/27/15	  on	  charge	  of	  simple	  assault	  (domestic	  violence).	  	  Intake	  screening	  by	  CO	   Vanterpool	  identified	  “mood	  swings	  and	  depression	  –	  needs	  to	  be	  evaluated	  by	  mental	  health	  staff.”	  	   Seen	  for	  initial	  assessment	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  same	  date.	  	  She	  noted	  apparent	  cognitive	  deficits,	  odd	   behaviors	  and	  strange	  speech	  and	  referred	  him	  to	  Dr.	  Lu	  for	  evaluation.	  
There	  is	  a	  doctor’s	  order	  for	  “psychology	  testing	  for	  IQ”	  dated	  2/4/15	  and	  the	  WAIS-­‐IV	  intelligence	  test	   was	  administered	  2/11/15.	  	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  only	  note	  indicating	  that	  he	  actually	  saw	  the	  inmate	  is	  dated	  3/8/15	   and	  concludes	  “Schizophrenia	  and	  Substance	  Abuse	  Disorder	  (THC);	  IQ	  61-­‐63.”	  	  His	  plan	  was	  to	  “request	   additional	  test	  and	  consider	  medication.”	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  had	  not	  seen	  the	  inmate	  again	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	   visit	  (a	  month	  later)	  and	  no	  medications	  were	  prescribed.	  	  The	  “Woodcock	  Johnson	  Test	  of	   Achievement”	  was	  administered	  3/11/15	  by	  the	  psychologist.	  
Ms.	  Warren	  has	  documented	  contacts	  with	  the	  inmate	  3/2/15,	  3/9/15,	  3/16/15,	  3/23/15	  and	  4/10/15.	  	   She	  has	  also	  spoken	  with	  his	  mother	  to	  gather	  additional	  information.	  
Interview:	  	  	  Inappropriate	  smiling	  during	  interview,	  preoccupied;	  repeats	  questions	  posed	  or	  last	  few	   words	  of	  questions	  (echolalia);	  nods	  "yes"	  when	  asked	  if	  he	  sees	  or	  hears	  things	  but	  cannot	  provide	   detail	  on	  these	  experiences.	  	  Unaware	  of	  charges,	  his	  length	  of	  stay	  in	  jail.	  	  Intellectual	  ability	  estimated	   below	  average.	  	  Not	  on	  medications.	  
Comment:	  	  Screening	  and	  referral	  appropriate	  and	  timely.	  	  Psychiatric	  evaluation	  delayed	  by	  more	  than	   a	  month.	  	  Inmate	  diagnosis	  and	  treatment	  of	  psychotic	  symptoms	  delayed.	  	  He	  is	  prescribed	  no	   medication	  and	  was	  not	  housed	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  cluster	  until	  sometime	  after	  3/26/15.	  	  (He	  was	  in	   the	  mental	  health	  cluster	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit.)	  	  Interview	  presentation	  consistent	  with	  psychotic	   thought	  disorder	  and	  intellectual	  disability	  disorder.	  	  He	  requires	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  mental	  health	  care.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

2	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 27 of 42
	  

Case	  3	   	  

Inmate	  has	  been	  in	  BOC	  custody	  since	  11/18/10.	  	  He	  has	  a	  diagnosis	  of	  Chronic	  Schizophrenia,	  is	   prescribed	  psychotropic	  medication	  and	  housed	  in	  the	  mental	  health	  cluster.	  For	  the	  past	  year,	   psychotropic	  medication	  orders	  are	  written	  at	  approximately	  	  one-­‐month	  intervals	  (3/20/14,	  4/30/14,	   6/4/14,	  6/12/14,	  7/8/14,	  9/2/14,	  10/1/14,	  10/31/14,	  12/1/14,	  1/1/15,	  1/23/15,	  2/1/15,	  3/1/15,	  4/7/15).	  	   Current	  medication	  is	  Zyprexa	  5	  mg	  daily.	  	  Medications	  were	  adjusted	  over	  the	  course	  of	  the	  past	  year:	  	   inmate	  was	  on	  Prolixin	  and	  Cogentin	  earlier	  and	  this	  was	  changed	  to	  the	  current	  Zyprexa	  medication	   through	  a	  cross	  tapering	  process.	  	  During	  this	  process,	  Dr.	  Lu	  saw	  the	  inmate	  only	  twice:	  	  6/5/14	  (note	  in	   mental	  health	  file)	  and	  2/24/15	  (seen	  at	  medication	  room).	  	  	  

For	  calendar	  year	  2015,	  Ms.	  Warren	  has	  seen	  inmate	  during	  cluster	  visits	  1/23/15,	  1/28/15,	  3/2/15,	   3/9/15,	  3/16/15,	  3/23/15	  and	  4/10/15.	  

Inmate	  also	  has	  end	  stage	  glaucoma	  bilaterally	  and	  is	  vision-­‐impaired.	  	  There	  are	  reports	  in	  the	  records	  

indicating	  that	  he	  was	  sexually	  victimized	  by	  inmate	  13	  on	  more	  than	  one	  occasion	  while	  both	  were	  

residents	  of	  the	  mental	  health	  cluster.	  	  (Subsequently,	  inmate	  13	  was	  moved	  out	  of	  Cluster	  1	  and	  into	  	  

Cluster	  2.)	  	  “Victim	  of	  sexual	  assault”	  was	  added	  to	  

	  mental	  health	  treatment	  plan	  problem	  

list	  after	  the	  assaults	  by	  inmate	  13.	  

Interview:	  	  Has	  been	  in	  jail	  almost	  5	  years;	  takes	  his	  medications	  and	  stays	  in	  his	  room.	  	  He	  meets	  with	   Ms.	  Warren	  and	  talks	  about	  stress	  and	  problems;	  participated	  in	  prior	  groups	  but	  not	  enrolled	  in	  current	   batch.	  	  Sees	  Dr.	  Lu	  when	  he	  goes	  to	  the	  med	  window.	  	  He	  was	  pleasant,	  cooperative;	  hygiene	  fair.	  	   Denied	  depression	  currently,	  no	  thoughts	  suicide.	  	  No	  hallucinations,	  not	  preoccupied,	  guarded	  or	   suspicious.	  

Comment:	  	  5	  years	  confinement	  pre-­‐trial!	  	  Inmate	  is	  mentally	  ill	  and	  physically	  vulnerable	  in	  the	  jail;	   sexually	  assaulted.	  	  He	  is	  not	  receiving	  an	  appropriate	  level	  of	  mental	  health	  care	  nor	  being	  protected	   from	  predatory	  inmates	  in	  the	  jail.	  	  He	  should	  be	  released	  and	  placed	  into	  a	  residential	  treatment	   program	  in	  the	  community.	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

3	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 28 of 42
	  

Case	  4	   	  

Received	  2/19/15	  on	  charge	  of	  first	  degree	  assault.	  	  CO	  Robles	  completed	  the	  intake	  health	  services	   form	  on	  the	  same	  date.	  	  Inmate	  had	  multiple	  lacerations	  at	  time	  of	  admission	  that	  had	  been	  medically	   attended	  on	  the	  outside.	  	  He	  had	  stitches	  and	  staples	  which	  were	  removed	  by	  jail	  nursing	  staff	  2/21/15.	  	   (Mental	  	  health	  file	  indicates	  he	  had	  been	  in	  a	  knife	  fight	  prior	  to	  arrest.)	  	  Medical	  physical	  exam	   2/24/15.	  	  	  

Medication	  orders	  for	  Depakote	  and	  Lithium	  are	  dated	  2/19/15	  and	  were	  received	  over	  the	  phone.	  	   Medications	  renewed	  3/1/15	  and	  serum	  levels	  ordered.	  	  On	  3/24/15,	  there	  is	  a	  telephone	  order	  for	   Geodon,	  Benadryl	  and	  Ativan	  to	  be	  given	  by	  injection	  “prn	  agitation	  q	  8	  hours”.	  	  April	  7,	  2015:	  Depakote	   reordered	  (same	  dose),	  lithium	  increased	  and	  Ativan	  ordered	  as	  standing	  order	  oral	  medication.	  	  Order	   for	  injectable	  Geodon	  and	  Benadryl	  “prn	  q	  8	  hours”	  also	  present.	  	  4/24/15	  order	  changes	  Depakote	  pills	   to	  a	  liquid	  preparation	  (but	  also	  oral.)	  	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  only	  note	  during	  this	  incarceration	  is	  dated	  4/9/15	  and	   indicates	  inmate	  has	  Bipolar	  Affective	  Disorder	  and	  is	  “psychotic,	  incompetent,	  delusional	  and	   irrational.”	  	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  note	  indicates	  medications	  are	  Depakote,	  lithium	  and	  Zyprexa	  –	  but	  there	  is	  no	   order	  for	  Zyprexa	  at	  all.	  	  Lab	  results	  indicate	  both	  Depakote	  and	  lithium	  levels	  are	  subtherapeutic;	  doses	   were	  not	  adjusted.	  

Medical	  file	  indicates	  

	  has	  sustained	  multiple	  injuries	  while	  at	  the	  jail:	  

3/24/15	  –	  left	  ear	  “split”	  due	  to	  “trying	  to	  control”	  inmate;	  sent	  out	  to	  local	  emergency	  room	  and	   returned.	  	  (Logbook	  indicates	  this	  incident	  involved	  a	  spontaneous	  use	  of	  force	  with	  7	  officers	  and	  3	   sergeants.	  	  The	  inmate	  was	  originally	  in	  his	  cell	  on	  his	  bunk	  and	  failed	  to	  comply	  with	  a	  verbal	  order	  of	   one	  officer	  to	  get	  off	  his	  bunk.	  	  The	  original	  officer	  “made	  contact”	  with	  the	  inmate	  who	  resisted,	   leading	  to	  the	  use	  of	  force	  and	  inmate	  injury.)	  

3/26/15	  –	  Laceration	  “inner”	  ear	  

3/28/15	  –	  Nurse	  administered	  an	  injection	  of	  short-­‐acting	  medication.	  	  A	  description	  of	  the	  emergency	   precipitating	  this	  involuntary	  medication	  was	  not	  provided.	  	  The	  logbook	  indicates	  that	  6	  officers	   restrained	  the	  inmate	  during	  this	  event.	  	  Neither	  the	  type	  or	  duration	  of	  restraint	  were	  recorded.	  

4/2/15	  –	  Multiple	  healed	  lacerations/abrasions	  to	  “both	  ears,	  forehead	  and	  lower	  jaw”	  noted	  in	  medical	   progress	  note.	  

4/1/15	  –	  Spitting.	  	  Hit	  head	  on	  metal	  bunk	  when	  being	  restrained	  by	  COs.	  

Interview:	  Sullen	  and	  guarded	  in	  interview;	  somewhat	  hostile	  and	  unwilling	  to	  answer	  questions.	  	  Says	   he	  is	  not	  mentally	  ill	  but	  forced	  to	  take	  medications	  and	  if	  he	  doesn't,	  guards	  beat	  him.	  	  Interview	   terminated	  early	  due	  to	  his	  level	  of	  hostility.	  

Comment:	  	  Inadequate	  psychiatric	  care;	  inappropriate	  use	  of	  physical	  force.	  	  Inmate	  clearly	   psychiatrically	  ill	  and	  decompensating	  since	  at	  least	  3/23/15	  according	  to	  documentation	  in	  the	  medical	  

	  

4	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 29 of 42
	  
and	  mental	  health	  file	  but	  not	  seen	  by	  Dr.	  Lu	  until	  4/9/15	  and	  not	  seen	  since	  to	  check	  on	  condition.	  	   Psychotic,	  manic	  and	  out-­‐of-­‐control;	  jail	  is	  not	  equipped	  to	  handle	  this	  degree	  of	  illness.	  	  COs	  are	  not	   trained	  to	  handle	  this	  type	  of	  behavior	  resulting	  in	  multiple	  injuries	  to	  inmate.	  	  Staffing	  levels	  are	   insufficient	  to	  deal	  with	  an	  inmate	  that	  is	  this	  ill.	  	  He	  needs	  to	  be	  in	  a	  psychiatric	  facility/acute	  care	   hospital.	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	   	  

	  

5	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 30 of 42
	  

Case	  5	   	  

This	  man	  was	  sent	  to	  Sylmar	  Rehabilitation	  Center	  in	  California	  in	  2009	  after	  having	  been	  found	  Not	   Guilty	  by	  Reason	  of	  Insanity	  (NGRI).	  	  He	  was	  sent	  back	  to	  St.	  Thomas	  1/25/13	  and	  has	  been	  in	  the	  jail	   since	  that	  time.	  	  He	  was	  receiving	  long-­‐acting	  injections	  of	  Haldol	  at	  the	  hospital,	  but	  medication	  was	   not	  ordered	  upon	  his	  return.	  	  There	  is	  an	  order	  for	  medication	  11/21/14,	  almost	  two	  years	  after	  his	   return,	  but	  the	  inmate	  refused	  medication	  at	  that	  time	  and	  all	  medications	  were	  discontinued	  12/1/14.	  

Dr.	  Lu	  saw	  

	  3/14/13,	  nearly	  two	  months	  after	  his	  return,	  and	  diagnosed	  “Personality	  Disorder,	  

defiant,	  immature	  and	  aggressive,	  antisocial.	  	  No	  real	  psychotic	  thought	  disorder	  but	  mood	  instability	  

and	  personality	  disorder.”	  	  (This	  is	  interesting	  because	  it	  was	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  report	  in	  1997	  that	  indicated	  the	  

inmate	  was	  severely	  mentally	  ill	  and	  that	  the	  criminal	  act	  was	  a	  result	  of	  his	  mental	  disorder	  and	  led	  to	  

the	  NGRI	  finding.)	  He	  also	  noted	  that	  

	  refused	  medications.	  	  Dr.	  Napier	  saw	  

	  during	  

cluster	  visits	  2/10/14,	  5/21/14	  and	  7/3/14.	  	  

	  was	  not	  seen	  by	  psychiatry	  again	  until	  11/21/14,	  

and	  he	  had	  not	  been	  seen	  since	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit.	  	  (Dr.	  Lu	  did	  order	  meds	  11/21/14	  as	  noted	  

above,	  but	  discontinued	  them	  a	  week	  later.)	  

Ms.	  Warren	  checks	  on	  

	  regularly	  during	  cluster	  visits	  and	  has	  documented	  concerns	  about	  the	  

inappropriateness	  of	  jail	  as	  a	  placement	  for	  him.	  	  She	  has	  also	  expressed	  these	  views	  regularly	  to	  the	  

Warden	  and	  assistant	  attorneys	  general.	  	  	  

Comment:	  	  Held	  in	  jail	  in	  spite	  of	  a	  finding	  NGRI.	  	  Level	  of	  care	  he	  needs	  exceeds	  that	  which	  can	  be	   provided	  in	  the	  jail.	  	  He	  has	  basically	  been	  locked	  down	  in	  his	  cell	  without	  treatment	  since	  May	  2014.	  	  He	   has	  refused	  medications	  but	  no	  motion	  seeking	  involuntary	  medication	  has	  been	  filed.	  	  He	  has	  been	   seen	  by	  psychiatry	  only	  five	  times	  in	  the	  2+	  years	  since	  his	  return	  from	  a	  hospital	  level	  of	  care.	  	  He	   refused	  to	  come	  out	  of	  his	  cell	  to	  speak	  with	  me.	  	  This	  seriously	  mentally	  ill	  man	  needs	  a	  hospital	  level	  of	   care.	  	  Continued	  confinement	  in	  jail,	  without	  treatment	  is	  inhumane.	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

6	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 31 of 42
	  

Case	  6	   	  
Intake	  health	  services	  form	  completed	  3/20/15.	  	  Initial	  mental	  health	  assessment	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	   attempted	  3/23/15	  but	  much	  of	  it	  could	  not	  be	  completed	  due	  to	  the	  delusional,	  confused	  and	   disorganized	  state	  of	  the	  inmate’s	  thinking	  at	  the	  time.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  saw	  the	  inmate	  3/24/15	  and	  diagnosed	   Schizoaffective	  Disorder,	  paranoid.	  	  A	  mood	  stabilizing	  medication	  (Depakote)	  and	  antipsychotic	   (Zyprexa)	  were	  ordered.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  had	  not	  seen	  the	  inmate	  again	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	   had	  additional	  contacts	  3/27/15	  and	  4/10/15.	  	  	  	  
The	  inmate	  appeared	  to	  be	  taking	  the	  prescribed	  medication	  after	  they	  were	  ordered	  in	  March	  and	   continued	  in	  April.	  No	  serum	  levels	  of	  medication	  had	  been	  ordered.	  	  The	  inmate	  was	  moved	  into	  the	   mental	  health	  cluster	  3/26/15	  at	  the	  request	  of	  Ms.	  Warren	  and	  he	  was	  housed	  there	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	   site	  visit.	  
Interview:	  Grandiose	  and	  poorly	  organized	  thought	  processes;	  thoughts	  and	  sentences	  are	  disconnected	   and	  illogical.	  	  Reported	  that	  he	  created	  the	  world,	  invented	  reggae	  music	  in	  the	  1960's	  and	  became	  very	   rich;	  has	  been	  shot	  in	  the	  top	  of	  the	  head	  with	  the	  bullet	  traveling	  through	  his	  neck,	  down	  his	  torso	  and	   out	  his	  groin	  and	  that	  he	  has	  also	  been	  a	  math	  and	  English	  teacher.	  	  Psychotic	  (grandiose	  &	   disorganized).	  
Comment:	  	  	  This	  man	  should	  have	  been	  diverted	  to	  a	  hospital	  level	  of	  care	  at	  the	  time	  of	  intake.	  	  At	  the	   time	  of	  the	  site	  visit,	  a	  month	  after	  his	  arrest,	  he	  remained	  quite	  ill	  with	  grandiose	  delusional	  and	   disorganized	  thought	  processes.	  	  He	  requires	  more	  assertive	  mental	  health	  treatment	  –	  a	  higher	  level	  of	   care	  –	  than	  can	  be	  provided	  in	  the	  jail.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

7	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 32 of 42
	  
Case	  7	   	  
Received	  into	  the	  jail	  4/14/15	  and	  referred	  to	  mental	  health	  by	  CO	  Nibbs	  for	  bizarre	  behavior	  and	   statements,	  talking	  to	  himself.	  	  Seen	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  for	  an	  initial	  mental	  health	  assessment	  4/16/15	  and	   she	  referred	  him	  to	  Dr.	  Lu	  for	  medication	  assessment.	  	  He	  was	  seen	  by	  Dr.	  Lu	  4/17/15	  who	  diagnosed	   Paranoid	  Schizophrenia;	  observations	  included	  that	  the	  inmate	  was	  “flighty”	  and	  said	  he	  had	  special	   powers.	  	  He	  also	  “adamantly	  refused”	  medications	  but	  	  Zyprexa	  (antipsychotic)	  and	  Lorazepam	   (benzodiazepine)	  were	  	  ordered.	  	  MAR	  indicates	  inmate	  is	  actually	  taking	  them.	  	  He	  was	  housed	  in	   cluster	  4	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit	  though	  Ms.	  Warren	  indicated	  that	  he	  would	  be	  moving	  to	  the	   mental	  health	  cluster.	  
Interview:	  	  Pleasant	  and	  spontaneous	  but	  illogical	  and	  disjointed	  thinking.	  	  Reports	  Dr.	  Lu	  recommended	   medication	  but	  he	  declined	  it.	  	  However,	  they	  do	  call	  him	  over	  everyday	  for	  a	  "little	  pill	  to	  relax"	  his	   body	  and	  he	  takes	  it.	  	  Was	  fired	  from	  dishwasher	  job	  but	  says	  that's	  what	  he'd	  like	  to	  go	  back	  to	  doing	   when	  released.	  	  Says	  he	  was	  arrested	  for	  disturbing	  peace,	  DV	  with	  his	  father	  which	  is	  why	  he	  is	  in	  jail.	  	   His	  plan	  upon	  release	  is	  to	  go	  stay	  with	  his	  parents.	  
Comment:	  	  Inmate	  is	  seriously	  mentally	  ill.	  	  He	  should	  have	  been	  diverted	  to	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  care	  at	  the	   time	  of	  intake	  or	  at	  least	  referred	  for	  an	  immediate	  psychiatric	  evaluation.	  	  He	  clearly	  cannot	  give	   informed	  consent	  for	  the	  prescribed	  medications.	  	  His	  treatment	  needs	  exceed	  that	  which	  can	  be	   provided	  in	  a	  jail.	  	  He	  is	  vulnerable	  to	  abuse/attach	  by	  other	  inmates.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

8	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 33 of 42
	  
Case	  8	  	   	  
Received	  into	  the	  jail	  on	  4/15/15	  with	  charges	  of	  disturbance	  of	  the	  peace.	  	  His	  initial	  screening	  was	   done	  on	  4/15/15.	  	  Initial	  mental	  health	  assessment	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  was	  completed	  4/20/15.	  	  She	   documented	  that	  he	  “appears	  somewhat	  bizarre	  in	  thought”	  and	  referred	  him	  to	  the	  psychiatrist.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	   saw	  the	  inmate	  on	  4/21/15	  who	  diagnosed	  Anxiety	  and	  Panic	  Disorder.	  	  The	  medication	  clonazepam	  (an	   anti-­‐anxiety,	  benzodiazepine)	  was	  ordered	  twice	  daily.	  
Interview:	  During	  the	  interview	  with	  me,	  the	  inmate	  was	  pleasant	  and	  cooperative.	  	  He	  said	  he	  arrived	  in	   St.	  Thomas	  five	  days	  prior	  to	  his	  arrest.	  	  He	  had	  been	  “camping.”	  	  He	  is	  not	  employed	  or	  in	  college.	  	  He	   left	  his	  parents’	  home	  in	  Texas	  and	  lived	  in	  New	  York	  City	  for	  a	  while	  before	  deciding	  to	  come	  to	  St.	   Thomas.	  	  He	  planned	  to	  go	  to	  Colorado	  sometime	  later	  in	  the	  summer	  or	  fall,	  but	  could	  not	  explain	  how	   he	  was	  going	  to	  finance	  his	  travels.	  	  He	  reported	  being	  on	  the	  city	  bus	  just	  prior	  to	  his	  arrest	  and	  said	  he	   was	  concerned	  about	  the	  way	  an	  adult	  woman	  was	  interacting	  with	  some	  minor	  children	  who	  clearly	   were	  not	  related	  to	  her.	  	  He	  said	  that	  he	  asked	  the	  children	  if	  they	  wanted	  him	  to	  walk	  home	  from	  their	   bus	  stop	  with	  them	  because	  of	  this	  adult	  woman	  and	  they	  said	  yes.	  	  Other	  bus	  riders	  told	  him	  to	  get	  off	   the	  bus	  and	  called	  the	  police	  about	  him.	  	  He	  was	  arrested.	  	  While	  he	  appeared	  calm	  and	  rational	  with	   organized	  thought	  processes	  initially,	  he	  began	  to	  talk	  about	  there	  being	  “gangsters”	  on	  the	  bus	  who	   were	  talking	  about	  the	  children	  and	  preoccupied	  with	  children’s	  safety	  (the	  ones	  on	  the	  bus	  and	  all	   other	  children),	  “black	  culture”	  and	  the	  interactions	  between	  “black	  culture”	  and	  white	  people	  on	  the	   island.	  	  He	  seemed	  to	  interpret	  fairly	  innocuous	  events/actions	  in	  a	  paranoid	  way.	  	  He	  said	  he	  had	  a	   court	  date	  on	  May	  7	  and	  was	  not	  particularly	  concerned	  about	  whether	  he	  would	  be	  released	  or	  had	   spend	  additional	  time	  in	  jail.	  
Comment:	  	  Apparent	  misperceptions	  of	  some	  events	  and	  reinterpretation	  in	  a	  rather	  paranoid	  fashion;	   atypical/homeless/wandering	  lifestyle.	  	  Possible	  first	  break	  In	  a	  psychotic	  disorder	  of	  some	  type.	  	   Additional	  collateral	  information	  needed	  from	  family	  and	  comprehensive	  psychiatric	  assessment	   necessary.	  	  This	  degree	  of	  attention/diagnostic	  clarification	  is	  not	  possible	  in	  the	  jail.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

9	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 34 of 42
	  

Case	  9	  (released)	   	  
Inmate	  has	  been	  in	  the	  jail	  on	  several	  occasions.	  	  He	  was	  not	  in	  the	  jail	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit.	  	  He	   was	  in	  jail	  12/7/13	  to	  5/6/14	  and	  returned	  8/13/14	  and	  stayed	  until	  3/4/15.	  	  The	  inmate’s	  initial	  mental	   health	  assessment	  was	  completed	  1/10/14	  (a	  month	  after	  his	  arrest)	  and	  it	  was	  not	  repeated	  following	   his	  second	  arrest	  in	  August,	  although	  he	  was	  seen	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  on	  that	  date.	  	  Ms.	  Warren	  saw	  the	   inmate	  at	  intervals	  of	  1-­‐2	  weeks	  during	  his	  second	  jail	  say.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  saw	  the	  inmate	  only	  one	  time	  during	   his	  second	  incarceration	  and	  that	  was	  on	  12/29/14	  –	  four	  and	  a	  half	  months	  after	  his	  arrival.	  	  This	  is	  in	   spite	  of	  mental	  health	  progress	  notes	  from	  Ms.	  Warren	  detailing	  the	  inmate’s	  mania,	  agitation	  and	   thought	  disorganization.	  	  Although	  Dr.	  Lu	  did	  not	  document	  seeing	  the	  patient,	  he	  did	  make	  multiple	   medication	  changes	  and	  adjustments;	  and	  he	  also	  ordered	  medication	  be	  administered	  intramuscularly	   if	  oral	  medications	  were	  refused.	  	  There	  is	  no	  documentation	  indicating	  that	  forcing	  medications	  was	   legally	  authorized.	  	  Although	  the	  inmate	  remained	  “very	  manic”	  in	  early	  January	  as	  documented	  by	  Ms.	   Warren,	  he	  was	  not	  examined	  again	  by	  Dr.	  Lu.	  	  He	  was	  released	  from	  the	  jail	  on	  Depakote	  (a	  mood	   stabilizer),	  olanzapine	  (an	  oral	  antipsychotic)	  and	  Prolixin	  decanoate	  (a	  long-­‐acting	  injectable	   antipsychotic	  medication.)	  
Comment:	  	  Psychiatrist	  failed	  to	  follow	  a	  seriously	  mentally	  ill	  and	  unstable	  inmate	  at	  appropriate	   intervals	  in	  order	  to	  assertively	  treat	  manic	  condition.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  failed	  to	  see	  the	  inmate	  timely	  upon	  his	   return	  to	  jail.	  	  Involuntary/forced	  medication	  orders	  without	  legal	  authorization.	  	  Inmate	  clearly	   exceeded	  jail	  capacity	  to	  manage	  his	  serious	  mental	  illness.	  	  He	  should	  have	  been	  transferred	  to	  a	  facility	   with	  the	  capacity	  to	  provide	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  mental	  health	  care.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

10	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 35 of 42
	  
Case	  10	  (released)	   	  
Inmate	  arrested	  10/22/14	  and	  underwent	  intake	  screening.	  	  He	  was	  referred	  to	  mental	  health	  as	  a	  result	   of	  the	  screening	  and	  Ms.	  Warren	  conducted	  her	  initial	  assessment	  10/22/14.	  	  The	  inmate	  was	  referred	   to	  Dr.	  Lu	  for	  an	  assessment	  and	  was	  to	  be	  “monitored	  for	  suicidal	  ideation.”	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  did	  not	  see	  the	   inmate	  until	  10/28/14,	  about	  a	  week	  after	  his	  arrival.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  diagnosed	  “anxiety,	  stress	  disorder	  and	   depression”	  and	  ordered	  an	  antidepressant	  and	  antianxiety	  medication.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  did	  not	  see	  the	  inmate	   again	  for	  the	  duration	  of	  his	  jail	  stay	  which	  was	  about	  6	  ½	  months.	  	  (Neither	  the	  medical	  nor	  mental	   health	  file	  are	  clear	  on	  when	  the	  inmate	  was	  released	  from	  the	  jail	  but	  his	  classification	  file	  indicates	  his	   case	  was	  closed	  4/8/15.)	  	  However,	  multiple	  medication	  changes	  were	  made	  including	  discontinuation	   of	  the	  antianxiety	  medication;	  reducing	  the	  dosage	  of	  the	  antidepressant	  medication	  and	  orders	  for	   adding	  a	  second	  antidepressant	  about	  a	  week	  before	  the	  inmate’s	  jail	  release.	  	  Therefore,	  the	  effect(s)	   of	  these	  medication	  changes/adjustments/additions	  were	  not	  assessed.	  
Ms.	  Warren	  saw	  the	  inmate	  at	  intervals	  of	  1-­‐2	  weeks	  throughout	  his	  jail	  stay.	  	  He	  was	  placed	  on	  a	  suicide	   watch	  in	  late	  October	  as	  there	  are	  documents	  indicating	  watch	  placement	  10/27/14,	  10/28/14	  and	   10/29/14	  but	  there	  is	  no	  documentation	  about	  when,	  why	  or	  if	  the	  watch	  was	  discontinued.	  	  (The	   document	  entitled	  “Bureau	  of	  Corrections	  Suicidal	  Attempts/Ideations”	  indicates	  the	  inmate	  was	  placed	   on	  watch	  10/27/14	  and	  released	  from	  watch	  11/7/14	  but	  there	  are	  no	  officer	  observation	  sheets	  for	  the	   last	  week	  of	  the	  supposed	  “watch.”)	  	  Watch	  sheets	  that	  were	  produced	  demonstrate	  that	  officer	   monitoring	  was	  not	  consistent	  with	  the	  instruction	  that	  checks	  be	  made	  at	  irregular	  intervals	  not	  to	   exceed	  20	  minutes.	  	  Observation	  logs	  record	  documentation	  at	  intervals	  that	  range	  from	  20	  minutes	  to	   more	  than	  an	  hour.	  	  
The	  inmate	  attended	  one	  group	  during	  his	  jail	  stay.	  	  There	  is	  an	  incident	  report	  in	  the	  classification	  file	   that	  the	  inmate	  was	  placed	  in	  restraints	  and	  secured	  to	  a	  bench	  on	  10/22/14.	  	  There	  is	  no	   documentation	  authorizing	  this	  as	  any	  sort	  of	  medical	  or	  mental	  health	  intervention.	  
Comment:	  	  Untimely	  psychiatric	  assessment	  after	  admission	  to	  jail;	  inappropriate	  follow-­‐up	  intervals	   and	  failure	  to	  assess	  the	  effect(s)	  of	  psychotropic	  medications.	  	  No	  documentation	  of	  suicide	  watch	  for	   days.	  	  Inconsistent	  monitoring	  while	  on	  suicide	  watch.	  Use	  of	  some	  form	  of	  restraint	  without	  notice	  or	   involvement	  of	  medical	  or	  mental	  health	  staff.	  	  	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

11	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 36 of 42
	  

Case	  11	  (released)	   	  
This	  inmate	  was	  returned	  to	  jail	  1/1/15	  and	  remained	  there	  until	  his	  release	  4/8/15.	  	  Prior	  to	  his	  return	   to	  the	  jail	  on	  an	  assault	  and	  battery	  charge,	  the	  inmate	  had	  been	  released	  from	  the	  jail	  to	  the	   community	  in	  October	  2014.	  	  At	  that	  time,	  Dr.	  Lu	  had	  recommended	  placement	  at	  The	  Village	  in	  St.	   Croix	  due	  to	  the	  nature	  and	  severity	  of	  the	  inmate’s	  mental	  illness.	  	  However,	  the	  inmate	  was	  credited	   with	  time	  served	  and	  simply	  released	  to	  the	  community	  with	  the	  judge’s	  instruction	  to	  continue	  his	   medication.	  	  When	  the	  inmate	  was	  re-­‐arrested	  1/1/15,	  his	  previous	  jail	  medication	  orders	  were	  re-­‐ instituted	  with	  a	  phone	  call	  to	  Dr.	  Lu.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  didn’t	  see	  the	  inmate	  until	  3/9/15	  –	  two	  months	  after	  his	   return	  to	  jail.	  	  The	  diagnoses	  are	  “schizoaffective,	  schizophrenia	  and	  sociopathic.”	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  prescribed	  two	   mood	  stabilizers	  and	  a	  long-­‐acting	  injectable	  Haldol	  without	  examining	  the	  patient.	  
Comment:	  	  In	  spite	  of	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  recommendation	  regarding	  the	  need	  for	  long-­‐term	  care;	  he	  did	  not	   examine	  the	  inmate	  for	  two	  months	  after	  his	  return	  to	  jail.	  	  This	  is	  inconsistent	  with	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  own	   assessment	  of	  the	  level	  of	  care	  required	  for	  this	  inmate.	  	  This	  case	  illustrates	  problems	  with	   intake/assessment,	  psychotropic	  medication	  use	  and	  lack	  of	  access	  to	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  mental	  health	   care.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

12	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 37 of 42
	  
Case	  12	   	  
This	  female	  inmate	  was	  in	  jail	  5/24/14	  and	  released	  after	  several	  months	  to	  the	  community	  on	  house	   arrest.	  	  However,	  she	  apparently	  violated	  the	  terms	  of	  house	  arrest	  and	  was	  returned	  to	  jail	  1/20/15	  in	   contempt	  of	  court.	  	  She	  was	  still	  in	  the	  jail	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  site	  visit.	  	  During	  her	  initial	  jail	  stay,	  Dr.	  Lu	   saw	  her	  5/30/14,	  6/3/14	  and	  6/20/14	  and	  diagnosed	  her	  as	  having	  paranoid	  schizophrenia	  and	  paranoid	   personality.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  prepared	  a	  forensic	  report	  dated	  6/11/14	  concluding	  that	  while	  she	  was	  actively	   psychotic,	  she	  was	  competent	  and	  the	  offense	  was	  a	  consequence	  of	  her	  delusional	  mental	  disorder.	  	   Dr.	  Lu	  ordered	  medications	  6/4/14	  (olanzapine);	  6/11/14	  (haloperidol);	  7/17/14	  (olanzapine	  and	   Depakote.)	  	  Since	  none	  of	  his	  orders	  indicated	  duration	  and	  none	  cancelled	  prior	  orders,	  his	  intent	  with	   respect	  to	  the	  medications	  (which	  ones,	  doses	  and	  for	  how	  long)	  cannot	  be	  ascertained.	  	  	  
The	  inmate	  returned	  in	  January	  2015	  but	  there	  was	  no	  documentation	  that	  she	  has	  been	  seen	  by	  Dr.	  Lu	   during	  this	  second	  jail	  stay.	  	  Nevertheless,	  there	  are	  medication	  orders	  dated	  2/4/15,	  2/9/15,	  3/3/15,	   3/27/15	  and	  4/7/15.	  	  Initially,	  haloperidol	  was	  ordered	  but	  is	  was	  discontinued	  in	  March	  and	  olanzapine	   was	  ordered	  in	  its	  stead.	  	  The	  inmate	  has	  consistently	  refused	  medication.	  	  The	  inmate’s	  classification	   file	  also	  contained	  a	  second	  forensic	  report	  prepared	  by	  Dr.	  Lu	  dated	  3/27/15.	  	  It	  contained	  the	  same	   conclusion.	  
Interview:	  	  Refusing	  medications.	  	  Sees	  Ms.	  Warren	  weekly	  or	  every	  2	  weeks;	  have	  to	  make	  an	   appointment	  to	  see	  Dr.	  Lu.	  	  Expresses	  some	  paranoia/victim	  of	  conspiracy	  delusional	  beliefs;	  local	  police	   are	  being	  vindictive	  towards	  her	  by	  arresting	  her	  because	  she	  stands	  up	  for	  injustice	  and	  the	  rights	  of	   others.	  	  She	  is	  polite,	  pleasant	  and	  spontaneous	  with	  me.	  	  Intelligent	  and	  articulate	  with	  normal	  mood	   and	  affect.	  	  Speech	  is	  coherent	  with	  regular	  rate	  and	  tone.	  	  Not	  preoccupied;	  denies	  hallucinations.	  
Comment:	  	  Remains	  psychotic	  with	  behavior	  the	  result	  of	  her	  psychotic	  thought	  processes.	  	  Refusing	   medications	  with	  no	  documentation	  of	  intent	  to	  pursue	  involuntary	  treatment	  or	  transfer	  to	  a	  higher	   level	  of	  mental	  health	  care.	  	  No	  intake	  assessment	  by	  psychiatrist;	  no	  regular	  monitoring	  of	  condition	  by	   psychiatrist;	  no	  follow-­‐up	  regarding	  medication	  noncompliance;	  forensic	  evaluations	  rather	  than	  clinical	   care	  being	  provided.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

13	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 38 of 42
	  
Case	  13	   	  
This	  inmate	  was	  released	  from	  the	  jail	  and	  out	  for	  only	  16	  days	  prior	  to	  being	  arrested	  on	  a	  simple	   assault	  charge.	  	  He	  was	  referred	  to	  mental	  health	  3/19/15	  and	  seen	  by	  Ms.	  Warren	  on	  the	  same	  day.	  	   The	  inmate	  is	  prescribed	  Depakote	  (a	  mood	  stabilizer)	  and	  Zoloft	  (an	  antidepressant.)	  	  There	  is	  also	  an	   order	  for	  lorazepam	  twice	  daily	  (an	  antianxiety	  medication)	  on	  3/19/15,	  but	  with	  no	  duration	  identified.	  	   Subsequent	  orders	  are	  unclear	  with	  respect	  to	  whether	  or	  not	  it	  is	  to	  continue.	  	  Similarly,	  Depakote	  is	   not	  renewed	  in	  April	  when	  Zoloft	  is	  renewed	  and	  is	  also	  ambiguous	  with	  respect	  to	  Dr.	  Lu’s	  intent	   regarding	  the	  medication.	  	  	  
Ms.	  Warren	  has	  seen	  the	  inmate	  at	  intervals	  of	  2	  weeks.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  had	  not	  examined	  the	  inmate	  at	  the	   time	  of	  the	  site	  visit	  –	  a	  month	  after	  his	  arrest.	  	  This	  inmate	  was	  removed	  from	  Cluster	  1	  for	  predatory	   behavior	  toward	  a	  vulnerable	  inmate	  housed	  there.	  
Interview:	  	  Pleasant	  and	  polite;	  appearance	  and	  hygiene	  are	  good.	  	  Speech	  is	  more	  or	  less	  continuous	   and	  focused	  on	  a	  general	  theme	  of	  	  how	  he	  and	  others	  with	  mental	  illness	  and	  substance	  abuse	  issues	   need	  treatment,	  not	  jail.	  	  Some	  loosely	  organized	  discussion	  of	  constitutional	  rights;	  rambling	  at	  times.	  	   Speech	  was	  not	  pressured,	  just	  copious.	  	  He	  was	  able	  to	  be	  interrupted	  but	  returned	  to	  general	   advocacy	  themes.	  	  Believes	  his	  medications	  are	  Depakote,	  Zoloft	  and	  "something	  else."	  	  He	  takes	  them.	  	   Has	  participated	  in	  groups	  offered	  and	  sees	  Ms.	  Warren	  regularly.	  	  	  
Comment:	  	  Unacceptable	  delay	  in	  psychiatric	  assessment	  of	  inmate.	  	  Ambiguous	  medication	  orders.	  	  He	   is	  housed	  in	  Cluster	  2	  –	  not	  the	  mental	  health	  unit	  following	  accusations	  that	  he	  sexually	  abused	  a	   vulnerable	  older	  visually	  impaired	  inmate	  in	  Cluster	  1.	  Inadequate	  physical	  plant	  and	  inadequate	   supervision	  in	  mental	  health	  Cluster.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

14	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 39 of 42
	  
Case	  14	   	  
Inmate	  received	  and	  underwent	  receiving	  screening	  3/8/14.	  	  He	  was	  initially	  followed	  by	  Dr.	  Napier	   (since	  resigned)	  and	  ordered	  Remeron	  (an	  antidepressant).	  	  Dr.	  Napier’s	  last	  order	  for	  Remeron	  60	  mg	  (a	   high	  dose)	  is	  dated	  4/12/14.	  	  There	  are	  no	  further	  medication	  orders	  until	  8/22/14	  and	  that	  order	   discontinues	  the	  Remeron.	  	  The	  inmate	  is	  referred	  to	  Dr.	  Lu	  9/24/14	  but	  not	  seen	  until	  10/3/14.	  (This	  is	   the	  first	  and	  only	  note	  by	  Dr.	  Lu.)	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  re-­‐started	  a	  lower	  dose	  of	  Remeron,	  started	  a	  second	   antidepressant	  (sertraline)	  and	  added	  clonazepam	  (an	  antianxiety	  medication.)	  	  Orders	  for	  Remeron	  and	   sertraline	  are	  re-­‐written	  to	  renew	  them	  at	  approximately	  monthly	  intervals.	  	  The	  April	  order	  does	  not	   mention	  the	  clonazepam.	  	  It	  is	  ambiguous	  as	  to	  whether	  it	  is	  to	  continue	  or	  stop	  since	  none	  of	  the	   preceding	  orders	  identify	  duration	  (such	  as	  60	  days,	  90	  days,	  etc.)	  
The	  inmate	  has	  completed	  two	  different	  group	  group	  sessions.	  	  (Each	  session	  consists	  of	  multiple	  group	   meetings.)	  	  He	  is	  also	  attending	  the	  newly	  started	  conflict	  resolution	  group.	  
Interview:	  	  Reports	  he	  has	  less	  anxiety	  and	  depression	  currently	  than	  when	  he	  first	  arrived	  in	  jail.	  	  Takes	   antidepressant	  medication.	  	  Has	  completed	  2	  full	  sessions	  of	  groups	  and	  stated	  another	  one	  on	  the	  day	   of	  the	  visit	  on	  conflict	  resolution.	  	  He	  was	  organized,	  logical,	  cooperative.	  	  Not	  preoccupied,	  guarded	  or	   suspicious.	  	  Denies	  depression	  but	  anxious	  regarding	  upcoming	  trial	  scheduled	  to	  begin	  in	  June	  but	  this	   did	  not	  appear	  to	  be	  out	  of	  proportion	  to	  the	  seriousness	  of	  his	  charges	  (1st	  degree	  murder)	  and	   possible	  outcome.	  	  Acknowledges	  having	  thoughts	  of	  death,	  suicide	  from	  time	  to	  time	  but	  no	  plans	  and	   they	  do	  not	  occur	  as	  frequently	  as	  in	  the	  past.	  
Comment:	  	  Inadequate	  psychiatric	  follow-­‐up	  and	  monitoring.	  	  Inmate	  is	  seen	  regularly	  by	  social	  worker	   in	  individual	  and	  group	  sessions.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  has	  seen	  him	  only	  once;	  he	  is	  not	  regularly	  assessing	  for	  effects	   and	  side	  effects	  of	  medication.	  	  He	  does	  not	  appear	  to	  require	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  care	  at	  this	  time	  but	  does	   require	  more	  frequent	  psychiatric	  assessment	  and	  support.	  	  His	  trial	  on	  first	  degree	  murder	  charges	  is	   set	  to	  begin	  in	  June.	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	  

15	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 40 of 42
	  

Case	  15	   	  
Inmate	  completed	  suicide	  on	  December	  21,	  2014.	  	  She	  had	  been	  held	  in	  the	  jail	  since	  February	  5,	  2013	   although	  she	  was	  also	  incarcerated	  there	  January	  13,	  2013	  to	  January	  26,	  2013	  on	  other	  charges.	  	  She	   had	  a	  known	  history	  of	  serious	  mental	  illness	  and	  Dr.	  Lu	  was	  aware	  of	  same	  as	  he	  did	  the	  competency	   reports.	  	  The	  jail	  problem	  list	  indicates	  a	  history	  of	  bipolar	  disorder	  and	  schizophrenia.	  Inmate	   consistently	  stated	  that	  she	  was	  born	  to	  be	  Jesus	  and	  that	  God	  spoke	  to	  her.	  	  Dr.	  Lu	  prescribed	  Zoloft	   (antidepressant)	  and	  Depakote	  (mood	  stabilizer)	  in	  mid-­‐October	  2013	  which	  she	  refused	  to	  take.	  	  The	   medications	  were	  discontinued.	  	  No	  other	  psychotropic	  medication	  orders	  are	  documented.	  	  	  Some	   attempts	  were	  made	  to	  speak	  with	  her	  about	  medications	  but	  she	  consistently	  refused	  to	  consider	   medications.	  	  In	  the	  later	  months	  of	  her	  confinement,	  the	  inmate	  refused	  to	  speak	  with	  Dr.	  Lu	  or	  Ms.	   Warren	  altogether.	  	  She	  remained	  psychotic	  with	  alternating	  periods	  of	  depression	  and	  manic	  behaviors	   and	  without	  treatment	  throughout	  the	  course	  of	  her	  jail	  stay.	   	   Inmate	  was	  sent	  out	  to	  Schneider	  Regional	  Medical	  Center	  6/20/13	  for	  medical	  assessment	  during	  a	   hunger	  strike.	  	  She	  engaged	  in	  another	  hunger	  strike	  in	  September	  2013	  as	  well.	  	   	   The	  inmate	  was	  placed	  on	  suicide	  watches	  once	  or	  twice	  in	  2013	  (September	  and	  November	  –	  records	   are	  not	  clear	  as	  there	  are	  not	  orders	  to	  initiate	  and	  discontinue	  watches	  or	  corresponding	  observation	   logs)	  and	  in	  June	  2014	  when	  she	  was	  not	  eating	  or	  responding	  to	  people	  talking	  to	  her.	  	  (On	  this	   occasion,	  she	  was	  sent	  out	  to	  Schneider	  Regional	  Medical	  Center	  for	  a	  medical	  assessment	  and	  returned	   with	  a	  diagnosis	  of	  malingering.)	  She	  was	  placed	  on	  suicide	  watch	  again	  October	  27,	  2014	  through	   November	  7,	  2014	  based	  on	  doctor’s	  orders.	  	  However,	  there	  is	  no	  indication	  of	  the	  watch	  in	  the	  Cluster	   logbook	  for	  that	  time	  span.	  	  Further,	  officer	  observations	  did	  not	  occur	  at	  15-­‐minute	  intervals,	  while	  on	   watch.	  	  Sometimes,	  officer	  observations	  occurred	  less	  often	  than	  once	  an	  hour.	  	  For	  many	  of	  the	  days	  on	   watch,	  there	  is	  no	  officer	  observation	  log	  sheet	  at	  all.	  Additionally,	  inmate	  was	  permitted	  to	  leave	  the	   housing	  unit	  while	  “on	  watch”	  with	  even	  less	  oversight	  or	  supervision.	  (It	  might	  be	  possible	  that	  the	  log	   sheets	  were	  completed	  and	  misplaced	  but	  that	  seems	  unlikely	  given	  that	  the	  bound	  Cluster	  log	  book	   which	  records	  unit	  activity,	  inmate	  movement,	  counts	  and	  shift	  changes	  also	  makes	  no	  mention	  that	  the	   inmate	  was	  on	  a	  special	  observation/watch	  status	  on	  any	  of	  those	  days.)	   	   On	  December	  18,	  2014,	  the	  inmate	  was	  visited	  by	  her	  father	  as	  he	  attempted	  to	  work	  with	  her	  attorney	   to	  secure	  her	  release	  from	  the	  jail.	  	  Apparently,	  the	  visit	  went	  poorly;	  the	  inmate	  became	  distraught	  and	   terminated	  the	  contact	  abruptly.	  	  Her	  father	  reported	  to	  Ms.	  Warren	  that	  the	  inmate	  had	  accused	  him	   of	  sexual	  abuse,	  which	  he	  denied.	  	  (He	  reported	  that	  the	  inmate	  herself	  had	  been	  accused	  of	  sexual	   abuse	  of	  a	  sibling.)	  	  	   	   Ms.	  Warren	  attempted	  to	  speak	  with	  the	  inmate	  following	  the	  visit	  but	  she	  refused,	  as	  she	  had	   consistently	  done.	  	  No	  additional	  attempts	  were	  made	  to	  reach	  out	  to	  her	  following	  the	  interaction	  with	   her	  father.	  	  Subsequently,	  her	  risk	  of	  self-­‐harm	  was	  not	  assessed.	  	  She	  was	  referred	  to	  Dr.	  Lu	  to	  be	  seen	   at	  his	  next	  scheduled	  jail	  day,	  12/24	  –	  six	  days	  after	  the	  upsetting	  visit	  with	  father.	  	  There	  is	  no	  

	  

16	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 41 of 42
	  
documentation	  that	  correctional	  staff	  were	  alerted	  to	  monitor	  her	  more	  closely	  given	  her	  failure	  to	   speak	  with	  mental	  health	  and	  the	  upsetting	  interaction	  with	  her	  father.	  	   	   On	  12/21/14,	  the	  inmate	  was	  discovered	  hanging	  by	  another	  inmate	  delivering	  her	  lunch	  tray.	  	  The	   inmate	  was	  in	  her	  cell	  and	  had	  used	  a	  plastic	  bang	  to	  fashion	  a	  noose	  that	  she	  tied	  to	  the	  upper	  bunk.	  	   Upon	  discovering	  that	  she	  was	  hanging,	  the	  inmate	  called	  for	  the	  officer	  who	  in	  turn,	  called	  for	   assistance.	  	  The	  responding	  officers	  attempted	  to	  untie	  the	  plastic	  noose.	  	  Eventually,	  one	  of	  them	  cut	   the	  plastic	  bag	  down	  from	  the	  upper	  bunk.	  	  There	  is	  no	  mention	  in	  incident	  reports	  or	  the	  master	   logbook	  that	  anyone	  retrieved	  the	  cut	  down	  tool.	  	  There	  is	  no	  mention	  in	  incident	  reports	  or	  any	  other	   reports	  that	  responding	  officers	  initiated	  any	  sort	  of	  first	  aid	  or	  CPR	  to	  the	  inmate.	  	  Outside	  EMS	  were	   summoned	  and	  the	  inmate	  was	  pronounced	  dead	  at	  the	  scene.	   	   Ms.	  Warren	  was	  off	  the	  island	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  suicide	  but	  did	  make	  arrangements	  for	  psychology	   contractors	  to	  go	  to	  the	  jail	  and	  provide	  support/de-­‐briefing	  to	  the	  remaining	  female	  inmates	  as	  well	  as	   staff	  requesting	  the	  opportunity	  to	  talk	  about	  what	  happened.	   	   Neither	  the	  jail	  nor	  the	  BOC	  conducted	  any	  sort	  of	  critical	  incident	  or	  death	  review	  of	  this	  case.	  	   Videotapes	  of	  the	  jail	  demonstrate	  that	  officer	  welfare	  rounds	  on	  Cluster	  7	  did	  not	  occur	  at	  regular	   intervals	  as	  required	  by	  policy.	  	  This	  led	  to	  a	  delay	  in	  discovery	  of	  the	  inmate	  and	  first	  aid/CPR.	   	   Comment:	  	  There	  are	  multiple	  problems	  with	  the	  management	  of	  this	  case.	  	  First,	  the	  inmate	  remained	   psychotic	  (delusional)	  with	  episodes	  of	  mania	  and	  depression	  –	  and	  without	  treatment	  for	  serious	   mental	  illness	  for	  nearly	  two	  years	  but	  was	  still	  in	  the	  jail.	  	  No	  petitions	  for	  involuntary	  treatment	  were	   filed;	  no	  attempts	  were	  made	  to	  get	  her	  into	  a	  psychiatric	  hospital.	  	  When	  she	  was	  placed	  on	  watch	   status,	  the	  watches	  were	  not	  conducted	  appropriately;	  she	  was	  in	  fact,	  not	  more	  closely	  monitored	  or	   observed	  nor	  did	  treatment	  efforts	  intensify.	  	  Even	  routine	  welfare	  rounds	  were	  not	  consistently	   conducted	  by	  correctional	  staff	  which	  presents	  a	  grave	  danger	  a	  inmate	  injury	  or	  death,	  as	  in	  this	  case.	  	   This	  inmate	  required	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  care	  and	  should	  not	  have	  remained	  in	  the	  jail.	   	   With	  respect	  to	  the	  completed	  suicide,	  there	  were	  problems	  with	  communication	  (both	  information	  to	   heighten	  awareness	  of	  correctional	  staff	  regarding	  the	  upsetting	  incident	  with	  her	  father	  and	  notice	  to	   the	  jail	  warden	  of	  the	  critical	  incident);	  monitoring	  (welfare	  rounds	  not	  conducted	  for	  hours);	  lack	  of	   safe	  housing	  (which	  could	  have	  been	  used	  as	  a	  precautionary	  measure	  for	  an	  inmate	  with	  a	  history	  of	   depression,	  prior	  watches,	  psychotic	  thinking	  and	  an	  upsetting	  incident	  who	  refused	  to	  cooperate	  with	   an	  assessment);	  response	  (delay	  in	  discovering	  the	  suicide;	  no	  cut	  down	  tool	  to	  quickly	  remove	  the	   noose;	  delay	  in	  assessment	  and	  initiation	  of	  any	  sort	  of	  first	  aid/CPR	  –	  officers	  waited	  to	  for	  the	  arrival	  of	   outside	  EMS).	  	   	  
	  

	  

17	  

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 832-1 Filed: 08/18/15 Page 42 of 42 Appendix B: BOC POLICIES UNDER DEVELOPMENT

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 833 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 1 of 5

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
GOVERNOR KENNETH MAPP, ET AL., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 1994-78 ) ) ) ) ) )

ATTORNEYS:

Eric Balaban, Esq. National Prison Project of the ACLU Washington, DC Benjamin A. Currence, Esq. Law Offices of Benjamin A. Currence St. Thomas, VI
For the plaintiffs,

Claude Walker, Acting Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, VI
For the defendants.

ORDER

GÓMEZ, J.

Before the Court is the Consent Decree between Lawrence

Carty, Jeff Immel, Mao Penha, Dennis Swartz, William Penn Jr.

and others similarly situated (collectively the “plaintiffs”)

and the Governor of the Virgin Islands, the Director of the

Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections, the Attorney General of

the Virgin Islands, Kurt Walcott, Viola A. Fong, and Warden

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 833 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 2 of 5
Carty, et al. v. Mapp, et al. Civil No. 1994-78 Order Page 2
Everett Hansen (collectively the “defendants” or the “Virgin Islands”).
The Consent Decree sets forth various reforms designed to remedy the unconstitutional conditions found within the St. Thomas correctional facilities. Specifically, the Virgin Islands was required to implement certain reforms regarding medical treatment, use of force, prisoner classification, and security, among others. This case began in 1994. It has remained unresolved for over twenty years. The most recent amendment to the Consent Decree was entered in August, 2013.
In a part of the Consent Decree labeled “Implementation” the Consent Decree required the Virgin Islands to propose a schedule for implementation of the substantive terms of the Consent Decree within 90 days of the amendment. The Consent Decree also required that the Virgin Islands implement every policy, procedure, plan, training, system, and other item required. Finally, the Virgin Islands were instructed to take various measures in order to evaluate their compliance with the Consent Decree. Ninety days passed, and no schedule was proposed. Indeed, for well over a year it appears that no action was taken at all. The record does not demonstrate that the Virgin Islands is in substantial compliance with any provision of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 833 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 3 of 5
Carty, et al. v. Mapp, et al. Civil No. 1994-78 Order Page 3
The Court held a hearing on this matter on February 23, 2015. At that hearing, the parties presented evidence regarding the Virgin Islands efforts, or lack thereof, to comply with the Consent Decree. During this hearing, the Court voiced its intention to have this matter follow the pattern set by the Virgin Islands Police Department Consent Decree case (Civil No. 2008-158).
As such, the Court suggested that the parties target meaningful and achievable quarterly goals. In light of the Court’s suggestion, the parties agreed to submit quarterly proposed goals. Such proposed goals would be subject to approval by the Court. The parties consented to a hearing each quarter on the status of compliance with each respective quarter’s goals. The Virgin Islands also agreed to submit the documentation required under the Consent Decree.
On March 5, 2015, the Virgin Islands filed a notice of their quarterly goals for the quarter ending in May/June, 2015.
The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties’ agreement to submit to the Court proposed quarterly goals and to accomplish any goals accepted by the Court by each respective quarter’s end is ADOPTED; it is further

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 833 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 4 of 5
Carty, et al. v. Mapp, et al. Civil No. 1994-78 Order Page 4
ORDERED that the Consent Decree is hereby AMENDED to
include a new Paragraph, which shall be designated Paragraph
VIII.K, which shall read as follows:
On a quarterly basis, the Virgin Islands shall select at least four provisions of the Consent Decree in which the Virgin Islands believes it can achieve substantial compliance. The subject areas chosen shall be designated as the Virgin Islands’ “quarterly goals.” Such goals must be reviewed and accepted by the Court. Upon the Court’s acceptance, the Virgin Islands shall be obligated to complete the quarterly goals by the end of the quarter.
The quarters shall end on the first Friday of May, August, November, and February of each calendar year. The proposed quarterly goals shall be submitted to the Court no later than ten (10) weeks before the end of the quarter in which those goals are to be accomplished.
The experts’ reports, as required by Paragraph VIII.F, shall address progress made towards achievement of the quarterly goals for the quarter that has ended. The experts shall file such reports by no later than the second Friday of May, August, November, and February. Each party shall file a report regarding the progress made towards the achievement of quarterly goals for the quarter that has ended by the third Friday of May, August, November, and February.
An evidentiary hearing shall be held on fourth Friday of May, August, November, and February unless otherwise ordered by the Court. At the hearing, the parties shall be prepared to present such testimony and evidence as are necessary to apprise the Court fully of the status of the Consent Decree.
The failure of the Virgin Islands to achieve quarterly goals accepted by the Court may result in a finding of contempt.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 833 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 5 of 5
Carty, et al. v. Mapp, et al. Civil No. 1994-78 Order Page 5
It is further ORDERED that the quarterly goals submitted by the Virgin
Islands to be completed by November, 2015, are accepted; it is further
ORDERED that an evidentiary hearing in this matter is SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 a.m. on November 27, 2015.
S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ District Judge

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 889 Filed: 03/11/16 Page 1 of 4

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
KENNETH MAPP, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 94-78 ) ) ) ) ) )

ATTORNEYS:
Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU Washington, DC
For the plaintiff Lawrence Carty,

Claude Walker, Acting AG Shari N D’Andrade, AAG Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Richard Schrader, JR, AAG Ariel Marie Smith-Francois, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice Christiansted, VI
For the defendant Governor Kenneth Mapp.

ORDER Before the Court is the motion of Lawrence Carty (“Carty”) to enforce a June 28, 2011, order requiring Dr. James Austin to perform an assessment of the Criminal Justice Complex and its Annex.1

1 This Court previously ruled on this motion on December 9, 2015. This order outlines the reasons for the Court’s ruling.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 889 Filed: 03/11/16 Page 2 of 4
Carty v. Mapp Civil No. 94-78 Page 2
On October 12, 1994, the parties entered into a consent decree whereby the government agreed to improve conditions in two correctional facilities, the St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and the Alva Swan Annex. The consent decree required the government to address various deficiencies in the correctional facilities. These deficiencies include, among other things, a lack of adequate supervision of inmates and inadequate training of corrections officers.
On June 28, 2011, the Court issued an order assigning Dr. James Austin to serve as a population manager and classification expert. The order also required Dr. Austin to perform periodic criminal justice assessments to assist the government in reducing the prisoner population at the Criminal Justice Complex and Annex. The government moved for reconsideration of the Court’s June 28, 2011 order.
Thereafter, on May 10, 2015, Dr. Austin sent an email to the government notifying the government that he wanted to make a site visit to the correctional facilities in June, 2015, to conduct his criminal justice assessment in line with the June 28, 2011 order. Dr. Austin inquired as to whom he should meet to conduct his work. The government informed Austin that no provision of the consent decree authorizes such an assessment and, as such, he could not perform that task.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 889 Filed: 03/11/16 Page 3 of 4
Carty v. Mapp Civil No. 94-78 Page 3
On June 2, 2015, Carty filed a motion to enforce the June 28, 2011 order. On December 9, 2015, a regularly scheduled quarterly evidentiary hearing was held.
During the hearing, the government acknowledged that nothing has superseded the original order. At the same time, the government argued that it did not have to comply with the June 28, 2011 order while the motion for reconsideration was still pending.
The government seems to rely on the assumption that the pendency of a motion to reconsider an order of the Court obviates the need to comply with the underlying order. That reliance is misplaced. See, e.g., Alexander v. Chicago Park Dist., 927 F.2d 1014, 1021-22, 1025 (7th Cir. 1991)(affirming the district court’s finding of contempt where a party failed to follow an order while the order was the subject of a pending motion for reconsideration). Indeed, it is axiomatic that an order of the Court remains in full force and effect until a subsequent order vacates, modifies, or otherwise reverses the order. See Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 469-70 (2009)(holding that a district court’s order remained in effect until modified or rescinded).
The premises considered, it is hereby

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 889 Filed: 03/11/16 Page 4 of 4
Carty v. Mapp Civil No. 94-78 Page 4
ORDERED that the Motion to Enforce the June 28, 2011 order
is GRANTED.
S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 893 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 1 of 4

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al., Plaintiffs vs.
KENNETH MAPP, et al., Defendants.

) CIVIL NO. 94-78 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINITFFS’ EXPEDITED MOTION FOR COURT ORDER ACCEPTING AGREED UPON QUARTERLY GOALS COME NOW, Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby
respond to Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Court Order Accepting Agreed upon Quarterly Goals, D.E. 887, as follows:
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION For the purpose of context, Defendants herein provide a brief recitation of the
discussions leading up to the goals established for the quarter ending in May 2016, which are conspicuously missing from Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion. Following the status hearing on February 26, 2016, the parties conferred with the Court in chambers concerning the goals for the quarter ending on May 6, 2016. The purpose of this discussion was to establish the goals at the beginning of the quarter so that the parties, especially the Defendants, have a clear understanding of what they are expected to achieve for the quarter. The parties and the Court discussed the following: (1) setting a reasonable number of goals for the quarter; (2) identifying goals prioritized by the

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 893 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 2 of 4
Carty v. Mapp, Civil No. 94-78 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals. Page 2 of 4
experts; (3) goals that the parties agreed to; and (4) goals that the parties were not in agreement with.
The Court decided that there would be four goals for the quarter and, with the parties, established the first three goals. The Court afforded the Defendants an opportunity to choose the fourth goal. Defendants took copious notes and recited the goals before the conclusion of the in-chambers meeting, to which Plaintiffs agreed. Defendants, thereafter and on the same day, filed their quarterly goals (D.E. 886-1), which reflects this discussion. Defendants concede that their filing did not include the fourth goal since it was not yet established. II. QUARTERLY GOAL CONCERNING SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL INMATES
In their Expedited Motion, Plaintiffs’ primary concern is that Defendants’ Quarterly Goals, D.E. 886-1 does not reflect the following language: “develop and implement MOU to ensure timely transfers of seriously mentally ill inmates in need of inpatient or intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or mental facility.” This proposed goal was raised with the Court in chambers and the Defendants shared their concerns regarding the achievability of this goal given that: the local hospital does not provide inpatient or intermediate care for seriously mentally ill inmates; there is no mental health facility in the Virgin Islands; and Defendants have faced many challenges with finding a mental health facility in the mainland United States that would provide treatment for its inmates. The Court, nonetheless, emphasized the importance of providing adequate care for seriously mentally ill inmates, that the Defendants can develop a plan to address this issue, and this must be a goal for the quarter. Defendants raised specific issue with the language of this goal in light of the aforementioned

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 893 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 3 of 4
Carty v. Mapp, Civil No. 94-78 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals. Page 3 of 4

challenges and that it calls for an MOU. In addition, Defendants noted that they foresee

Plaintiffs’ objection with this course of action. In response, the Court stated that it is not

wedded to the language and that the Defendants must develop a plan for addressing the

issue of seriously mentally ill inmates. Therefore, the agreed upon language for this goal

as discussed and recited in chambers was: “develop plan to address timely transfers of

seriously mentally ill inmates in need of intermediate care to an appropriate hospital or

mental health facility.” This exact language is reflected in Defendants’ Quarterly Goals,

D.E. 886-1. Plaintiffs’ notion that “Defendants unilaterally altered the language of the

goal” is a gross misrepresentation of the parties’ in-chambers discussion and agreement

with the Court as to this goal.

III. SELECTION OF FOURTH QUARTERLY GOAL

As their fourth quarterly goal, Defendants have chosen the following: launch criminal

justice assessment.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

CLAUDE EARL WALKER, ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Dated: March 23, 2016

/s/ Shari N. D’Andrade___ ________ SHARI N. D’ANDRADE, ESQ. V.I. Bar No. 1221 Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 6040 Estate Castle Coakley Christiansted, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 773-0295 Fax: (340) 773-1425 Email: shari.d’andrade@doj.vi.gov

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 893 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 4 of 4
Carty v. Mapp, Civil No. 94-78 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals. Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 23, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Court Order Accepting
Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system,
which will send notification of such filing (NEF) to:
Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 Fax: (202) 393-4931 Email: ebalaban@npp-aclu.org
Benjamin A. Currence Law Offices of Benjamin A. Currence 5045 Norre Gade, Suite 2 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Telephone: (340) 775-3434 Fax: (340) 774-1001 Email: bencurrence@gmail.com
Carol Thomas-Jacobs Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 8050 Kronprindens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 Telephone: (340) 774-5666 Fax: (340) 776-3494 Email: carol.jacobs@doj.vi.gov
________s/ Shari N. D’Andrade_____

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1142 Filed: 08/15/19 Page 1 of 4

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al., Plaintiff, v.
ALBERT BRYAN, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 1994-78 ) ) ) ) )

ATTORNEYS:

Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU Washington, DC
For the plaintiff Lawrence Carty,

Denise George-Counts, Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Ariel Marie Smith-Francois, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice Christiansted, VI
For the defendant Governor Albert Bryan.

ORDER GÓMEZ, J.
On August 1, 2019, the Court held a status conference with the parties. At that conference, the parties discussed how the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections (“BOC”) could make meaningful tangible inroads toward obtaining substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement adopted and entered as an Order of the Court on August 29, 2013, (the “2013 Settlement Agreement”) and the October 12, 1994, Settlement Agreement (the

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1142 Filed: 08/15/19 Page 2 of 4
Carty, et al., v. Bryan, et al. Civil No. 94-78 Order Page 2
“1994 Settlement Agreement”) in this matter. The Court suggested that Dr. Kathryn Burns (“Burns”), the court-appointed mental health expert, and David Bogard (“Bogard”), the court-appointed security expert, (collectively referred to herein as the “Court Experts”) each formulate and submit an independent plan outlining a pathway to compliance. The parties agreed that such and undertaking would be beneficial.
Thereafter, the Court held a status conference with the Court Experts. During that conference, consistent with the agreement of the parties, the Court requested, and the Court Experts agreed, that Burns and Bogard each would submit an independent plan that would outline specific, demonstrable, and tangible tasks necessary to be undertaken to obtain substantial compliance with the provisions of the 1994 and 2013 Settlement Agreements, which tasks are expected to be completed in the short-term (by the end of August, 2019, and September, 2019); near-term (by the end of the quarter); mid-term (within six months); and long-term (beyond six months).
On August 5, 2019, the Court Experts each submitted plans outlining tasks to be completed by the end of August 2019 and September 2019.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1142 Filed: 08/15/19 Page 3 of 4
Carty, et al., v. Bryan, et al. Civil No. 94-78 Order Page 3
On August 7, 2019, both parties separately filed their
objections to the Court Experts’ proposed short-term tasks.
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that the BOC shall complete the following tasks by
August 31, 2019:
1) Develop a position description for one additional full time mental health professional at the Alexander Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex (“CJC”);
2) Submit a report outlining in detail and with specificity Dr. Leighman Lu’s responsibilities at the CJC and at the Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility. The report shall include the total amount of hours, per facility, that the BOC regards as adequate for Dr. Lu to perform his responsibilities. Additionally, the report shall outline each provision that the BOC has established to provide a substitute in the event of Dr. Lu’s unavailability;
3) Identify and commence the contracting process to secure an alternate psychiatrist to review involuntary medication hearing appeals;
4) Finalize the contract for a new CCTV system at the CJC and initiate installation work;
5) Submit a report identifying progress that has or has not been made, and concrete measures taken relative to the August 1, 2018-19, Staffing Plan that was submitted by BOC as a Quarterly Goal in August 2018;
6) Complete Hospital Security training under the revised Administrative Directive on Hospital Security; and
7) Finalize the Evacuation Drill Schedule developed as a goal for the quarter ending on August 2, 2019;
it is further

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1142 Filed: 08/15/19 Page 4 of 4
Carty, et al., v. Bryan, et al. Civil No. 94-78 Order Page 4
ORDERED that the BOC shall complete the following tasks by
September 30, 2019:
1) Post the mental health position developed in August, 2019, and begin the selection/hiring process;
2) Complete evacuation drills for the 8AM-4PM shift as set forth in the pending CJC Schedule, Parameters for Evacuation Drills;
3) Train all staff in two existing administrative directives (“AD”) on Housing Unit Cluster Rounds (AD-2015-1) and Maintaining Cluster /Housing Assignments (AD-2015-2);
4) Conduct monthly searches/shakedowns of all cells in all clusters and associated dayrooms as per AD-2015-11 Contraband Control;
5) Submit a plan to the Court, parties, and experts for establishing direct supervision at the CJC and Alva Swan Annex (the “Annex”). The plan must include a financing plan to pay for the planning, design, and renovation at the CJC and Annex; and
6) Train Classification staff to consistently implement the practice of including the reason(s) for identified prisoner separations in the Comments field of the keepseparate list distributed daily to housing unit posts and other security posts in operation, as per the existing administrative directive on the Keep-Separate List (AD2015-5);
and it is further
ORDERED that failure to comply timely with any of the
provisions in this order may result in the imposition of
sanctions starting at $2500 per day for each task that is not
completed.
S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1160 Filed: 09/13/19 Page 1 of 3

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al., Plaintiff, v.
ALBERT BRYAN, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 1994-78 ) ) ) ) )

ATTORNEYS:
Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU Washington, DC
For the plaintiff Lawrence Carty,
Denise George-Counts, Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Ariel Marie Smith-Francois, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice Christiansted, VI
For the defendant Governor Albert Bryan.

ORDER GÓMEZ, J.
On September 11, 2019, the Court held a quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter. After the evidentiary hearing, the parties met with the Court briefly to discuss the near-term, mid-term, and long-term tasks suggested by the Court Experts in response to the Court’s August 2, 2019, order. See Order, August 2, 2019, ECF No. 1133; A Plan of Near-Term, Mid-

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1160 Filed: 09/13/19 Page 2 of 3
Carty, et al., v. Bryan, et al. Civil No. 94-78 Order Page 2
term and Long-Term Objectives to Achieve Substantial Compliance with Settlement Agreement Provisions, ECF No. 1143-1; Proposed Near, Mid and Long-Term Mental Health Tasks, ECF No. 1144-1. Such tasks were suggested as one pathway by which the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections (“BOC”) could come into substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement adopted and entered as an Order of the Court on August 29, 2013, (the “2013 Settlement Agreement”) and the October 12, 1994, Settlement Agreement (the “1994 Settlement Agreement”) in this matter.
At the post-hearing conference, the BOC reasserted several of the objections it had filed in response to the tasks recommended by the Court Experts. See Defs.’ Objections to the Ct. Experts Proposed Near-Term, Mid-Term and Long Term Tasks, ECF No. 1159. Significantly, the BOC has not presented any alternative tasks by which it could achieve substantial compliance with the 1994 and 2013 Settlement Agreements.
The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that, no later than 3:00 p.m. on September 25, 2019, the BOC shall file a plan proposing specific, demonstrable, and tangible tasks necessary to be undertaken to

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1160 Filed: 09/13/19 Page 3 of 3
Carty, et al., v. Bryan, et al. Civil No. 94-78 Order Page 3
obtain substantial compliance with the provisions of the 1994
and 2013 Settlement Agreements; it is further
ORDERED that to the extent he wishes to do so, Carty shall
file any response to the BOC’s proposed plan by no later than
3:00 p.m. on October 1, 2019.
S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 1 of 10

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

LAWRENCE CARTY, ET. AL.,

94-78)

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

Case No. 94-78

)

vs.

)

)

)

ALBERT BRYAN, ET. AL.,

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

____________________________________)

BOC’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S SEPTEMBER 15, 2019 ORDER & COMPLIANCE PLAN COME NOW, Defendants (or “Government”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby file their response to the Court’s Order of September 13, 2019 (“September 13 Order”), which requires, among other things, that Defendants “file a plan proposing specific, demonstrable, and tangible tasks necessary to be undertaken to obtain substantial compliance with the provisions of the 1994 and 2013 Settlement Agreements . . .”1
Introduction The Alexander A. Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex (“CJC”), the subject of these Settlement Agreements, was never intended to house detainees or inmates long-term. It was designed solely as an intake facility, where recently-arrested detainees would spend a week at most, while being processed, before being transferred elsewhere to await trial. Over time,

1

The proposing of long-term goals, as requested by the Court, should not be construed as an admission by

Defendants that they are noncompliant as to all provisions of the Settlement Agreements nor should it be construed

as a waiver of Defendants’ rights under the Settlement Agreements, including their right to seek either modification

or termination of those Settlement Agreements.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 2 of 10
however, CJC became the functional equivalent of a jail, though it was never designed or intended for that purpose.
Physical plant limitations at CJC limits the structural changes and activities that can be performed at the jails. CJC was not designed to achieve efficiencies in the use of correctional staff. On the contrary, the design of the facility is particularly inefficient, requiring a larger ratio of correctional officers to inmates than would be necessary in a modern jail or prison. Space is extremely limited. Those space limitations were compounded when Hurricane Irma destroyed the Alva A. Swann Annex (“Annex”) in September 2017. Detainees that previously could have been housed at the Annex must now be accommodated at CJC, pending disposition of their criminal charges. Although the Government presently is in negotiations with FEMA to rebuild the Annex, FEMA has not yet made a definitive decision on whether the Annex will be rebuilt or merely repaired. Ideally, the Government would prefer to build a modern facility at the site of the Annex, with FEMA’s support, that would allow the Bureau to rely much less, it at all, on CJC. Whether such a project will eventually be realized, will depend largely on FEMA’s decision, over which the Government exercises no control.
Many of the mid and long-term goals proposed by the court-appointed security and mental health experts recognize these physical plant limitations at CJC and appear designed to prod the Government to construct new correctional and mental health facilities. See, e.g., David M. Bogard, Security Expert’s Report to the Court and the Parties: A Plan of Near-Term, Midterm and Long-term Objectives to Achieve Substantial Compliance with Settlement Agreement Provisions at 4 (Aug. 16, 2019) [ECF No.1143-1] (“With respect to a new direct supervision jail . . . .”); see also Kathryn A. Burns, Proposed Near, Mid and Long-Term Mental Health Tasks at

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 3 of 10
17-18 (Aug. 19, 2019) [ECF No.1144-1] (suggesting that safe cells and mental health office
space be included in “plans developed for new jail construction”).
While this Court plays an essential role in ensuring that conditions of confinement at CJC
meet minimum constitutional standards, that role is inherently limited. The central problem
facing CJC is one that the Court is ill-equipped to solve: too little money to both overcome
physical plant limitations and pay for the needs of inmates and detainees. “[C]ourts are poorly
suited to solving problems that require tremendous increases in spending and significant
improvements in administration.” Erwin Chemerinsky, The Essential But Inherently Limited
Role of Courts in Prison Reform, 13 BERK. J. CRIM. L. 307, 315 (2008). When the problem is
lack of money, the courts are limited in what they can do. Id. at 315. Deciding whether and
when to build a new correctional facility is a task that has been committed to the executive and
legislative branches. See Bistrian v. Levi, 912 F.3d 79, 94 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987)).
Moreover, the drafters of the Prison Litigation Reform Act intended to limit the power of
federal courts to require construction of modern facilities or to micromanage the day to day
operations of prisons. As this Court stated:
The PLRA sponsors described “overzealous Federal courts . . . micromanaging our Nation’s prisons,” 141 Cong. Rec. S14418 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1995) (remarks of Sen. Hatch), and criticized “judicial orders entered under Federal law [which] have effectively turned control of the prison system away from elected officials accountable to the taxpayer, and over to the courts.” Id. at S14419 (remarks of Sen. Abraham).
By requiring that relief be the least intrusive means of remedying a violation of a federal right, the PRLA “stops judges from imposing remedies intended to effect an overall modernization of local prison systems or provide an overall improvement in prison conditions.”

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 4 of 10
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, 884 F. Supp.2d 399, 407 (D.V.I. 2012) (emphasis added) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 104-378 at 166); see also Sandlin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995) (observing that “federal courts ought to afford appropriate deference and flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile [prison] environment” and thus should “limit the involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day management of prisons.”).
While the Court may not order the construction or modernization of a correctional facility, it may enter orders to ensure that conditions at CJC do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See United States v. Territory, 884 F. Supp.2d at 420 (“[T]he Supreme Court has made clear that ‘the Eighth Amendment does not outlaw cruel and unusual ‘conditions’; it outlaws cruel and unusual punishment.’”) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). Defendants’ duty at CJC is to ensure that the conditions of confinement do not present an “excessive risk” of “serious harm” to inmate health and safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837-38. And to recover for any harm suffered, plaintiffs must demonstrate that CJC officials had an objectively culpable state of mind. Id; accord United States v. Territory, 884 F. Supp.2d at 420 (“[T]he Court must make determinations regarding the objective likelihood of injury at Golden Grove and the current subjective state of mind of prison officials at Golden Grove.”).
In assessing what constitutes “excessive risk” of “serious harm,” the Court should take into consideration several facts. First, jail administrators should be permitted to develop a reasonable and fair strategy, consistent with community standards and practice, regarding the provision of medical and mental health care to detainees and inmates. It is within the discretion of jail officials, consistent with the Eighth Amendment and community standards, to determine what care is appropriate and necessary. See, e.g., Kenneth Favier, HUMANE HEALTH CARE FOR PRISONERS: ETHICAL AND LEGAL CHALLENGES at 135-37 (2013). Thus, if there is no long-term,

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 5 of 10
forensic mental health facility in the Virgin Islands and only a handful of licensed psychiatrists, as is the case now, jail officials are severely limited in the level of care they can provide.
Second, the Court should evaluate whether the incidents highlighted by Plaintiffs are security lapses, present even in the best run jails, or whether they represent systemic failures which rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Defendants submit that they have put policies in place that promote the safety and security of detainees and inmates and that are designed to prevent the security lapses Plaintiffs have described. Defendants also have conducted training on these policies. More importantly, the critical inquiry is whether these lapses present an excessive risk of serious harm to those housed at CJC.
Third, for the first time in many years, the Bureau now has at its helm a seasoned, veteran, correctional professional. She should be given a reasonable opportunity to take corrective action at CJC to achieve substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreements. Her tenure should not be hamstrung – before it has begun in earnest – by coercive orders that respond to the shortcomings or failures of past jail administrators. The new Director has recently made significant personnel changes to address these shortcomings and to impose accountability on Bureau administrators in critical positions. Some of these personnel changes were made since the last quarterly status hearing. (The Bureau is in the process of filling the positions of Chief Investigator and Fire, Life, Safety Coordinator, among others, which recently became vacant).

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 6 of 10

Mid-Term and Long-Term Goals With these principles in mind, and without waiving their right to seek modification or termination of the Settlement Agreements based on changes in law or circumstances,2 Defendants make the following long-term proposals as required by the Court: 1. Defendants adopt those near term, mid-term, and long-term goals proposed by the
court-appointed experts to which they have not either specifically or generally objected and which Defendants have already indicated can be achieved. Defendants incorporate herein Defendants’ Objections to the Court Experts’ Proposed Near-term, Mid-term, and Long-term Tasks (filed Sep. 6. 2019) [ECF No. 1159]. 2. Defendants respectfully propose that the experts’ quarterly or semi-annual reports include a clear, measurable, compliance rating for each provision of the Settlement Agreement, as required by ¶ VIII.F.1. Without measurable benchmarks to assess their progress, Defendants will continue to have difficulty apportioning scarce resources to best respond to shortcomings in compliance. After roughly twenty-five years of monitoring, Defendants have not been given a clear assessment as to where they stand in achieving full compliance. To use a football analogy, it is unclear whether they are on the opponent’s one-yard line preparing to score or on their own one-yard line, needing to drive the length of the field.

2

“The provisions of a consent decree that order prospective relief remain subject to modification or

alteration for changes in law or circumstances. Such right as a litigant may have to prospective relief is thus neither

final nor ‘vested’ in the constitutional sense.” Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144, 164 (2d Cir. 1999) (en banc).

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 7 of 10
3. Defendants also propose that the court-appointed experts state those provisions of the Settlement Agreements with which they are presently in either substantial or sustained compliance.
4. Within one year, Defendants propose to contract with an additional psychiatrist to provide support to Dr. Lu at CJC.
5. Within one year, Defendants propose to increase the number of correctional officers at CJC, by at least 5, by taking the following actions: a. Advertising correctional officer openings in newspapers in neighboring islands; b. Changing the advertised position for correctional officer on the Division of Personnel website to “open,” so that the position can be advertised yearround, as is the case with the V.I. Police Department; and c. Propose amending existing V.I. law to allow retired correctional officers to perform part-time duties at CJC, without incurring a penalty from the GERS, as is the case with the V.I.P.D. Defendants have already engaged in discussions with several members of the Legislature on this topic.
6. Within six (6) months, have in place a computer system to access and monitor electronic medical records of all inmates and detainees.
7. Within six (6) months, implement a video visitation system, the use of which should significantly reduce the introduction of contraband, either through the mail or through contact visits.
8. Within six (6) months, hire the jail mental health professional / social worker.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 8 of 10
9. Within three (3) months, conduct refresher training on the involuntary psychotropic medication policy.
10. Within six (6) develop, implement and train on the tool and key control policy. 11. Within one year, re-evaluate and conduct refresher training on the inmate/detainee
grievance policy and procedure and implement audit tools to ensure that inmate grievances are being heard and addressed in a timely manner. 12. Long term - Implement regular, unannounced cell shakedowns and searches per Administrative Directive; 13. Within six (6) months, conduct refresher training of all correctional officers on report writing, with particular emphasis on incident report writing. 14. Within two (2) years, require that all log entries be electronic and/or automated (to the greatest extent possible) and stored in a centralized computerized database; phase out the use of logbooks and move to a fully computerized system. 15. Within one (1) year, ensure that all locks and keys at CJC are properly classified, numbered, and maintained and that key control is enforced and implemented; 16. Within nine (9) months, ensure that all CCTV systems remain operational and that a system for storage of archival CCTV footage is in place and readily accessible to jail administrators; 17. Within nine (9) months, ensure that all fire detection and fire suppression systems are fully functional, regularly tested, and inspected by local fire authorities. 18. Within six (6) months, conduct quarterly fire and evacuation drills of all shifts and all clusters.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 9 of 10

19. Within eighteen (18) months complete all policies and procedures as required by the Settlement Agreements and train on and implement same.
Respectfully submitted,

Date: September 30, 2019

DENISE GEORGE, ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

/s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs___________

CAROL THOMAS-JACOBS, ESQ.

Assistant Attorney General

V.I. Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

6040 Estate Castle Coakley

Christiansted, VI 00820

Telephone: (340) 773-0295

Fax: (340) 773-1425

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1169 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 30, 2019, I electronically filed a true copy of the foregoing RESPONSE with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notification of such filing (NEF) to the following:
Eric Balaban, Esq. National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 Fax: (202) 393-4931 Email: ebalaban@npp-aclu.org
/s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs_______

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1170 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 1 of 6

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

)

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ALBERT BRYAN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil No. 1994-78

ATTORNEYS:
Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU Washington, DC
For the plaintiff Lawrence Carty,

Denise George, Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Ariel Marie Smith-Francois, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, VI
For the defendants.

ORDER GÓMEZ, J.
Before the Court is the motion of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections (“BOC”) for a protective order prohibiting the dissemination of security surveillance video footage.

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1170 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 2 of 6
Carty v. Bryan Civ. No. 94-78 Order Page 2
On July 2, 2018, a use of force incident occurred in which a correctional officer used force against a prisoner at the Alexander Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex (“CJC”). That incident was captured on security video footage.
Under the provisions of the Settlement Agreement adopted and entered as an Order of the Court on August 29, 2013, (the “2013 Settlement Agreement”), the BOC is required to maintain and make available records to document that the requirements of the 2013 Settlement Agreement are being properly implemented. See Settlement Agreement at 20, ECF No. 765-1. Consistent with that provision, the BOC made footage of the July 2, 2018, use of force incident available to Lawrence Carty and similarly situated inmates (collectively “Carty”) in the custody of the BOC.
On November 28, 2018, at a quarterly evidentiary hearing before the Court, Carty presented the security video footage of the July 2, 2018, use of force incident in open court. The BOC did not object to that presentation.
Sometime thereafter, the BOC became aware that Carty’s counsel had published the security video footage of the July 2, 2018, use of force incident on the website of the American Civil Liberty Union (“ACLU”).

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1170 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 3 of 6
Carty v. Bryan Civ. No. 94-78 Order Page 3
On February 19, 2019, the BOC filed a motion requesting a
protective order prohibiting the dissemination of security
surveillance video footage to third parties.
On March 8, 2019, Carty filed an opposition to the BOC’s
motion for a protective order.
The BOC seeks a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26 (“Rule 26”). Rule 26 permits a court to
enter a protective order to shield a party “from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26 provides in pertinent part that
[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . .. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . .
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “A protective order is intended to
offer litigants a measure of privacy, while balancing against
this privacy interest the public’s right to obtain information
concerning judicial proceedings.” In re Avandia Mktg., Sales
Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 671 (3d Cir.
2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted).
“The proponent of the protective order shoulders ‘[t]he
burden of justifying the confidentiality of each and every

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1170 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 4 of 6
Carty v. Bryan Civ. No. 94-78 Order Page 4
document sought to be’ sealed.” Id. at 671 (citations omitted). A district court “must balance the requesting party’s need for information against the injury that might result if uncontrolled disclosure is compelled.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). “The party seeking a protective order over discovery material must demonstrate that ‘good cause’ exists for the order.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). “Good cause means that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). “To that end, ‘[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not support a good cause showing.’” Id. (citations omitted).
In this case, the security video footage for which the BOC seeks a protective order was presented in open court. At that time, the BOC did not object. Significantly, the Third Circuit has held that “[i]t is well established that the release of information in open court is a publication of that information and, if no effort is made to limit its disclosure, operates as a waiver of any rights a party had to restrict its future use.” Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1988).

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1170 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 5 of 6
Carty v. Bryan Civ. No. 94-78 Order Page 5
Even if the BOC had not waived its ability to challenge further disclosure of the security video footage, its argument would fail on the merits. The BOC argues that the Court should prohibit dissemination of the July 2, 2018, security surveillance footage because such dissemination “impacts jail security and raises concerns for staff and prisoners.” See Defs.’ Mot. for Protective Order at 3, ECF No. 1088.
First, the BOC asserts that “[t]he video reveals camera locations and the layout of the housing unit.” Id. Significantly, the locations of cameras and the layout of the housing units within the CJC are apparent to inmates. As such, regardless of the availability of the security surveillance footage, the inmates could communicate this information to third parties. Furthermore, the video reveals nothing more than a room with several tables and two doors. The Court does not find that this depiction raises sufficient security concerns to justify a protective order.
Second, the BOC asserts serious concerns “with the possible repercussions for the staff involved in the use of force incident and the BOC staff in general in this small community.” See Defs.’ Mot. for Protective Order at 3, ECF No. 1088. Significantly, the identity of the correctional officer involved in the July 2, 2018, use of force incident and the BOC

Case: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 1170 Filed: 09/30/19 Page 6 of 6
Carty v. Bryan Civ. No. 94-78 Order Page 6
investigation of that incident have been testified to repeatedly at several quarterly evidentiary hearings. These hearings are open to the public. Moreover, the transcripts for those hearings and the quarterly status reports submitted by the parties--which also refer to the July 2, 2018, use of force incident--are available to the public on the docket. Given these circumstances, any attempt to restrict further publication of the information contained in the security video footage would have limited utility. As such, the BOC has not established good cause for a protective order prohibiting the dissemination of the security video footage of the July 2, 2018, use of force incident.
The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that the BOC’s motion for a protective order, ECF No. 1088, is DENIED.
S\________________ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge

 
 Carty v. Farrelly

PC-VI-001-001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR - THE DISTRICT OP THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

LAWRENCE CARTY, JEFF IMMEL, MAO PENHA, DENNIS SWARTZ, WILLIAM PENN, JR., and STEVEN WEEKES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated at the Criminal Justice Complex, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands,
Plaintiffs,

v.

ALEXANDER A. FARRELLY, in his

)

official capacity as Governor of )

the Territory of the United States )

Virgin Islands; JAMES AIKEN, in his)

official capacity as the Director )

of the Bureau of Corrections,

)

Territory of the United states )

Virgin Islands; KURT WALCOTT, in )

his official capacity as Warden of )

the Criminal Justice Complex,

)

St. Thomas, United States Virgin )

Islands; VIOLA LA FONG, in her )

official capacity as" the Acting )

Assistant Warden of the Criminal )

Justice Complex, St. Thomas,

)

United States Virgin Islands;

)

ROSALIE SIMMONDS BALLANTINE, in her)

official capacity as Attorney

)

General of the United States Virgin)

Islands; and the VIRGIN ISLANDS ) BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, all sued in )

their official capacity,

Defendants.

u •'_.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
CIVIL ACTION NO.

On behalf of themselves and the class alleged herein, plaintiffs state the following for their complaint against defendants:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action brought by plaintiffs on behalf of all individuals who are now or in the future will be confined to the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) located in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands and thereby subject to the policies and practices of the Virgin Islands Bureau of corrections (BOC). 2. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for deprivations under color of state law of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, and in particular those secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments thereof, 48 U.S.C. §1541 et seq.. as well as rights protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §2000bb et

seq.

-

• . -u-

3. Plaintiffs specifically seek relief from conditions at the CJC that fall below contemporary standards of human decency,

deny basic human needs, inflict needless pain and suffering, and threaten plaintiffs' physical and mental well-being.

4. The BOC houses approximately 208 prisoners, including

both male and female sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees at

the CJC in St. Thomas.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; 48 U.S.C. §1541 e£ seer.: by 42

U.S.C. §1983; by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 st figg.; and by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) , 42 tJ.S.C. S2000bb ejfe sea.
6. This Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and I343(a)(3) and (4) and 48 U.S.C. §l6l2(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. SS 2201 and 2202 and 48 U.S.C. §1612(a), this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391 in that defendants reside in the United States Virgin Islands and a substantial part, if not all, of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the United States Virgin Islands.
III. PARTIES 8. Plaintiff Lawrence Carty is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the CJO*"in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. -: 9. Plaintiff Jeff Immel is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. 10. Plaintiff Mao Penha is a citizen of the United States who is currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. 11. Plaintiff Dennis Swartz is a citizen of the United States who is currently awaiting sentencing at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.

12. Plaintiff William Penn, Jr. is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
13. Plaintiff Steven Weekes is a citizen of the United states who is currently a pretrial detainee at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
14. Defendant Alexander A. Farrelly is the Governor of the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands. As such, under Title 5 V.I.C. §4503, he is authorized to appoint the Director of the Bureau of Corrections as well as to present to the legislature the Bureau of Corrections' annual budget. Governor Farrelly is responsible for the administration and operation of all aspects of territorial government agencies including the Bureau of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
15. Defendant -James E. Aiken is Director of the Bureau of Corrections of the United States virgin Islands. He is the chief administrative officer of the Bureau of Corrections and is responsible for the maintenance and operation of all correctional facilities in the U.S. Virgin Islands pursuant to Title 5 V.I.C. §4504. Defendant Aiken's responsibilities include assuring the Bureau's compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States; and the Revised Organic Act of 1954 of the United States Virgin Islands. Defendant Aiken is sued in his official capacity.
16. Defendant Kurt Walcott is the Warden of the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. On information and belief, Defendant Walcott reports to Defendant Aiken. He is responsible

for the administration of the CJC and assuring its compliance with the Constitution and the law of the United States; and the Revised Organic Act of 1954 of the United States Virgin Islands. He is responsible for the daily operations of that facility and Defendant Walcott is sued in his official capacity.
17. Defendant Viola La Fong is Acting Assistant Warden at the CJC and is employed by the Bureau of Corrections. On information and belief, Defendant La Fong reports to Defendants Walcott and Aiken. She is responsible for the administration of the CJC and assuring its compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States; and the Revised Organic Act of 1954 of the United States Virgin Islands. Defendant La Fong is sued in her official capacity.
18. Defendant Rosalie Simmonds Ballantine is Attorney General of the United States,Virgin Islands. She is directly responsible for overseeing the Bureau of Corrections pursuant to Title 5 V.I.C. §4503. Defendant Ballantine is sued in her official capacity.
19. The Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections is the entity responsible for the maintenance and operations of the CJC.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 20. The named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) jind 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They seek to represent a class of all individuals who are now or in the future will be confined in the CJC. Plaintiffs represent a class of persons who have been and, in the absence of relief, will

be treated in -the manner set forth below. As a result of such treatment, the members of the class are and will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of fundamental

constitutional- rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate defendants' conduct, policies, and

practices which deprive them of those rights.. 21. There are approximately 208 sentenced prisoners and

pretrial detainees at any time at the CJC. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.
22. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement maintained by the BOC described below.

23. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of

the class. The named plaintiffs include prisoners currently

incarcerated at the €JC.

' *-*"

24. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Moreover, the plaintiffs'

counsel are experienced in the protection and enforcement of the constitutional rights of prisoners.

25. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, therefore making appropriate

final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.

V. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE CAUSE OF AC&:ON

A. The Physical Environment;

26. The CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, is

located on the third floor of a three story building that"formerly

housed the central police station and holding cells for arrestees

and detainees. The facility is adjacent to the territorial court. The first two floors of the facility are now vacant. Entrance to the CJC is gai/ied through the loading dock area in the rear of the building.

27. The CJC building was opened in 1982. It was designed to

house fifty-one detainees in single cells. On information and

belief, the cells measure approximately 80 square feet.

28. CJC is divided into seven clusters that are configured as

follows:

Cluster Number

Number of Cells

l

11

2

10

3

5

4

6

5

6

6

«6

7

7

Total Number of Cells = 51

29. Each cell is equipped with one double-bunXbed which accommodates two prisoners.
30. Each cell has one toilet and one non-functioning sink. The sinks have not been operable for at least the past six months.
31. Each cluster has one showerhead for use by all prisoners housed therein.
B. Overcrowding 32. The CJC is seriously overcrowded. It is designed to hold a maximum of fifty-one pretrial detainees. The current population

in May, 1994 was approximately 208 prisoners, 92 of whom were sentenced prisoners.
33. Four to five prisoners are typically confined in cells built for one..
34. Prisoners are routinely forced to sleep on mattresses on the floor because each cell is equipped with only one bunkbed to accommodate two prisoners.
35. This severe overcrowding increases the risk of transmission of infectious disease among prisoners and staff, overtaxes the already defective plumbing system, and contributes to a fundamental deterioration in institutional conditions to the point where basic human needs are denied. Sanitation, programming, exercise, food service, medical care, prisoners' personal safety, and other important aspects of the prison operation have been seriously and adversely affected by the population densityv
36. Noise levels in the cell blocks are extremely high, exacerbated by the overcrowded conditions which adversely affect plaintiffs' physical and mental well-being.
37. The cumulative impact of these serious deficiencies has resulted in intolerably high levels of prisoner tension, stress, and hostility. Moreover, the results of the overcrowding contribute to the risk and actual outbreaks of violence and produce health hazards such as the spread of air-borne and food-borne diseases.
38. The consequences of overcrowded conditions at CJC are exacerbated by the lockdown of sentenced prisoners who-are kept in
8 '

their cells for 23 hours daily except for hourly recreation periods twica a week and family visitation.
39. On information and belief, this lockdown has been in effect since. 1992. The lockdown has also intensified the consequences of the lack of a prisoner classification system, particularly with respect to prisoners suffering from serious mental illnesses. Mentally-ill prisoners are typically housed in the general population where they receive inadequate mental health treatment and are locked in cells with three to four other prisoners, causing serious tension and violence among prisoners.
40. The conditions described in 51 23 through 37 above, among others, subject plaintiffs to confinement under harmful conditions that are detrimental to their health and well-being.
C. Environmental Safety and Health 41. The structural decay, and overall poor • physical environment of the CJC render it unfit for human habitation, and the building's continued use to house prisoners is entirely contrary to basic principles of environmental health and safety. 42. The entire facility, including the food preparation areas and the cell blocks, is severely infested with roaches. Roaches are considered filth-breeders, and are responsible for the transmission of infectious disease. 43. Food preparation areas are particularly unsanitary in that, among other things, the areas are infested with flies, roaches, rats and mice, and food contact surfaces are encrusted with food debris.

44. Plumbing throughout CJC is defective, broken, and deteriorating. There are leaks in both potable water lines and sewage lines. Overflowing toilets cause flooding in the prisoners' cells, soaking mattresses, bedding and personal belongings that are kept on the floors of the cells due to overcrowding.
45. The sinks in the cells do not work, and the water has been turned off. Plaintiffs thus have no running water supply in their cells except for the toilets. No cells are supplied with hot water. Prisoners must rely on the showers as their only source of running water which is most problematic in view of the ratio of prisoners per shower of as many as 1:50 in clusters #1 and #2 and 1:30 in cluster #6.
46. The drinking water is contaminated. Moreover, on information and belief, there is cross-contamination of potable water with waste water. This contributes to the risk of-'-vaterborne disease.
47. Shower areas are encrusted with filth and mold growth, and shower drains are frequently not functional.
48. The cell areas are infested with flies, mosquitoes, rats, mice and cockroaches.
49. The cooling and ventilation systems at the CJC frequently do not work properly, creating excessive heat and lack of air circulation that is dangerous to the health and well-being of inmates.
50. Windows at the CJC are made of plexiglass, are sealed shut and are not or cannot be opened to provide - sufficient
10 " .

ventilation when the cooling and ventilation systems are not working properly.

51. Asbestos particles and other foreign matter falls from

the overhang .of the recreational facility, creating a danger of

inhalation by the plaintiffs and subjecting them to physical harm.

52. With the exception of recreation offered twice a week and

a short period for daily access to showers, sentenced prisoners are

locked in their overcrowded, small cells twenty-four hours a day,

seven days a week.

53. Lighting in the cells is completely inadequate for

reading, writing, or other basic activities such as housekeeping.

54. The entire building is in a state of deterioration. The

only elevator that services the building for all purposes is in a

state of disrepair, as is the sallyport adjacent to the elevator on

the third floor. _

.'•''•**

55. The environmental conditions of the CJC described in If

23 through 53 above, particularly the overcrowding, defective

plumbing, lack of ventilation, poor sanitation, and insect and

vermin infestations, present a serious risk of infectious disease,

including tuberculosis.

D. Fire Safety

56. Defendants fail to ensure fire safety at the CJC,

resulting in conditions that present a serious danger of multiple

deaths and severe injury in the event of a fire.

57. Defendants fail to comply with basic fire code

regulations and the National Life Safety Code.

-

11 '

58. The mechanisms for locking and unlocking cell doors are frequently not functional. Prisoners are incarcerated on the third floor. The means of egress in the event of fire is a locked stairway. Under these circumstances, safe and timely evacuation is impossible.
59. On information and belief, hazardous areas, including but not limited to, storage areas for plastics, paper goods and linens, as well as housing areas, are not properly enclosed to prevent the spread of fire and smoke in the event of a fire emergency.
60. No safe accommodation exists for physically handicapped prisoners, including prisoners confined to wheelchairs.
61. Fire exits are inadequately marked, and some are completely blocked.
62. The electrical system is dangerously defective, including non-conforming and exposed electrical wiring throughout•tfce CJC. The non-conforming and exposed electrical wiring, in combination with regular flooding in some areas, presents a risk of electrical fire.
63. Severe overcrowding increases the potential for serious injury or loss of life in the event of a fire.
64. On information and belief, fire extinguishers are outdated and non-functional.
65. Smoke detectors are inadequate. There is no operable automatic sprinkler system in the building.
12

66. No fire safety programs and procedures, fire drills, safety training of correctional staff, or plans for emergency evacuation exist.
67. The .conditions described in Jf 54 through 64 above, among others, subject plaintiffs to life-threatening conditions of confinement.
E. Inadequate Food Services 68. The menu served to plaintiffs in the CJC is particularly high in starches, low in protein, unappetizing, and generally nutritionally inadequate. 69. Defendants fail to ensure that there are adequate supplies of food. As a result, they frequently run out of various food items and plaintiffs frequently receive inadequate portions of food. 70. Plaintiffg. are served food that is frequently -sfeale. 71. Plaintiffs are required to eat in their cells, either on the floor or in their beds. 72. Meals are often served in a sloppy and unsanitary fashion. 73. The drinking water provided to plaintiffs is inadequately filtered shower water. 74. Defendants fail to supervise food preparation and service adequately resulting in an increased risk of food-borne diseases.
P. Medical Care 75. Access to physicians by prisoners at CJC is severely limited. The Bureau of Corrections systematically fails to provide
13 '

necessary routine and emergency medical treatment to prisoners. Defendants fail to employ sufficient qualified medical personnel to properly treat the prisoner population at CJC.
76. Overcrowding, filthy conditions, and lack of adequate air circulation increase the risk of exposure of staff and prisoners to airborne communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis. Overcrowding causes and aggravates a variety of physical and mental illnesses, which are further aggravated by environmental health and safety hazards, grossly inadequate medical and mental health care, and by the defendants' failure to adequately protect prisoners from assault.
1. Inadequate Screening for Infectious Diseases 77. Prisoners are not properly tested for tuberculosis upon their admission to the CJC. Qualified medical personnel fail to administer the PPD test to all newly-admitted prisoners and-to read and record the test results on each prisoner to determine the presence of the tuberculosis infection. 78. There is no systematic, periodic retesting of prisoners or prison staff for tuberculosis; even plaintiffs infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (hereinafter HIV), who may not react to a PPD test but are at substantially higher risk of contracting tuberculosis, are not systematically retested. 79. When prisoners develop tuberculosis during their incarceration, defendants fail to determine the origin, or "source11 cases, or the extent of tuberculosis infection among the plaintiff
14

class. This raises the likelihood of an epidemic affecting correctional staff and prisoners alike.
2- Lack of Intake Physical Examinations 80. Defendants routinely provide only cursory intake health evaluations for newly-admitted prisoners. Prisoners do not routinely receive physical examinations and basic diagnostic testing upon admission to CJC. 81. Defendants fail to provide adequate treatment for newlyadmitted plaintiffs who are undergoing detoxification from drugs or alcohol. 82. Defendants fail to take adequate precautions to prevent the spread of body lice among prisoners at CJC.
3. Sick Call 83. The defendants' sick call procedures are defective. Sick call slips are not reviewed by competent staff. Untraine*"prison guards determine whether prisoners are eligible to see a nurse or physician. As a result, plaintiffs' serious medical problems are not diagnosed or treated. 84. Plaintiffs routinely experience long delays before being seen by a nurse or physician. Sick plaintiffs thus become sicker and suffer unnecessary pain and medical complications. 85. The defendants' nurses and physicians routinely ignore and refuse to treat serious and urgent medical conditions that require consultation, testing or treatment at outside hospitals or specialty clinics.
15

86. As a. matter of practice, defendants fail to treat plaintiffs' ongoing medical conditions that began prior to their incarceration.
87. Nurses in the facility are arbitrary, hostile and abusive toward prisoners. As a result, ill prisoners do not seek medical attention even when they are seriously ill.
88. The effectiveness of outside medical treatment for plaintiffs is further compromised by the defendants' failure to ensure continuity of care and follow-up coordination between the BOC and outside medical providers. Test results and consultation reports from outside physicians often do not reach plaintiffs' treating physicians or nurses for weeks or months. And even if such results and reports are timely received by medical personnel, they are inconsistently followed or ignored. Prisoners cannot obtain special diets-even when ordered by a doctor or a specialist.
89. Defendants fail to monitor or treat adequately plaintiffs who suffer from serious chronic illnesses such as diabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, renal conditions, asthma and other respiratory ailments. Defendants' failure to attend to plaintiffs' chronic illnesses results in needless pain and suffering, the overall deterioration of plaintiffs' health, and avoidable fatalities.
90. Prisoners' opthamological needs are not met. Glasses are not provided by the defendants.
16

4. Prescriptions and Medication pjstribution 91. Plaintiffs suffering from chronic illnesses routinely experience long delays in receiving their medications. 92. Defendants fail to examine prisoners or monitor their levels of medication prior to prescription renewal. 93. Treating physicians fail to prescribe proper diet and medication to prisoners who have, or develop, chronic illnesses and diseases requiring special attention, such as ulcers, diabetes, hypertension, or chronic heart disease. Even when such diet or medication is ordered, defendants often fail to provide it. As a result of defendants' failure to provide medication in a timely and consistent manner, plaintiffs experience pain and suffering and frequently, a deterioration of serious illnesses.
5. Emergency Services 94. Prisoners _who are gravely ill and those in treed of immediate attention are routinely ignored. Prison guards and other untrained staff determine if prisoners with apparently urgent medical problems are eligible to see a nurse, or a doctor, or to be taken to a hospital. 95. On information and belief, the BOC fails to maintain adequate emergency equipment, personnel and transportation services.
G. Dental Care 96. Plaintiffs experience extremely long delays in receiving necessary dental care, resulting in prolonged pain and suffering, permanent tooth loss, and disfigurement.
17 '

H. Mental Health Care 97. Defendants' facilities, staff, procedures and practices with respect to providing mental health care to prisoners are dangerously deficient. 98. Defendants fail to employ an adequate number of licensed, qualified mental health treatment staff, including psychiatrists and psychologists. 99. Defendants fail to assign qualified mental health practitioners to perform intake evaluations of newly-admitted prisoners for diagnosis, and to determine appropriate treatment and placement for prisoners with acute mental illnesses and mental retardation. 100. Plaintiffs with psychiatric illnesses are not properly classified, housed, or treated. Defendants maintain no special mental health treatment units. Rather, plaintiffs suffering from mental illness are housed in the clusters along with general population prisoners. Defendants' policy and practice utilizes the disciplinary system to control, classify and punish mentally-ill plaintiffs. In effect, defendants punish mentally-ill plaintiffs because they are mentally-ill. 101. If a mentally-ill prisoner acts out, he may be subjected to physical abuse by staff. In some cases, mentally-ill prisoners are beaten while handcuffed or shackled to chairs, tables and other fixed structures. 102. Other prisoners in general population take advantage of and abuse seriously mentally-ill plaintiffs. At other times, the
18

housing of mentally-j.ii prisoners is a threat to the personal safety of other general population prisoners.
103. There is an institution-wide lack of access to psychologists and psychiatrists for routine counseling, evaluation and ongoing treatment of acute psychiatric disorders. Seriously mentally-ill prisoners are inadequately monitored or maintained on psychotropic medication.
104. Defendants' failure to provide adequate mental health treatment causes severe and needless pain to mentally-ill plaintiffs, and causes their mental conditions to deteriorate.
I. Treatment of Disabled Prisoners 105. On information and belief, defendants discriminate against members of the plaintiff class with physical or mental disabilities by excluding them on the basis of these disabilities, from participation in, or denying them the benefits of,. services for which these plaintiffs are otherwise qualified, or for which they would be qualified with reasonable accommodation to their disabilities. 106. Defendants exclude plaintiffs who suffer from mental disabilities from participation in services offered to the general population, for which these plaintiffs, with or without reasonable accommodation, are qualified. 107. On information and belief, defendants fail to take reasonable measures to make prison facilities accessible to and useable by plaintiffs with impaired mobility and manual dexterity,
19

or whose major.life activities are otherwise limited by physical impairments.
J- Excessive Force 108. Throughout the CJC, there is a pattern and practice of excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against prisoners. 109. Defendants have failed to properly train, discipline or otherwise control the abusive actions of correctional officers.
K. classification/Failure to Protect Prisoners 110. Defendants fail to classify plaintiffs in a rational manner so as to protect them from assault and victimization. The consequences of this failure are exacerbated by the overcrowding in the CJC. 111. As a matter of policy and ^practice, defendants house pretrial detainees together with sentenced prisoners, and-adolescent detainees and sentenced prisoners together with adult prisoners. Plaintiffs with no prior criminal record are typically housed together with plaintiffs who have extensive criminal histories including prior incarceration for violent offenses. Furthermore, as a matter of policy and practice, defendants house seriously mentally-ill prisoners with other pretrial detainees and sentenced prisoners. 112. Defendants' failure to institute a rational classification scheme results in frequent victimization among plaintiffs ranging from harassment to. repeated physical and sexual assaults, particularly of plaintiffs who are younger, weaker, and ^f slight
20

physical stature. The seriously mentally-ill are often the victims

of abuse and physical attack. The failure of defendants to

adequately search for and seize weapons from the prison population

increases the .risk of serious injury resulting from such attacks.

113. Prison staff assigned to cellblock areas fail to maintain

vigilance over the activities of prisoners. On information and

belief, prison staff sleep at their posts in the control modules

when they are supposed to supervise prisoners in their clusters.

Prisoners' assaultive behavior thus goes unnoticed by guards.

114. There is also a racial element to this dangerous

situation. As a matter of practice, defendants house newly-

admitted white prisoners in Cluster #2, knowing full well that such

prisoners will be assaulted by other prisoners because of their

skin color. There have been two such assaults within the last year

resulting in serious, injuries to the victims.

• "•*-

L. Exercise and Air

115. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with adequate

opportunity for exercise or fresh air. The defendants frequently

deny plaintiffs access to fresh air or outdoor exercise for days or

even weeks at a time. Opportunity for indoor or outdoor exercise

is unduly limited. Severe overcrowding and poor ventilation

heightens plaintiffs' needs for fresh air and exercise. The

deprivation of adequate fresh air and exercise results in

plaintiffs' physical and mental deterioration, and heightens

tensions within the facilities and the risk of provocations and

assaults.

21

M. Legal Access

116. Neither pretrial detainees nor sentenced prisoners have

access to a law library at the CJC.

117. Defendants do not provide persons trained in the law to

assist prisoners with their legal work.

118. Prisoners must use monitored telephones to make calls to

their attorneys. Moreover, legal telephone calls are restricted to

two per week on designated days, at which time prisoners may call

two persons, including friends, family or attorneys.

119. Prisoners must present to correctional officers their

outgoing mail addressed to their attorneys in unsealed envelopes.

On information and belief, this legal mail is frequently not

stamped or processed for mailing by correctional staff. Defendants

thus obstruct plaintiffs' access to the courts by their unduly

restrictive practice§ regarding prisoners' communication with their

attorneys.

120. Defendants prevent plaintiffs from copying their legal

materials in that plaintiffs have no direct access to copiers. In

order for plaintiffs to copy their legal documents, they must

present the material to prison staff, which compromises

confidentiality. On information and belief, defendants frequently

fail to copy or return plaintiffs' legal documents.

121. Plaintiffs' counsel notified Defendant Ballantine of the

restrictions placed on plaintiffs' access to counsel and to the

courts in a letter dated May 17, 1994. Defendants failed to

respond.

-

22 •

122. Because of the practices and procedures outlined in Jf

115 to 120 sjnuca, plaintiffs are denied meaningful access to court

and effective assistance of counsel.

M. Interference with Religious Practice

123. Plaintiffs are denied the opportunity to attend communal

religious services as neither religious services nor religious

counseling are provided at the CJC.

124. Plaintiffs who request religious diets are often denied

them.

125. Defendants place substantial burdens on plaintiffs'

exercise of their religion by confiscating plaintiffs' clothing and

prayer necessities such as skullcaps.

126. Because of these restrictions, plaintiffs at the CJC are

deprived of the right to practice their religions.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

- -

A. Conditions Claims

-:;;•-, 127. As alleged above in \f 23 to 114, the defendants fail to

provide plaintiffs with the basic necessities of life, including

adequate food, shelter, sanitation, exercise, personal safety and

health care. On October 28, 1993, plaintiffs' counsel notified

Defendants Aiken and Ballantine of the unconstitutional conditions

at the CJC. Defendants have not taken action to remedy those

conditions. Defendants' conduct and failure to provide prisoners

with these basic necessities despite their knowledge of a

substantial risk of serious harm constitutes deliberate

indifference. The ill-effects of each deprivation are exacerbated

23

or caused by related conditions, including overcrowding. The resulting conditions at the CJC, taken individually, in combination, or as a whole, are incompatible with contemporary standards of decency, cause unnecessary pain, and are not reasonably related to any legitimate correctional or governmental objective. Defendants' deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs unnecessarily exposes members of the plaintiff class to infectious disease, causes avoidable deterioration of their physical and mental health, and inflicts on them needless pain, suffering, and premature death. Defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions evidence and constitute deliberate indifference to the rights of sentenced prisoners and violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of thie Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states and United States territories through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United- States Constitution, Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 48 U.S.C. §1541 s£ sea. Pretrial detainees confined in the CJC are subjected to impermissible punitive conditions and deprivation of the basic necessities of life including those listed above, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 48 U.S.C. §1541 e£ seg.
B. Americans with Disabilities Act Claim 128. As alleged above in ?J 104 to 106, defendants have discriminated against members of the plaintiff class with physical or mental disabilities, by excluding them from participation in, or denying them the benefits of services for which these plaintiffs
24 •

are qualified, or for which they would be qualified with reasonable accommodation to their disabilities; and by failing to take reasonable measures to make prison facilities readily accessible to and useable by plaintiffs with impaired mobility and other physical disabilities. These acts and omissions violate the rights of disabled plaintiffs under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et^ seq.
C. Legal Access Claim 129. As alleged in 51 115 to 121, the denial of plaintiffs' reasonable access to a law library, restrictions on plaintiffs' access to unmonitored telephones to call their attorneys, and interference with plaintiffs' outgoing correspondence to their attorneys deprive plaintiffs of their right to meaningful.access to the courts as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. • >-
D. Classification/Failure to Protect Claim 130. As alleged in H 108 to 112 above, defendants know of the substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners and fail to classify prisoners in a rational manner or otherwise take steps to protect prisoners, which constitutes deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §1983. For pretrial detainees, the failure to protect constitute punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
25

E. Excessive Force Claim 131. As alleged above in Jf 107 to 108, the defendants have subjected plaintiffs to a pattern and practice of excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers, in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. For pretrial detainees, the use of force constitutes punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
F. Religious Freedom Restoration Act Claim 132. As alleged in flf 122 to 124, the defendants substantially burden plaintiffs' exercise of their religious beliefs, in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §2000bb e£ seq.
VII. NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW 133. As a proximate result of defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions, plaintiffs have suffered, do suffer and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological and emotional injury. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs described herein. Injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs is necessary to prevent continued and further injury.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 134. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, request that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction of this action;
26

b. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class pursuant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
c. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. §2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein violate plaintiffs' rights as set forth above in 5J 23 to 125;
d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief sufficient to rectify the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, policies, practices and conditions complained of herein;
e. Retain jurisdiction over defendants until such time as the Court is satisfied that their unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and will not recur;
f. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and 5 V.I.C. §541, and costs of this action;
g. Award such other further relief as to this court seems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

\. Benjimin A. Currence, P.C. No. 12 Norre Gade, Second Floor P.O. Box 6143 St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
00804-6143 (809) 775-3434

Mark J. Lopez, Esq. Ayesha N. Khan, Esq. Edward I. Koren, Esq. Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 7^., 1994

27

 
 Carty v. Farrelly

—

—

--

- • -••• • •

•• ••

•• •

•

m

n

|

PC-VI-001-005

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

LAWRENCE CARTY, JEFF IMMEL, MAO )

PENHA, DENNIS SWARTZ, WILLIAM

)

PENN, JR., and STEVEN WEEKES,

)

on behalf.of themselves and all )

others similarly situated at the )

Criminal Justice Complex,

)

St. Thomas, United States Virgin )

Islands,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

ALEXANDER A. FARRELLY, in his

)

official capacity as Governor of )

the Territory of the United States )

Virgin Islands; JAMES AIKEN, in his)

official capacity as the Director )

of the Bureau of Corrections,

)

Territory of the United States

)

Virgin Islands; KURT WALCOTT, in )

his official capacity as Warden of )

the Criminal Justice Complex,

)

St. Thomas, United States Virgin )

Islands; VIOLA LA FONG, in her

)

official capacity as the Acting )

Assistant Warden of the Criminal )

Justice Complex, St. Thomas>

)

United States Virgin Islands;

)

ROSALIE SIMMONDS BALLANTINE, in her)

official capacity as Attorney

)

General of the United States Virgin)

Islands; and the VIRGIN ISLANDS

BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, all sued in

their official capacity,

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-78

Defendants.

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

On behalf of themselves and the class alleged herein,

plaintiffs state the following for their amended complaint against

defendants:

Plaintiff's Exhibit

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a class action brought by plaintiffs on behalf of all individuals who are now or in the future will be confined to the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) located in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands and thereby subject to the policies and practices of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections (BOC).
1. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for deprivations under color of state law of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, and in particular those secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments thereof, 48 U.S.C. §1541 e£ seq.. as well as rights protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.. and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §2000bb et seq.
2. Plaintiffs specifically seek relief from conditions at the CJC that fall below contemporary standards of human decency, deny basic human needs, inflict needless pain and suffering, and threaten plaintiffs' physical and mental well-being.
3. The BOC houses approximately 208 prisoners, including both male and female sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees at the CJC in St. Thomas.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of

the United States Constitution; 48 U.S.C. §1541 gt. seq. .- by 42 U.S.C. §1983; by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 e£ seq.: by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §2000bb et seg.; and, by 5 V.I. Code § 4508.
5. "This Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4) and 1367 and 48 U.S.C. §1612(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 48 U.S.C. §1612(a), this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391 in that defendants reside in the United States Virgin Islands and a substantial part, if not all, of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the United States Virgin Islands.
III. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Lawrence Carty is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. 8. Plaintiff Jeff Immel is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. 9. Plaintiff Mao Penha is a citizen of the United States who is currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. 10. Plaintiff Dennis Swartz is a citizen of the United States who is currently awaiting sentencing at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.

11. Plaintiff William Perm, Jr. is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
12. Plaintiff Steven Weekes is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
13. Defendant Alexander A. Farrelly is the Governor of the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands. As such, under Title 5 V.I.C. §4503, he is authorized to appoint the Director of the Bureau of Corrections as well as to present to the legislature the Bureau of Corrections' annual budget. Governor Farrelly is responsible for the administration and operation of all aspects of territorial government agencies including the Bureau of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
14. Defendant James E. Aiken is Director of the Bureau of Corrections of the United States Virgin Islands. He is the chief administrative officer of the Bureau of Corrections and is responsible for the maintenance and operation of all correctional facilities in the U.S. Virgin Islands pursuant to Title 5 V.I.C. §4504. Defendant Aiken's responsibilities include assuring the Bureau's compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States; and the Revised Organic Act of 1954 of the United States Virgin Islands. Defendant Aiken is sued in his official capacity.
15. Defendant Kurt Walcott is the Warden of the CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. On information and belief, Defendant Walcott reports to Defendant Aiken. He is responsible

for the administration of the CJC and assuring its compliance with the Constitution and the law of the United States; and the Revised Organic Act of 1954 of the United States Virgin Islands. He is responsible for the daily operations of that facility and Defendant Walcott is sued in his official capacity.
16. Defendant Viola La Fong is Acting Assistant Warden at the CJC and is employed by the Bureau of Corrections. On information and belief, Defendant La Fong reports to Defendants Walcott and Aiken. She is responsible for the administration of the CJC and assuring its compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States; and the Revised Organic Act of 1954 of the United States Virgin Islands. Defendant La Fong is sued in her official capacity.
17. Defendant Rosalie Simmonds Ballantine is Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. She is directly responsible for overseeing the Bureau of Corrections pursuant to Title 5 V.I.C. §4503. Defendant Ballantine is sued in her official capacity.
18. The Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections is the entity responsible for the maintenance and operations of the CJC.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 19. The named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They seek to represent a class of all individuals who are now or in the future will be confined in the CJC. Plaintiffs represent a class of persons who have been and, in the absence of relief, will

be treated in the manner set forth below. As a result of such treatment, the members of the class are and will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of fundamental constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate defendants' conduct, policies, and practices which deprive them of those rights.
20. There are approximately 208 sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees at any time at the CJC. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.
21. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement maintained by the BOC described below.
22. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The named plaintiffs include prisoners currently incarcerated at the CJC.
23. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Moreover, the plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in the protection and enforcement of the constitutional rights of prisoners.
24. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, therefore making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
V. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION A. The Physical Environment
25. The CJC in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, is located on the third floor of a three story building that formerly

housed the central police station and holding cells for arrestees

and detainees. The facility is adjacent to the territorial court.

The first two floors of the facility are now vacant. Entrance to

the CJC is gained through the loading dock area in the rear of the

building."

26. The CJC building was opened in 1982. It was designed to

house fifty-one detainees in single cells. On information and

belief, the cells measure approximately 80 square feet.

27. CJC is divided into seven clusters that are configured as

follows:

Cluster Number

Number of Cells

1

11

2

10

3

5

4

6

5

6

6

6

7

_t7

Total Number of Cells » 51

28. Each cell is equipped with one double-bunkbed which accommodates two prisoners.
29. Each cell has one toilet and one non-functioning sink. The sinks have not been operable for at least the past six months.
30. Each cluster has one showerhead for use by all prisoners housed therein.
B. Overcrowding 31. The CJC is seriously overcrowded. It is designed to hold a maximum of fifty-one pretrial detainees. The current population

in May, 1994 was approximately 208 prisoners, 92 of whom were sentenced prisoners.
32. Four to five prisoners are typically confined in cells built for one.
33. Prisoners are routinely forced to sleep on mattresses on the floor because each cell is equipped with only one bunkbed to accommodate two prisoners.
34. This severe overcrowding increases the risk of transmission of infectious disease among prisoners and staff, overtaxes the already defective plumbing system, and contributes to a fundamental deterioration in institutional conditions to the point where basic human needs are denied. Sanitation, programming, exercise, food service, medical care, prisoners' personal safety, and other important aspects of -the prison operation have been seriously and adversely affected by the population density.
35. Noise levels in the cell blocks are extremely high, exacerbated by the overcrowded conditions which adversely affect plaintiffs' physical and mental well-being.
36. The cumulative impact of these serious deficiencies has resulted in intolerably high levels of prisoner tension, stress, and hostility. Moreover, the results of the overcrowding contribute to the risk and actual outbreaks of violence and produce health hazards such as the spread of air-borne and food-borne diseases.
37. The consequences of overcrowded conditions at CJC are exacerbated by the lockdown of sentenced prisoners who are kept in
8

their cells for 23 hours daily except for hourly recreation periods twice a week and family visitation.
38. On information and belief, this lockdown has been in effect since 1992. The lockdown has also intensified the consequences of the lack of a prisoner classification system, particularly with respect to prisoners suffering from serious mental illnesses. Mentally-ill prisoners are typically housed in the general population where they receive inadequate mental health treatment and are locked in cells with three to four other prisoners, causing serious tension and violence among prisoners.
39. The conditions described in 11 23 through 37 above, among others, subject plaintiffs to confinement under harmful conditions that are detrimental to their health and well-being.
C. Environmental Safety and Health 40. The structural decay, and overall poor physical environment of the CJC render it unfit for human habitation, and the building's continued use to house prisoners is entirely contrary to basic principles of environmental health and safety. 41. The entire facility, including the food preparation areas and the cell blocks, is severely infested with roaches. Roaches are considered filth-breeders, and are responsible for the transmission of infectious disease. 42. Food preparation areas are particularly unsanitary in that, among other things, the areas are infested with flies, roaches, rats and mice, and food contact surfaces are encrusted with food debris.

43. Plumbing throughout CJC is defective, broken, and deteriorating. There are leaks in both potable water lines and sewage lines. Overflowing toilets cause flooding in the prisoners' cells, soaking mattresses, bedding and personal belongings that are kept on the floors of the cells due to overcrowding.
44. The sinks in the cells do not work, and the water has been turned off. Plaintiffs thus have no running water supply in their cells except for the toilets. No cells are supplied with hot water. Prisoners must rely on the showers as their only source of running water which is most problematic in view of the ratio of prisoners per shower of as many as 1:50 in clusters #1 and #2 and 1:30 in cluster #6.
45. The drinking water is contaminated. Moreover, on information and belief, there is cross-contamination of potable water with waste water. This contributes to the risk of waterborne disease.
46. Shower areas are encrusted with filth and mold growth, and shower drains are frequently not functional.
47. The cell areas are infested with flies, mosquitoes, rats, mice and cockroaches.
48. The cooling and ventilation systems at the CJC frequently do not work properly, creating excessive heat and lack of air circulation that is dangerous to the health and well-being of inmates.
49. Windows at the CJC are made of plexiglass, are sealed shut and are not or cannot be opened to provide sufficient
10

ventilation when the cooling and ventilation systems are not working properly.
50. Asbestos particles and other foreign matter falls from the overhang of the recreational facility, creating a danger of inhalation by the plaintiffs and subjecting them to physical harm.
51. With the exception of recreation offered twice a week and a short period for daily access to showers, sentenced prisoners are locked in their overcrowded, small cells twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
52. Lighting in the cells is completely inadequate for reading, writing, or other basic activities such as housekeeping.
53. The entire building is in a state of deterioration. The only elevator that services the building for all purposes is in a state of disrepair, as is the sallyport adjacent to the elevator on the third floor.
54. The environmental conditions of the CJC described in 11 23 through 53 above, particularly the overcrowding, defective plumbing, lack of ventilation, poor sanitation, and insect and vermin infestations, present a serious risk of infectious disease, including tuberculosis.
D. Fire Safety 55. Defendants fail to ensure fire safety at the CJC, resulting in conditions that present a serious danger of multiple deaths and severe injury in the event of a fire. 56. Defendants fail to comply with basic fire code regulations and the National Life Safety Code.
11

57. The mechanisms for locking and unlocking cell doors are frequently not functional. Prisoners are incarcerated on the third floor. The means of egress in the event of fire is a locked stairway. Under these circumstances, safe and timely evacuation is impossible.
58. On information and belief, hazardous areas, including but not limited to, storage areas for plastics, paper goods and linens, as well as housing areas, are not properly enclosed to prevent the spread of fire and smoke in the event of a fire emergency.
59. No safe accommodation exists for physically handicapped prisoners, including prisoners confined to wheelchairs.
60. Fire exits are inadequately marked, and some are completely blocked.
61. The electrical system is dangerously defective, including non-conforming and exposed electrical«wiring throughout the CJC. The non-conforming and exposed electrical wiring, in combination with regular flooding in some areas, presents a risk of electrical fire.
62. Severe overcrowding increases the potential for serious injury or loss of life in the event of a fire.
63. On information and belief, fire extinguishers are outdated and non-functional.
64. Smoke detectors are inadequate. There is no operable automatic sprinkler system in the building.
12

65. No fire safety programs and procedures, fire drills, safety training of correctional staff, or plans for emergency evacuation exist.
66. The conditions described in HI 54 through 64 above, among others, subject plaintiffs to life-threatening conditions of confinement.
E. Inadequate Food Services 67. The menu served to plaintiffs in the CJC is particularly high in starches, low in protein, unappetizing, and generally nutritionally inadequate. 68. Defendants fail to ensure that there are adequate supplies of food. As a result, they frequently run out of various food items and plaintiffs frequently receive inadequate portions of food. 69. Plaintiffs are served food that is frequently stale. 70. Plaintiffs are required to eat in their cells, either on the floor or in their beds. 71. Meals are often served in a sloppy and unsanitary fashion. 72. The drinking water provided to plaintiffs is inadequately filtered shower water. 73. Defendants fail to supervise food preparation and service adequately resulting in an increased risk of food-borne diseases.
F. Medical Care 74. Access to physicians by prisoners at CJC is severely limited. The Bureau of Corrections systematically fails to provide
13

necessary routine and emergency medical treatment to prisoners. Defendants fail to employ sufficient qualified medical personnel to properly treat the prisoner population at CJC.
75. Overcrowding, filthy conditions, and lack of adequate air circulation increase the risk of exposure of staff and prisoners to airborne communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis. Overcrowding causes and aggravates a variety of physical and mental illnesses, which are further aggravated by environmental health and safety hazards, grossly inadequate medical and mental health care, and by the defendants' failure to adequately protect prisoners from assault.
1. Inadequate Screening for Infectious Diseases 76. Prisoners are not properly tested for tuberculosis upon their admission to the CJC. Qualified medical personnel.fail to administer the PPD test to all newly-admitted prisoners and to read and record the test results on each prisoner to determine the presence of the tuberculosis infection. 77. There is no systematic, periodic retesting of prisoners or prison staff for tuberculosis; even plaintiffs infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (hereinafter HIV) , who may not react to a PPD test but are at substantially higher risk of contracting tuberculosis, are not systematically retested. 78. When prisoners develop tuberculosis during their incarceration, defendants fail to determine the origin, or "source" cases, or the extent of tuberculosis infection among the plaintiff
14

class. This raises the likelihood of an epidemic affecting correctional staff and prisoners alike.
2. Lack of Intake Physical Examinations 79. Defendants routinely provide only cursory intake health evaluations for newly-admitted prisoners. Prisoners do not routinely receive physical examinations and basic diagnostic testing upon admission to CJC. 80. Defendants fail to provide adequate treatment for newlyadmitted plaintiffs who are undergoing detoxification from drugs or alcohol. 81. Defendants fail to take adequate precautions to prevent the spread of body lice among prisoners at CJC.
3. Sick Call 82. The defendants' sick call procedures are defective. Sick call slips are not reviewed by competent staff. Untrained prison guards determine whether prisoners are eligible to see a nurse or physician. As a result, plaintiffs' serious medical problems are not diagnosed or treated. 83. Plaintiffs routinely experience long delays before being seen by a nurse or physician. Sick plaintiffs thus become sicker and suffer unnecessary pain and medical complications. 84. The defendants' nurses and physicians routinely ignore and refuse to treat serious and urgent medical conditions that require consultation, testing or treatment at outside hospitals or specialty clinics.
15

85. As a matter of practice, defendants fail to treat plaintiffs' ongoing medical conditions that began prior to their incarceration.
86. Nurses in the facility are arbitrary, hostile and abusive toward prisoners. As a result, ill prisoners do not seek medical attention even when they are seriously ill.
87. The effectiveness of outside medical treatment for plaintiffs is further compromised by the defendants' failure to ensure continuity of care and follow-up coordination between the BOC and outside medical providers. Test results and consultation reports from outside physicians often do not reach plaintiffs'^ treating physicians or nurses for weeks or months. And even if such results and reports are timely received by medical personnel, they are inconsistently followed or ignored. Prisoners cannot obtain special diets even when ordered by a doctor or a specialist.
88. Defendants fail to. monitor or treat adequately plaintiffs who suffer from serious chronic illnesses such as diabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, renal conditions, asthma and other respiratory ailments. Defendants' failure to attend to plaintiffs' chronic illnesses results in needless pain and suffering, the overall deterioration of plaintiffs' health, and avoidable fatalities.
89. Prisoners' opthamological needs are not met. Glasses are not provided by the defendants.
16

4. Prescriptions and Medication Distribution 90. Plaintiffs suffering from chronic illnesses routinely experience long delays in receiving their medications. 91. Defendants fail to examine prisoners or monitor their levels of medication prior to prescription renewal. 92. Treating physicians fail to prescribe proper diet and medication to prisoners who have, or develop, chronic illnesses and diseases requiring special attention, such as ulcers, diabetes, hypertension, or chronic heart disease. Even when such diet or medication is ordered, defendants often fail to provide it. As a result of defendants' failure to provide medication in a timely and consistent manner, plaintiffs experience pain and suffering and frequently, a deterioration of serious illnesses.
5. Emergency Services 93. Prisoners who are gravely ill and those in need of immediate attention are routinely ignored. Prison guards and other untrained staff determine if prisoners with apparently urgent medical problems are eligible to see a nurse, or a doctor, or to be taken to a hospital. 94. On information and belief, the BOC fails to maintain adequate emergency equipment, personnel and transportation services.
G. Dental Care 95. Plaintiffs experience extremely long delays in receiving necessary dental care, resulting in prolonged pain and suffering, permanent tooth loss, and disfigurement.
17

H- Mental Health Care 96. Defendants' facilities, staff, procedures and practices with respect to providing mental health care to prisoners are dangerously deficient. 97. Defendants fail to employ an adequate number of licensed, qualified mental health treatment staff, including psychiatrists and psychologists. 98. Defendants fail to assign qualified mental health practitioners to perform intake evaluations of newly-admitted prisoners for diagnosis, and to determine appropriate treatment and placement for prisoners with acute mental illnesses and mental retardation. 99. Plaintiffs with psychiatric illnesses are not properly classified, housed, or treated. Defendants maintain no special mental health treatment units. Rather, plaintiffs suffering from mental illness are housed in the clusters along with general population prisoners. Defendants' policy and practice utilizes the disciplinary system to control, classify and punish mentally-ill plaintiffs. In effect, defendants punish mentally-ill plaintiffs because they are mentally-ill. 100. If a mentally-ill prisoner acts out, he may be subjected to physical abuse by staff. In some cases, mentally-ill prisoners are beaten while handcuffed or shackled to chairs, tables and other fixed structures. 101. Other prisoners in general population take advantage of and abuse seriously mentally-ill plaintiffs. At other times, the
18

housing of mentally-ill prisoners is a threat to the personal safety of other general population prisoners.
102. There is an institution-wide lack of access to psychologists and psychiatrists for routine counseling, evaluation and ongoing treatment of acute psychiatric disorders. Seriously mentally-ill prisoners are inadequately monitored or maintained on psychotropic medication.
103. Defendants' failure to provide adequate mental health treatment causes severe and needless pain to mentally-ill plaintiffs, and causes their mental conditions to deteriorate.
I. Treatment of Disabled Prisoners 104. On information and belief, defendants discriminate against members of the plaintiff class with physical or mental disabilities by excluding them on the basis of these disabilities, from participation in, or denying' them the benefits of, services for which these plaintiffs are otherwise qualified, or for which they would be qualified with reasonable accommodation to their disabilities. 105. Defendants exclude plaintiffs who suffer from mental disabilities from participation in services offered to the general population, for which these plaintiffs, with or without reasonable accommodation, are qualified. 106. On information and belief, defendants fail to take reasonable measures to make prison facilities accessible to and useable by plaintiffs with impaired mobility and manual dexterity,
19

or whose major life activities are otherwise limited by physical impairments.
J. Excessive Force 107. Throughout the CJC, there is a pattern and practice of excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against prisoners. 108. Defendants have failed to properly train, discipline or otherwise control the abusive actions of correctional officers.
K. Classification/Failure to Protect Prisoners 109. Defendants fail to classify plaintiffs in a rational manner so as to protect them from assault and victimization. The consequences of this failure are exacerbated by the overcrowding in the CJC. 110. As a matter of policy and practice, defendants house pretrial detainees together with sentenced prisoners, and adolescent detainees and sentenced prisoners together with adult prisoners. Plaintiffs with no prior criminal record are typically housed together with plaintiffs who have extensive criminal histories including prior incarceration for violent offenses. Furthermore, as a matter of policy and practice, defendants house seriously mentally-ill prisoners with other pretrial detainees and sentenced prisoners. 111. Defendants' failure to institute a rational classification scheme results in frequent victimization among plaintiffs ranging from harassment to repeated physical and sexual assaults, particularly of plaintiffs who are younger, weaker, and of slight
20

physical stature. The seriously mentally-ill are often the victims of abuse and physical attack. The failure of defendants to adequately search for and seize weapons from the prison population increases the risk of serious injury resulting from such attacks.
112. Prison staff assigned to cellblock areas fail to maintain vigilance over the activities of prisoners. On information and belief, prison staff sleep at their posts in the control modules when they are supposed to supervise prisoners in their clusters. Prisoners' assaultive behavior thus goes unnoticed by guards.
113. There is also a racial element to this dangerous situation. As a matter of practice, defendants house newlyadmitted white prisoners in Cluster #2, knowing full well that such prisoners will be assaulted by other prisoners because of their skin color. There have been two such assaults within the last year resulting in serious injuries to the victims.
L. Exercise and Air 114. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with adequate opportunity for exercise or fresh air. The defendants frequently deny plaintiffs access to fresh air or outdoor exercise for days or even weeks at a time. Opportunity for indoor or outdoor exercise is unduly limited. Severe overcrowding and poor ventilation heightens plaintiffs' needs for fresh air and exercise. The deprivation of adequate fresh air and exercise results in plaintiffs' physical and mental deterioration, and heightens tensions within the facilities and the risk of provocations and assaults.
21

M. Legal Access 115. Neither pretrial detainees nor sentenced prisoners have access to a law library at the CJC. 116. Defendants do not provide persons trained in the law to assist prisoners with their legal work. 117. Prisoners must use monitored telephones to make calls to their attorneys. Moreover, legal telephone calls are restricted to two per week on designated days, at which time prisoners may call two persons, including friends, family or attorneys. 118. Prisoners must present to correctional officers their outgoing mail addressed to their attorneys in unsealed envelopes. On information and belief, this legal mail is frequently not stamped or processed for mailing by correctional staff. Defendants thus obstruct plaintiffs' access to the courts by their unduly restrictive practices regarding prisoners' communication with their attorneys. 119. Defendants prevent plaintiffs from copying their legal materials in that plaintiffs have no direct access to copiers. In order for plaintiffs to copy their legal documents, they must present the material to prison staff, which compromises confidentiality. On information and belief, defendants frequently fail to copy or return plaintiffs' legal documents. 120. Plaintiffs' counsel notified Defendant Ballantine of the restrictions placed on plaintiffs' access to counsel and to the courts in a letter dated May 17, 1994. Defendants failed to respond.
22

121. Because of the practices and procedures outlined in *I1J 115 to 120 supra, plaintiffs are denied meaningful access to court and effective assistance of counsel.
N. Interference with Religious Practice 122. Plaintiffs are denied the opportunity to attend communal religious services as neither religious services nor religious counseling are provided at the CJC. 123. Plaintiffs who request religious diets are often denied them. 124. Defendants place substantial burdens on plaintiffs' exercise of their religion by confiscating plaintiffs' clothing and prayer necessities such as skullcaps. 125. Because of these restrictions, plaintiffs at the CJC are deprived of the right to practice their religions. 126. Section 4508 (a) of Title 5 of the Virgin Islands Code provides in pertinent part as follows: "Persons committed to the institutional care of the Bureau [of Corrections] shall be dealt with humanely, with efforts directed to their rehabilitation and return to the community as safely and promptly as practicable. For these purposes, the Attorney General shall establish programs of classification and diagnosis, education, casework, counseling and psychotherapy, vocational training and guidance, work, library and other rehabilitative services . . . " 127. Defendants have failed to establish effective, long-term programs for educational and vocational training, programs for substance abuse and mental health treatment and/or rehabilitation, and for prison industries.
23

128. Defendants' failure to establish effective, long-term programs for educational and vocational training, programs for substance abuse and mental health treatment and/or rehabilitation, and for prison industries denies plaintiffs of their rights to educational, vocational and rehabilitative programs as required by 5 V.I. Code § 4508.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION A. Conditions Claims
129. As alleged above in HI 23 to 114, the defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with the basic necessities of life, including adequate food, shelter, sanitation, exercise, personal safety and health care. On October 28, 1993, plaintiffs' counsel notified Defendants Aiken and Ballantine of the unconstitutional conditions at the CJC. Defendants have not taken action to remedy those conditions. Defendants' conduct and failure to provide prisoners with these basic necessities despite their knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm constitutes deliberate indifference. The ill-effects of each deprivation are exacerbated or caused by related conditions, including overcrowding. The resulting conditions at the CJC, taken individually, in combination, or as a whole, are incompatible with contemporary standards of decency, cause unnecessary pain, and are not reasonably related to any legitimate correctional or governmental objective. Defendants' deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs unnecessarily exposes members of the
24

plaintiff class to infectious disease, causes avoidable deterioration of their physical and mental health, and inflicts on them needless pain, suffering, and premature death. Defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions evidence and constitute deliberate indifference to the rights of sentenced prisoners and violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states and United States territories through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 48 U.S.C. §1541 et sea. Pretrial detainees confined in the CJC are subjected to impermissible punitive conditions and deprivation of the basic necessities of life including those listed above, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 48 U.S.C. §1541 et sea.
B. Americans with Disabilities Act Claim 130. As alleged above in 11 104 to 106, defendants have discriminated against members of the plaintiff class with physical or mental disabilities, by excluding them from participation in, or denying them the benefits of services for which these plaintiffs are qualified, or for which they would be qualified with reasonable accommodation to their disabilities; and by failing to take reasonable measures to make prison facilities readily accessible to and useable by plaintiffs with impaired mobility and other physical disabilities. These acts and omissions violate the rights of disabled plaintiffs under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et. seq.
25

C. Legal Access Claim 131. As alleged in 11 115 to 121, the denial of plaintiffs' reasonable access to a law library, restrictions on plaintiffs' access to unmonitored telephones to call their attorneys, and interference with plaintiffs' outgoing correspondence to their attorneys deprive plaintiffs of their right to meaningful access to the courts as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
D. Classification/Failure to Protect Claim 132. As alleged in 11 108 to 112 above, defendants know of the substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners and fail to classify prisoners in a rational manner or otherwise take steps to protect prisoners, which constitutes deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §1983. For pretrial detainees, the failure to protect constitute punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
26

E. Excessive Force Claim 133. As alleged above in 11 107 to 108, the defendants have subjected plaintiffs to a pattern and practice of excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers, in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. For pretrial detainees, the use of force constitutes punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
F. Religious Freedom Restoration Act Claim 134. As alleged in 11 122 to 124, the defendants substantially burden plaintiffs' exercise of their religious beliefs, in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §2000bb et sea.
G. Rehabilitative Programs 135. As alleged above in 11 127«to 129, the defendants have failed to establish effective, long-term programs for educational and vocational training, programs for substance abuse and mental health treatment and/or rehabilitation, and for prison industries in violation of plaintiffs' rights under 5 V.I. Code § 4508.
VII. NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW 136. As a proximate result of defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions, plaintiffs have suffered, do suffer and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological and emotional injury. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs
27

described herein. Injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs is necessary to prevent continued and further injury.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 137. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, request that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction of this action; b. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class pursuant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; c. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein violate plaintiffs' rights as set forth above in HI 23 to 125; d. Issue preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief sufficient to rectify the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, policies, practices and conditions complained of herein; e. Retain jurisdiction over defendants until such time as the Court is satisfied that their unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and will not recur; f. Issue an order directing the defendants to remove sentenced prisoners from the CJC until effective, long-term educational, vocational and rehabilitative programs required under 5 V.I. Code § 4508 are available at the CJC;
28

g. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and 5 V.I.C. §541, and costs of this action; and,
h. Award such other further relief as to this court seems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Berijjhnin A. Currence, P.C. No. 12 Norre Gade, Second Floor P.O. Box 6143 St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
00804-6143 (809) 775-3434

Mark J. Lopez, Esq. Ayesha N. Khan, Esq. Edward I. Koren, Esq. Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: September _L, 1994

29

 
 CARTY V. FARRELLY CONSENT DECREE TABLE OP COMPLIANCE

PC-VI-001-011

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

0

N

OF D COMPLIANCE2

I. POPULATION - ST. THOMAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMPLEX (CJC)

4/1/95

1. Limit to be set at 97.

2. No prisoners to serve sentences over one year.

3. No more than two inmates per cell.

4. Five cells to be designated single cells for special management inmates (medical, mental health, segregation).x

5. New admissions housed in separate housing until medically evaluated.

6. No inmates housed in spaces not designed for housing (dayrooms, offices, etc.).

7. Women and men to be housed separately.

8.
_... &

During the interim period until items 1-7 are carried out, the defendants agree to open the Halfway House and transfer a minimum of 3 0 inmates from CJC at that time. After the Halfway House is open, the CJC population will be permanently reduced by those 30 beds. Additionally, defendants agree to seek pretrial detention alternatives, reduce bails and to offer sentences of time served for prisoners charged with misdemeanors and nonviolent offenses. It is the parties' expectation that by January 1, 1995, the CJC population will be reduced by a total of 50-60 prisoners through these efforts.

1/1/95 (Halfway House to be open.)

II. SHELTER, PHYSICAL PLANT & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

1. Repair leaking roof.

6/15/95

2. Repair all sink units in cells.

4/15/95

1 If all special management prisoners are transferred out of CJC, the population cap is to be set at 100.
2 All provisions of this decree which are not accompanied by an implementation date shall be implemented as soon as practicable and no later than January 1, 1996.

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

3. Repair all light fixtures.
4. Repair or replace all hot water heaters for inmate showers.
5. Provide water coolers in clusters.
6 . Replace all damaged or soiled mattresses.
7. Establish a mattress exchange program for new admissions.
"?. Provide a storage area in each cell for inmates' personal belongings.
9. Establish a comprehensive institutional housekeeping plan.
10. Establish a comprehensive kitchen maintenance and sanitation plan.
11. Establish a comprehensive preventive maintenance plan for all mechanical systems and the physical plant.
12. Clean the drinking water system. Install automatic chlorinating device at the point from which water leaves the cistern. The defendants also agree to comply with the conditions set out in the September 27, 1994 Department of Natural Resources letter from Ben Nazario to Alcedos Lettsome. (See Appendix B.)
^ .3. Assign two (2) FTE maintenance staff people to perform plumbing, electrical, mechanical, ventilation and air conditioning work.
14. Provide fruits and vegetables at least three times per week, milk daily, meat substitutes for vegetarian and religious diets, and evening snacks.
15. Lighting in inmate rooms/cells shall be at least twenty footcandles at desk level and in personal grooming areas.
16. Noise levels in inmate housing units not to exceed 70 dBA (A Scale) in daytime and 45 dBA (A Scale) at night.

6/15/95 4/15/95 12/1/94 4/15/95 12/1/94 5/15/95 4/15/95 1/1/95 1/1/95 4/15/95
4/15/95
12/1/95

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF
COMPLIANCE

17. Circulation shall be at least 15 cubic feet of air per minute per occupant for cells/rooms, officer stations, and dining areas.
18. Temperatures in indoor living and work areas shall be appropriate in the summer and winter comfort zones.
19. Food service operations shall be supervised by a full-time staff member experienced in food service management.
JO. Policies and procedures shall be written, and practice instituted to specify food service budgeting, purchasing, and accounting practices, including but not limited to the following systems: • food expenditure cost accounting designed to determine cost per meal per inmate, • estimation of food service requirements, • purchase of supplies at wholesale and other favorable prices and conditions, when possible, and in accordance with the Virgin Islands Code, • determination of and responsiveness to inmate eating preferences, and • refrigeration of food, with specific storage periods.

21. Policies and procedures shall be written and practice

instituted to require that accurate records are maintained of

f"

all meals served.

22. Documentation shall be maintained that the institution's dietary allowances are reviewed at least annually by a qualified nutritionist or dietician to ensure that they meet the nationally recommended allowances for basic nutrition. Menu evaluation shall be conducted at least quarterly by institution food service supervisory staff to verify adherence to the established basic daily servings.

23. Dietary allowances, as adjusted for age, sex, and activity, shall meet the recommended dietary allowances published by the National Academy of Sciences.

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATI

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

24. Policies and procedures shall be written and practice instituted to require that food service staff plan menus in advance and substantially follow the plan, and that the planning and preparation of all meals take into consideration food flavor, texture, temperature, appearance, and palatability.
25. Policy and procedure shall be written, and practice instituted to provide for adequate health protection for all inmates and staff in the institution, and inmates and other persons working in the food service (see #26-32).
26. All persons involved in the preparation of food shall receive a preassignment medical examination and periodic reexaminations to ensure freedom from diarrhea, skin infections, and other illnesses transmissible by food or utensils. All examinations shall be conducted in accordance with local requirements.
27. When the institution's food services are provided by an outside agency or individual, the institution shall have written verification that the outside provider complies with the state and local regulations regarding food service.
28. All food handlers shall be instructed to wash their hands upon reporting to duty and after using toilet facilities.
%, 2.9. Inmates and other persons working in food service shall be monitored each day for health and cleanliness by the supervisor of food services (or designee).
30. When required by statute, food products that are grown or produced within the system are inspected and approved by the appropriate government agency. There shall be a distribution system that ensures prompt delivery of foodstuffs to the institutional kitchen.

IIAREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OP COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF
COMPLIANCE

31. Policy and procedure shall be written, and practice instituted to require weekly inspections of all food service areas, including dining and food preparation areas and
•
equipment, by administrative, medical, or dietary personnel. These may include the person supervising food service operations (or designee). Refrigerator and water temperatures shall be check daily.

32. Meals shall be served at appropriate temperatures.

I^^i3.

Policy and procedure shall be written, and practice instituted to provide for the issue of suitable clothing to all inmates. Clothing shall be properly fitted, climactically suitable, durable, and presentable.

34. A standard wardrobe shall be provided at the time of admission and should include as appropriate: shirts, blouses, dresses, trousers, skirts, undergarments, slips, socks and shoes.

35. Policy and procedure shall be written, and practice instituted to require that articles necessary for maintaining proper personal hygiene are provided to all inmates.

36. 11 l^t ^P

Each inmate shall be given at a minimum the following linens: 2 sheets, 1 towel, 1 pillow, and a mattress that shall be placed on a bed and not on the floor. There shall be procedures for linen and towel exchange and personal laundry on a weekly basis, at a minimum.

37. As part of the admissions process, each inmate should be

given soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste or powder, a

comb, and toilet paper. Shaving equipment should be made

available upon request, and the special hygiene needs of

females shall be met. An adequate floor stock of these

hygiene items shall be maintained at all times to ensure that

II

these items are reissued as needed.

38. There shall be a written plan for the control of vermin and

II

pests that includes, at a minimum, monthly treatments and

11 :

inspections by qualified persons.

[AREA OF COMPLIANCE
•

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

39. Water for showers shall be thermostatically controlled to temperatures of 100-120° Fahrenheit to ensure the safety of inmates and to promote hygienic practices.

III. FIRE SAFETY

For the purpose of this section, the following requirements are set forth below:

,- 1.

The Main Control Center on the third floor should be the central station for all recommended fire alarm systems. That is, all fire alarm systems should automatically retransmit to the Control Center.'

2. All smoke detectors should be connected to the building fire alarm systems.

3. Fire rated enclosures or separations should be 1 hour fire rated with openings protected with self closing or automatic closing fire doors. The exception is doors to cells which are not required to be self or automatic closing.

4. 1^

Smoke tight enclosures or separations can be of any materials that will resist the passage of smoke with openings protected with a self closing or automatic closing door that will resist the passage of smoke. The exceptions are the doors to cells which are not required to be self or automatic closing.

Requirements:

1. Provide a manual fire alarm system.

2. Provide smoke detectors in the day rooms. The existing battery powered smoke detectors in the day rooms are inadequate for this occupancy. Battery powered smoke detectors are only recognized for residential occupancies.

3.
II ||

Provide a smoke barrier partition on the third floor to allow for the horizontal evacuation of the occupants on the third floor. The partition should divide the third floor into approximately two equally sized areas of refuge.

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

4. Cease the practice of storing the food carts in the exit access corridor adjacent to the kitchen.

5. a) b)
c) d) e)

Provide smoke detectors throughout the third floor to include in individual cells. Provide heat detectors on the first and second floors and in the basement. Heat detectors should be provided in the enclosed areas on the roof to include the storage areas, maintenance shops, mechanical rooms, and laundry room, Provide a 1-hour fire-rated enclosure of the kitchen and adjacent storage area, Provide a 1-hour fire-rated enclosure of all vertical openings to include utility shafts and stairways, Provide a l-hour fire-rated separation of each of the cluster housing areas to include the individual control rooms from the exit access corridors.

6. Immediately remove all the new foam plastic mattresses in the facility and replace with approved fire retardant treated mattresses.

7. Replace all existing damaged fire retardant mattresses.

8. Mattresses not to be stored in housing units. If mattresses are stored in the building, they should be stored in
f"' "> accordance with fire safety regulations.

10. A detailed emergency plan should be developed which is applicable to the St. Thomas Facility, to include training of staff and fire drills for staff and inmates (see Appendix C ) .

12/1/94 b) 1/1/95
11/1/94 1/1/95 11/1/94 Training of staff 12/1/94

11. A fire evacuation plan for the housing units shall be developed, training provided and drills performed.

Training of inmates 2/15/95

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

12. Fire drills shall be conducted and critiqued. Drills shall be conducted once per quarter per shift for a total of 12 fire drills per year. Not all drills require the evacuation of the inmates.
13. A plan shall be developed detailing how to evacuate the inmates or provisions for inmates to 'ride-out* the fire inside the building. The plan shall take into consideration the type of fire protection systems in the building.
14. Proper receptacles shall be provided for cigarette smoking materials.
15. The staff shall be trained in fire evacuation and fire emergency procedures.
16. The local fire department shall tour the facility to, become familiar with the building. The local fire department shall periodically participate in the facility fire drills.
17. When, on a periodic basis, chains and locks are needed for security, all staff members shall be made aware of this and a sufficient number of the staff shall be provided with keys to unlock the doors in case of emergency. The doors should not be chained and locked on a regular basis.
_ 1 8 . Defendants shall not store combustibles or other material in M^/ the exits.
19. Repair all broken or damaged electrical lighting fixtures.
20. Flammable liquids in the maintenance and storage areas shall be stored in approved flammable liquid storage cabinets.
21. The fire load in all offices shall be reduced.

12/15/94 11/1/94 12/1/94
6/1/95 11/1/94

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

IV. MEDICAL CARE

A. STAFFING AND TABLE OF ORGANIZATION

1. f

Defendants agree to retain a Health Care Coordinator who is responsible for making recommendations for the development of medical policies and procedures which, when adopted, will be largely in compliance with the National Commission on Correctional Health Care Guidelines as they currently exist except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. These policies and procedures shall include, but not be limited to, such issues as quality assurance, programs for chronic care, special-needs inmates, admission to and administration of the infirmary at St. Croix, and a peer review of the practitioners who are contracting with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Health Care Coordinator shall be responsible for implementing the medical policies and procedures in conjunction with the Registered Nurse at CJC.

2. ff*^

A full-time Registered Nurse will function as the on-site supervisor of medical services and will report directly to the Nurse Supervisor. She/he will be responsible for development, implementation and monitoring of health care policies and procedures, and monitoring and requisitioning of supplies and equipment. Certification by the Director of the Board of Corrections that the nurse is in place shall be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

3. Nursing personnel in addition to the Registered Nurse will be present at CJC from at least 9:00 am until 8:00 pm weekdays, and for four hours each weekend day. Certification by the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, including the schedules of all nursing personnel, will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

Day-to-day supervision and management shall be provided by the Registered Nurse at CJC by 12/1/94.
12/1/94 (Full-time Registered Nurse to be in place at CJC.)
1/1/95 (Additional nursing personnel on staff, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DAT I

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

OF D

COMPLIANCE

4. A physician will be present at CJC at least two hours each weekday to provide new admission evaluations, sick call and medical follow-up care. The physician's schedule, showing compliance with this provision will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel. It will be the responsibility of the Health Care Coordinator to assure that adequate physician coverage is provided.
5. A physician will be on-call by telephone at all times when there is no physician on-site at the facility. The Health Care Coordinator will be responsible for assuring that 24hour coverage is provided. A schedule showing this coverage will be submitted to plaintiffs' counsel.

12/1/94 (Physician on duty, and submission to plaintiffs counsel.)
1/1/94 (Physician on call, and submission to plaintiff counsel.)

6.
^., i,

A Master's level Mental Health Worker will provide mental health services. He/she will be responsible for initial evaluation of all inmates with mental health problems, development of mental health treatment plans, monitoring psychiatric medications in consultation with the physician, insuring mental health follow-up, and individual and group counseling. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections will certify that a Mental Health Worker is in place. (See Section V for more detail on Mental Health Worker duties.)

1/1/95

7. A roster of health care personnel (as indicated on table of organization on p. 18 of document) and a record of hours worked will be kept by the Nurse Supervisor. This record will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

1/1/95 (First submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

10

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

B. EMERGENCY CARE

1. !'

Adequate equipment will be maintained on-site for management of medical emergencies. (See pp. 18-19 of document for list.) A list of this equipment will be maintained by the Registered Nurse. The equipment will be inspected daily for completeness and condition and said inspection will be noted on the list with the initials of the staff member doing the inspection. Records of the inspections will be given to the Health Care Coordinator on a monthly basis. The Health Care coordinator will ensure that replacement equipment is obtained as necessary. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the equipment and system are .in place will be submitted to plaintiffs' counsel.

2. A log will be maintained indicating time of all emergency hospital referrals, time leaving CJC and time of arrival at the hospital. Certification by the Warden that this log is being maintained will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

4/1/95 (Equipment system in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)
12/1/95 (Log in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

C. CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION (CPR)

1. 4*\ **'

CPR training will be provided for all medical staff. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator of completion of the initial training will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis. All medical staff will maintain current CPR certification. The Registered Nurse will be responsible for ensuring that all medical personnel maintain current CPR training.

4/1/95 (Medical staff training, and first quarterly report to plaintiffs' counsel.)

11

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

2. CPR training will be available to correctional officers. At least two officers with CPR certification will be present at all times at CJC. Certification by the Warden that at least two CPR-certified officers are on duty at all times will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel. A list of officers with CPR certification and a log of hours worked will be submitted to plaintiff's counsel on a quarterly basis.

4/15/95 (Officers to be on duty, and initial submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

D. CHRONIC CARE

1. Written policy, procedure, and practice shall make available chronic and convalescent care to inmates of the facility.

E. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

1.
Uk WP

Written policy and procedure shall guide the clinical management of chemically dependent inmates and include the following requirements: • diagnosis of chemical dependency by a physician, • determination by a physician as to whether an individual
requires nonpharmacologically or pharmacologically supported care, • individualized treatment plans developed and implemented by a multidisciplinary team, and • referrals to specified community resources upon release when appropriate.

12

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

2. |

Written policy, procedure, and practice shall provide for substance abuse programs for inmates with drug and alcohol addiction problems. These programs should include the following: • staff trained in drug and alcoholic treatment to design
and supervise the program, • coordination with community substance abuse programs, • efforts to motivate addicts to seek help, • realistic goals for the rehabilitation of inmates with
substance abuse problems, and • a variety of approaches to provide flexibility to meet
the varying needs of different addicts.

F. MEDICATION

1. New admissions requiring medication will be transported to the hospital for medical evaluation and prescriptions if no medical personnel are on call or on-site at CJC. Certification by the Warden that this system is in place will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel. The Warden will be responsible for ensuring that new inmates are promptly transported to the hospital for medical evaluations and prescriptions as necessary.

2.
K^ f^J

Prescriptions for inmate medication will be taken to the pharmacy and the filled prescriptions returned to CJC within 24 hours of the writing of the prescriptions, unless it is medically indicated that they be dispensed sooner. Certification by the Warden that this is being done will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel. A log of prescriptions and time required for obtaining medications will be maintained and submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

12/1/94 (Submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)
12/1/94 (Prescription system in place, and initial submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

13

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

CONSENT DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF
COMPLIANCE

3. Medications will be given from a filled prescription only to

the patient for whom it was prescribed. Prescription

medications will not be re-used for other patients.

•

Certification of compliance with this provision, including

that all non-current prescription medications have been

discarded, will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel. The

Nurse Supervisor will be responsible for ensuring on-going

compliance with this provision and will inventory

prescription medications to discard those no longer in use on

a weekly basis.

12/1/94 (Medication system in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

4. Controlled substances will be maintained in a locked narcotic cabinet and will be counted and logged by nursing staff whenever dispensed and on a daily basis. Certification by the Warden that a locked cabinet is present and in use, and by the Nurse Supervisor that the system of counting and logging controlled substances is in place, will be submitted to the Court. A copy of the narcotics control log will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

12/1/94 (Controlled substance system in place, and initial submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

5.
^^^^ »«'

All medications will be routinely checked by nursing staff for expiration dates and expired drugs discarded. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that this is being done will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel. The Registered Nurse will inspect all medications monthly and will note the presence of any expired drugs. The results of these inspections will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

12/1/94 (Initial submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

14

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

G. INTAKE EVALUATIONS

1. '

A Brief health screening question list will be administered at admission and prior to housing by a nurse. If an admission occurs in the absence of nursing coverage, a correction officer who has been instructed in its use by medical staff shall conduct this evaluation. The prisoner shall be evaluated the next day by the nursing staff. Questions on the screening list will include current illnesses, medications, and suicidal ideation or history. The form will be submitted to medical staff for use in inmates' medical intake evaluations and will be retained in inmates' medical records. Certification by the Warden that this system is in place shall be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

12/1/94 (Health screening form to be in use, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

2. A medical intake evaluation, utilizing a standardized history and physical examination form substantially the same as the form provided as Appendix D (see document), will be performed by the facility physician on all new admissions within four days of admission. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the system is in place will be submitted to plaintiffs' counsel.

12/1/94 (System in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

3 .
[*
J

Laboratory tests will be performed on all new admissions within seven days of admission and consist of the following: a. tuberculin skin test (PPD) in accordance with CDC
guidelines (see Appendix E of document), b. urinalysis (dipstick), c. syphilis blood test (RPR), d. complete blood count (CBC), e. PAP Smear (women), f. urine pregnancy test (women), and g. additional tests deemed clinically necessary by
physician. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the practice has been implemented shall be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

12/1/94 (Tests in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

15

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF
COMPLIANCE

4. Defendants shall conduct (PPD) testing on all CJC prisoners, employees and agents of defendants who have direct contact with prisoners, unless such person has had a test result recorded within the last 12 months. Persons who test £5mm will be treated in accordance with CDC guidelines.

5. The defendants shall implement prompt and consistent testing, reading and recording of PPD tests for newly arriving prisoners, including the administration of PPD tests as soon as practicable at the time of entry into the system.

H. SICK CALL

1. Mgh

Sick call will be freely accessible on a regularly scheduled, daily basis and will be conducted by qualified medical staff (MD or RN) in an appropriate physical space containing a medical examination table, adequate lighting, and running water. Equipment required for physical evaluation will be available (see p. 27 of document for list). Inmates' sick call request slips will be submitted daily and collected from boxes in all clusters twice daily by medical staff, who shall record the date(s) of treatment on the slips and place them in the inmates' medical charts. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the system is in place, including a schedule of sick call times, a list of the equipment available, and a description and location of the physical space provided, will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

12/1/94 (Testing system in place.)
12/1/94 (Sick call system in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

16

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

I. FOLLOW-UP CARE

1. Patients requiring follow-up for chronic diseases or other reasons will be scheduled for the purpose in a follow-up log substantially the same as that provided in Appendix F (see document). A disposition on each patient scheduled will be entered into the log. A list of patients with chronic conditions will be maintained by medical staff to insure that such patients are not lost to follow-up. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the system has been implemented will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel. The Registered Nurse will be responsible for monitoring the follow-up system and ensuring compliance with this section of the plan. A copy of the follow-up logs and chronic disease list will be forwarded to the plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

J. MEDICALLY INDICATED DIET

1. Medically indicated diets will be ordered by medical staff, who will submit a requisition form substantially the same as that in Appendix G (see document) to the kitchen manager, who will insure that inmates on medically indicated diets receive the proper diets. Certification by the Warden that the system has been implemented will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

*»•• 2.

Guidelines for preparation of medically indicated diets will be developed in consultation with a dietician and posted in the kitchen. Certification by the Warden that the guidelines are posted will be submitted to plaintiffs' counsel. The kitchen manager will be responsible for consulting with the dietician as necessary and for periodically updating the posted guidelines.

12/1/94 (System in place, and initial submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)
12/1/94 (System in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)
12/1/94 (Guidelines to be posted, and submission to plain- ; tiffs' counsel.)

17

[AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

CONSENT DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

3. Medical staff will maintain a list of patients receiving medically indicated diets. The list of patients will be reviewed by the Registered Nurse for continued need and for completeness on a monthly basis. A copy of the list will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

12/1/94 (First list to be complete, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

P ^ K . HOSPITAL APPOINTMENTS

1. A record will be kept of all appointments requested at the hospital (clinics, dental, laboratory, x-ray), date of appointment, whether visit occurred, and disposition. Clinic referral forms and the clinic log book will be substantially the same as those in Appendix H (see document). Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that the system is in place will be submitted to the plaintiff's counsel. A report listing all hospital referrals and their disposition will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel on a quarterly basis.

12/1/94 (Record system in place, and initial submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

L. MEDICAL REFERENCES
Up-to-date medical references will be available at CJC, including ^^Physicians' Desk Reference. Conn's Current Therapy, and Lippincott ^Hmanual of Nursinq Practice. Certification by the Health Care
Coordinator that the references are available will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel. The Registered Nurse will monitor the availability and currentness of the references, and will report to the Nurse Supervisor when replacement is necessary. The Health Care Coordinator will ensure that such replacements are made.

1/1/95 (References available, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

M. MISCELLANEOUS MEDICAL ISSUES
1. After ninety days of detention, the defendants shall provide eyeglasses to those inmates who need them.

AREA OF COMPLIANCE
2. After sixty days of detention, the defendants shall provide routine dental services to prisoners. If restorative services are indicated, they shall be provided.

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

CONSENT DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

3. Emergency dental care shall be provided to all prisoners regardless of length of stay.

4. %f"

The defendants shall adopt quality assurance practices, including bi-weekly meetings between the Health Care Coordinator and CJC medical staff.

1/1/95

I 5. Inmates in need of infirmary care shall be transferred to the Infirmary at Golden Grove.

11/1/94

N. MEDICAL CHARTS

1.
1^^ Mp

The defendants shall adopt standardized charting practices. The prisoners' health record files shall contain the following items: • completed admission screening form, • health appraisal data forms, • all findings, diagnoses, treatments, and dispositions, • record of prescribed medications and their
administration, • laboratory, x-ray, and diagnostic studies, • signature and title of documenter, • consent and refusal forms, • release of information forms, • place, date and time of health encounters, • health service reports, e.g.,' dental, mental health, and
consultations, • treatment plan, including nursing care plan, • progress reports, and • discharge summary of hospitalization and other
termination summaries.

12/1/94 (Standardized charting practices in place.)

2. II 11 II .

The method of recording entries in the prisoners' records, the form and the format of records, and the procedures for their maintenance and safekeeping shall be approved by an appropriate health authority.

19

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF
COMPLIANCE

3. All findings, including notations concerning mental health, dental, and consultative services shall be recorded at the time of service delivery or no later than 14 days from the time of discharge or termination of treatment. The receiving screening form shall become a part of the record at the time of the first health encounter.
4. Prisoners suffering from infectious diseases and in need of medical isolation shall be transferred to St. Thomas Hospital
JP^SJ for appropriate treatment.
V. MENTAL HEALTH
1. Mental health referrals, evaluations, and follow-up will be managed by the Mental Health Worker. A mental health checklist and referral form substantially the same as those in Appendices I and J (see document) will be used. Certification that the referral system is in place will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

2. g^

Referrals shall be made to the local hospital in emergency situations or to the Community Mental Health (CMH) Center. All prisoners referred for non-emergency care shall be evaluated by CMH or CJC staff within five days, unless a shorter period is medically indicated.

3. Upon return to CJC from a mental health evaluation, any reports or recommendations will be' reviewed by the Mental Health Worker and medical staff and appropriate housing and follow-up will be arranged. Certification by the Health Care Coordinator that this has been implemented will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

1/1/95 (System to be in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)
1/1/95 (System in place, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.)

20

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

4. A housing area at CJC will be designated for inmates requiring mental observation. In this area, suicide watch and close mental health follow-up will be available. Certification by the Warden that a mental health housing area has been provided will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel.

{ "i. The defendants shall establish mental health cells for prisoners in need of restraints, seclusion, or observation.

6. Hospital beds for inmates requiring hospitalization shall be made available at the St. Thomas Hospital.

VI. CORRECTIONS AND SECURITY

A. Operations

1. The defendants shall establish policies and procedures governing the operations of CJC. This manual shall contain all procedures for institutional security and control, with detailed instructions for implementing these procedures. The manual shall be available to all staff and reviewed at least annually and updated if necessary.

2. K^l

The defendants shall establish an objective-based classification program in conformity with the guidelines issued by the National Institute of Corrections.

3. Housing officers shall conduct fifteen-minute checks of the housing units and maintain a log.

4. Disciplinary and protective custody segregation cells shall be established. Prisoners in need of long-term segregation shall be transferred by Golden Grove.

11/1/94 (Housing area set up, and submission to plaintiffs' counsel.) 12/1/94
11/1/94
Manual to be completed by 4/1/95.
4/1/95
11/1/94
4/1/95 (Prisoners to Golden Grove.)

21

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF
COMPLIANCE

5.
^^ •Pf

Defendants shall immediately discontinue the practice of instituting long-term facility-wide lockdowns of prisoners in excess of 72 hours, unless emergency circumstances exist. For the purposes of this agreement, emergency is defined as a circumstance caused by a significant security breach affecting the entire facility, or riot, fire, hurricane or similar event not caused intentionally by the defendants. If the defendants intend to extend a lockdown beyond 72 hours for emergency reason, the BOC Director shall notify plaintiffs' counsel immediately and certify the justification for extending the lockdown. Within 72 hours thereafter, the BOC Director shall forward a plan to plaintiffs' counsel to end the lockdown. A record of all lockdown periods, regardless of length, shall be maintained at CJC and made available to plaintiffs' counsel upon reasonable notice. If the lockdown exceeds 72 hours and the plaintiffs dispute the justification offered by the defendants or believe the conditions are unconstitutional, plaintiffs can seek appropriate relief from the court.

B. Activities

1. Outdoor recreation shall be provided not less than three hours daily, seven days a week.

2. ^fe ^^

Inmates shall not be confined to their cells more than twelve hours daily. The cell doors shall remain open during out-ofcell periods. The parties understand that this twelve hours represents the maximum amount of in-cell time on a regular basis, and takes into consideration unusual circumstances such as power outages or staff shortages.

3. The defendants shall establish a comprehensive library system.

4. Substance abuse services shall be provided.

5. Jobs shall be made available for sentenced and long-term detainees.

4/1/95 11/1/94
5/1/95 4/1/95 4/1/95

22

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

C. Excessive Force

1. Defendants shall develop a policy and procedures that strictly prohibit the use of force except in clearly defined appropriate circumstances.

2. All use of force incidents shall be visually supervised by the Shift Commander where feasible, and reported immediately.

^ 3 . A use of force report(s) shall be prepared by the staff

•

involved.

4. Medical personnel shall be notified immediately when there is a use of force incident or when prisoners are placed in restraints. The personnel shall immediately examine the inmate and prepare an injury report.

5. For a period of one year from entry of this agreement, all use of force incidents shall be videotaped and recorded where feasible.

6. All use of force reports, incident reports, injury reports, and videotapes shall be collected and forwarded to the Assistant Warden for review. They shall be preserved in an orderly manner and made available to plaintiffs' counsel for review on a periodic basis.

tffe - Any allegations of physical abuse shall be referred to the ^ * DOJ and plaintiffs' counsel for investigation.

4/1/95

23

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF
COMPLIANCE

D. Trainina Requirements

1. Orientation:

Policies and procedures shall be written that all new full-

time employees shall receive four hours of orientation

training before undertaking their assignments. Orientation

training shall include at a minimum the following:

orientation to the purpose, goals, policies and procedures of

the institution and parent agency, working conditions and

f

regulations, employees' rights and responsibilities, and an

overview of the correctional field. Depending on the

employee(s) and the particular job requirements, orientation

training may include preparatory instruction related to the

particular job.

4/1/95

2. Correctional Officers: Policies and procedures shall be written and practice shall provide that all new correctional officers receive an additional 12 0 hours of training during their first year of employment and an additional 40 hours of training each subsequent year of employment. At a minimum, this training shall cover the following areas: security procedures, supervision of inmates, signs of suicide risk, suicide precautions, use of force regulations, report writing, inmate rules and regulations, rights and responsibilities of inmates, fire and emergency procedures, safety procedures,
BKp firearms training, key control, interpersonal relations, social/cultural lifestyles of the inmate population, communication skills, and first aid.

4/1/95

VII. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Defendants shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

1/1/95

VIII. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
A. Defendants shall provide meat substitutes for prisoners who observe religious diets.

1/1/95 1

24

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF
COMPLIANCE

B. Defendants shall" allow prisoners to groom themselves in accordance with religious beliefs unless a medical risk exists in a specific case as defined by a physician.

C. Defendants shall offer congregate religious services.

D. Defendants shall allow prisoners to have items necessary to practice their religious beliefs, including but not limited to kufi skull caps and prayer rugs, unless a security risk exists in a specific case.

IX. LEGAL ACCESS

A. Policies and procedures shall be written, and practice instituted to ensure the right of inmates to have access to the courts. The right of access to the courts shall provide at a minimum that inmates have the right to present any issue, including the following: challenging the legality of their conviction or confinement, seeking redress for illegal conditions or treatment while under correctional control, pursuing remedies in connection with civil legal problems and asserting against correctional or other government authority any other rights protected by constitutional or statutory provision or common law. Inmates' seeking judicial relief shall not be subjected to reprisals or penalties because of the decision to seek such relief.

K#.3.

Policies and procedures shall be written and practice instituted to ensure and facilitate inmate access to counsel and assist inmates in making confidential contact with attorneys and their authorized representatives. Such contact includes, but is not limited to, unlimited phone communications, uncensored correspondence, and contact visuals.

1/1/95 1/1/95 1/1/95

25

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J P M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

C. Institutional authorities shall assist inmates in making confidential contact with attorneys and their authorized representatives. These representatives may include law students, special investigators, lay counsel, or other persons who have a legitimate connection with the legal issue being pursued. Provision shall be made for visits during normal institutional hours, uncensored correspondence, telephone communications, and additional hours outside of the routine schedule requested because of special circumstances.

1/1/95

D. Policies and procedures shall be written, and practice shall provide for the rights of inmates to have access to an appropriate law library and to paper, typewriters, and other supplies and services related to legal matters. The law library shall include at a minimum relevant and up-to-date constitutional, statutory, and case law materials, applicable court rules, and practice treatises. When an inmate is unable to make meaningful use of the law library on his or her own, the additional assistance necessary for effective access is provided.

4/1/95

X. MAIL, TELEPHONE AND VISITATION

A. Policies and procedures shall be written to govern inmate correspondence. They shall be available to all staff and inmates, and reviewed annually and updated as needed.

^ B.

Policies and procedures shall be written and institutional practice implemented to provide that indigent inmates, as defined in policy, receive a specified postage allowance to maintain community ties. An inmate without financial resources shall be provided the means to send a reasonable number of letters per month. Community ties include family, personal friends, but not privileged communication to attorneys, public officials and courts.

C. Policies and procedures shall be written and implemented to govern inmates' access to publications. Any restrictions on access to publications shall be directly related to maintenance of facility order and security.

1/1/95

26

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

D. Policies and procedures shall be written and instituted to provide that inmate mail, both incoming and outgoing personal, but not privileged legal mail, may be opened and inspected for contraband.

1/1/95

E. f

Defendants shall develop and institute written policies and procedures to provide for inmates' access to telephones. Telephone facilities shall permit reasonable and equitable access to all inmates and permit a reasonable amount of privacy. Procedures shall specify the hours during which the telephone is available, the maximum length of calls, and any limitation on calls.

F. Defendants shall develop and implement written policies and procedures that provide that the number of visitors an inmate may receive and the length of visits may be limited only by the facility's schedule, space and personal constraints or when there are substantial reasons to justify such limitations.

XI. MISCELLANEOUS
Halfway House: It is not the parties' intention that the services provided in this Agreement for the benefit of CJC prisoners shall be diminished in any respect by the opening of the Halfway House
0\ or other facilities.

Expansion of CJC: Any expansion of CJC into the first or second floors of the building shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, except that staffing levels shall be increased proportionately.

MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE
The following provisions shall be in effect immediately upon the execution of this Agreement:

27

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATE

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

A. The BOC shall post and maintain one copy of this Agreement in the CJC law library and in the dayroom of each housing cluster.

B. On 72 hours' notice to defendants, plaintiffs' counsel and their assistants shall have the right to meet freely and privately with individual prisoners at CJC in a contact visit area.

Defendants shall grant plaintiffs' counsel access to tour CJC to evaluate defendants' compliance with this Agreement, plaintiffs' counsel shall provide ten days' notice to defendants in advance of these tours.

D. For the purpose of monitoring this Settlement Agreement, the BOC agrees to permit meetings between plaintiffs' counsel and groups of CJC prisoners at a time on a monthly basis' at the CJC. This provision will in no way interfere with the right of plaintiffs' counsel to meet with their clients on an individual basis.

E. Upon request by plaintiffs' counsel, BOC shall grant plaintiffs' counsel, their assistants and consultants access to any documents that may demonstrate compliance or lack of compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

/ F. As of the effective date of this agreement, the defendants

•.

will begin the following periodic reports related to

compliance with this agreement to plaintiffs' counsel:

• quarterly population reports indicating the number of sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees held in each cluster, the number of inmates held in new admissions housing area(s), protective custody, infirmary, or medical isolation units,

• quarterly medical reports indicating the number of physical exams conducted, PPD tests administered, referrals to St. Thomas Hospital for emergency care and specialty clinics,

28

AREA OF COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

CONSENT

JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996

DECREE DATI

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D OF COMPLIANCE

• quarterly prisoners' medical grievances indicating the number of grievances filed on various medical care issues,
• quality assurance reports (as generated),
• quarterly statistics and narrative summaries of incidents involving assaults by prisoners and by staff, indicating the outcome of each incident,
• quarterly reports on use of force by CJC staff,
• quarterly food services reports (by Virgin Islands Division of Public Health),
• quarterly water quality reports (by BOC and Virgin Islands Departments of Planning and Natural Resources and Health) ,
• bi-monthly status reports on recruitment and hiring for positions covered by this agreement.
• sanitation reports (as generated by the Department of Health and Internal BOC Audit), and
• semi-annual law library inventories.

f~ MITORING AND COMPLIANCE, continued)
During each monitoring visit, defendants shall make available to plaintiffs' counsel, their assistants and consultants records and reports relevant to any of the matters described in this Agreement. These records shall also be available for review by consultants or experts working with plaintiffs' counsel. Among the documents to be produced are:
medical records of treatment provided to plaintiffs maintained by CJC staff and by St. Thomas Hospital, records of mental health care provided to plaintiffs at CJC or community mental health facilities, records of the death of any plaintiffs, either at CJC or at St. Thomas Hospital or local hospice facilities, copies of sick call request slips submitted by prisoners and daily lists of prisoners seen by medical staff, incident reports involving plaintiffs, use of force reports, staff disciplinary reports and referrals to outside agencies, logbooks and documents reflecting new admissions to CJC, and the number of prisoners attending daily recreating sessions and law library.

29

Plaintiffs' counsel shall have the authority to retain consultants to evaluate compliance with the terms of this Agreement in the technical areas of medical, dental and psychiatric care, environmental, fire and life safety, when they reasonably believe such assistance is necessary to assess compliance under the terms of this Agreement. Defendants will bear the cost of the reasonable fees arid expenses of these consultants in the event that plaintiffs' counsel are required to initiate enforcement proceedings.

All provisions of this decree which are not accompanied by an implementation date shall be implemented as soon as practicable and no later than January 1, 1996.

Counsel for the plaintiff class will bring any complaints of noncompliance to the attention of defendants' counsel prior to initiating any court action. The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve all such disputes between themselves in the first instance.

Defendants' counsel will notify counsel for the plaintiff class of any proposed modification of the rights and privileges accorded plaintiffs by this decree prior to seeking formal court approval for any such modifications. The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve all disputes concerning such modifications between themselves in the first instance.

If defendants are unable to implement fully the terms of this Agreement, despite their best efforts, plaintiffs are free to seek such other and further relief from the Court as may be necessary to bring about elimination of the conditions which this decree seeks to remedy. The defendants shall petition the Court for relief under F.R.C.P. 60 (b)(5) for changed circumstances that may arise that are outside the contemplation of the parties as set forth in this Agreement.

JURISDICTION

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to insure compliance with the foregoing

m.

provisions until such time as all provisions of this decree have been fully implemented and the court has

made a finding of substantial compliance.

ATTORNEYS' FEES

The parties agree to attempt to negotiate attorneys' fees and costs. Should the parties be unable to reach a settlement as to attorneys' fees and costs within 60 days of final approval of this decree, the matter shall be submitted to the Court for its determination, provided, however that this time period may be extended by stipulation of the parties if approved by the Court.

30

 
 Carty v. Farrelly

PC-VI Of rv o
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

LAWRENCE CARTY, a t a l . , Plaintiffs,
ALEXANDER A. FARRELLY, e t a l . , •Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-78

STIPULATION
The parties to the above-captioned class action hereby stipulate to the following modifications of the Settlement Agreement signed on October 12, 1994:
1. Section II. 11 21-32 at pages 7 - 10 require the Bureau of Corrections to develop policies, procedures and documentation regarding nutritionally adequate and sanitary food service delivery. The implementation date for each of these provisions is December 7, 1994.
2. Section II. 11 36-37 at pages 10 - 11 of the Agreement require the Bureau of Corrections to provide prisoners with specific linens and hygiene supplies upon their admission to CJC. December 7, 1994 shall be the implementation date for the provision of hygiene items in 1 37 and for sheets, towels, pillow and blankets in 1 36. Inasmuch as the population reduction will not take full effect until April 1. 1995, the portion of 1 36

requiring that mattresses be placed off the floors shall be in
effect as of April 1, 1995. As modified, 1 36 reads as follows
Effective December 1. 1994. each inmate shall be given at a minimum the following linens: two sheetB, one towel, one pillow, one blanket and a mattress. As of April l. 1995. mattresses shall be placed on a bed and not on the floor. There shall be procedures for linen and towel exchange and personal laundry on a weekly basis, at a minimum, as of December 7. 1994.
3. Paragraph 38 at page 11 requires a written plan and
regularly scheduled extermination services to combat roach and
rat infestation on a monthly basis, at minimum. The
implementation date for this provision is December 7, 1994.
The parties hereby adopt the modifications specified in
paragraphs 1 - 3 above.
Mark Lopez, Esq. Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.w. #410 Washington, D.C. 20009
32N234-48>«.
BBeenn>Amin A. Currence, P-C.
No.12 Norre Gade St. Thomad, US Virgin Islands (809) 775-3434
Attorneys for plaintiffB
Dated: December , 1994

1 b :jJ

Rosalie S. Ball^:ine, Esq. AttornW Gener«
BY: Elwood York, Esqi
Principal Assistant Attorney General as Attorney for Defendants
Virgin Islands Department of Justice 48B-50C Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, USVI 00802 (809) 774-5666
Dated:.

Kurt Walcott, Warden virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections 3008 Orange Grove St. Croix, VI 00802

Dated:

It is hereby ORDERED that the foregoing Stipulation is approved

and entered as the judgment of this Court on this

day of

December, 1994.

Honorable Stanley S. Brotman United States District Judge

 
 Carty v. Farrelly

• • V HI!

• » • • HV

HH

•

V

PC-VI-001-015

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

Lawrence Carty, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Alexander A. Farrelly, et al., Defendants.

CO

•

—(

m

Civil ActioriFfS*1-78 rr :
„••)
ORDER :

:

X

THIS MATTER having come before the court on the motion of the Plaintiffs, Lawrence Carty, et al. for an enlargement of time until August 7, 1996 to respond to the Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree in this matter and on the motion of the Plaintiffs for a stay of the automatic stay provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. S 3626(e)(2);
The court having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the authorities cited therein;
IT IS on this /yTjJaay of July, 1996 hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' motion for an enlargement of time is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' motion for stay of the automatic stay provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2), is GRANTED;

Accordingly, there shall be no stay of prospective relief in this matter and the parties shall continue to comply with the December 7, 1994 Settlement Agreement and subsequent Orders of this Court until further order of the Court.

ATTEST: ORINN F. ARNOLD Clerk of the Cour
y^fyt
Deputy Clerk

ST. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SITTING BY DESIGNATION

 
 Carty v. Farrelly

• • • • • • •• ••• iiaai • B I B I • • • • • wm m • • • •
PC-VI-001-016
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

LAWRENCE CARTY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ALEXANDER A. FARRELLY, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-78
)
) ) )

STIPULATION
The parties to the above-captipned class action hereby stipulate to the following modifications of the Settlement Agreement signed on October 12, 1994:
1. Section II. %^ 21-32 at pages 7 - 1 0 require the Bureau of Corrections to develop policies, procedures and documentation regarding nutritionally adequate and sanitary food service delivery. The implementation date for each of these provisions is December 7, 1994.
2. Section II. Hf 36-37 at pages 10 - 11 of the Agreement require the Bureau of Corrections to provide prisoners with specific linens and hygiene supplies upon their admission to CJC. December 7, 1994 shall be the implementation date for the . provision of hygiene items in 1 37 and for sheets, towels, pillow and blankets in U 36. Inasmuch as the population reduction will not take full effect until April 1,. 1995, the portion of f 36

requiring that mattresses be placed off the floors shall be in
effect as of April 1, 1995. As modified, 1 36 reads as follows:
Effective December 7. 1994. each inmate shall be given at a minimum the following linens: two sheets, one towel, one pillow, one blanket and a mattress. As of April 1, 1995. mattresses shall be placed on a bed and not on the floor. There shall be procedures for linen and towel exchange and personal laundry on a weekly basis, at a minimum, as of December 7, 1994.
3. Paragraph 38 at page 11 requires a written plan and
regularly scheduled extermination services to combat roach and
rat infestation on a monthly basis, at minimum. The
implementation date for this provision is December 7, 1994.
The parties hereby adopt the modifications specified in
paragraphs 1 - 3 above.

Dated: \

Marw. Lopez, Esq. \\ Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. #410 Washington, D.C. 20009
V 234-/M3 0
Bengjamin A. Currence, P.C. No.12 Norre Gade St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands (809) 775-3434
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

§. Elwood York, j Principal Assistant Attorney General
as Attorney tojf Defendants Virgin Islands Department of Justice 4 8B-50C Kronprindsens Gade St. Thomas, USVI 00802 (809) 774-5666
Dated:.

Kurt Walcott, Warden

'

"

Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections

3 008 Orange Grove

St. Croix, VI 00802

Dated:

It is hereby ORDERED that the foregoing Stipulation is approved

and entered as the judgment of this Court on this

day of

Honorable Stanley S. Brotman United States District Judge

 
 District Court of the Virgin Islands District of the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:94-cv-00078-CVG-RM

Carty, Lawrence v. De Jongh , John as Governor of the Virgin Islands Assigned to: District Judge Curtis V. Gomez Referred to: Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller Demand: $0

Date Filed: 06/20/1994 Date Terminated: 12/07/1994 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Lawrence Carty

represented by Eric Balaban National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street, N.W. 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-393-4930 Fax: 202-393-4931 Email: ebalaban@npp-aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin A Currence Law Offices of Benjamin A. Currence P.O.Box 6143 St Thomas, VI 00804 340-775-3434 Fax: 340-774-1001 Email: bencurrence@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeff Immel

represented by Eric Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mao Penha

represented by Eric Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dennis Swartz

represented by Eric Balaban (See above for address)

Plaintiff Penn, William Jr
Plaintiff On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic
V. Defendant Governor Kenneth E Mapp

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin A Currence (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade GERS Building St Thomas, VI 00802 340-774-5666 ext 101 Fax: 340-776-3494 Email: carol.jacobs@doj.vi.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Schrader , JR Virgin Islands Department of Justice 6040 Castle Coakley Christiansted, St Croix, VI 00820 340-773-0295 Fax: 340-773-1425 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari N D'Andrade Virgin Islands Department of Justice Design Centre Building 6040 Castle Coakley Christiansted, VI 00820 340-773-0295 Fax: 340-773-1425

Defendant
Julius Wilson Director of the Bureau of Corrections

Email: sdandrade@kellfer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ariel Marie Smith-Francois DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE 34-38 KONGENS GADE GERS BLDG ST. THOMAS, VI 00802 340-774-5666 ext 155 Fax: 340-776-3494 Email: ariel.smith-francois@doj.vi.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelvin Vidale P.O. Box 1302 Frederiksted, VI 00841-1302 340-772-3815 Email: kvidale@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Iver A. Stridiron Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority 1 LaGrande Princesse, BL-1 Christiansted,, VI 00820 340-777-3073 Fax: 340-777-3284 Email: istridiron@viwma.org TERMINATED: 11/01/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Schrader , JR (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari N D'Andrade (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelvin Vidale

Defendant Kurt Walcott
Defendant Fong, Viola A

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Iver A. Stridiron (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/03/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Schrader , JR (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari N D'Andrade (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelvin Vidale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Iver A. Stridiron (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/03/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari N D'Andrade (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Hedley Phillips Department of Justice Attorney General Office 34-38 Kongens Gade

Defendant Attorney General Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity
Defendant Warden Everett Hansen Criminal Justice Complex also known as Bureau of Corrections

St. Thomas, VI 00 340-774-5666 Fax: 340-776-3494 Email: gphillips@doj.vi.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelvin Vidale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Iver A. Stridiron (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/03/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Schrader , JR (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari N D'Andrade (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Hedley Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelvin Vidale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Schrader , JR (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shari N D'Andrade (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Hedley Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelvin Vidale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/20/1994 01/17/1996 01/17/1996 01/22/1996
01/25/1996 01/25/1996 01/25/1996 02/02/1996 02/12/1996 02/15/1996 03/21/1996 03/21/1996 04/17/1996

# Docket Text
Jams Calendar Events (Entered: 06/20/1994)
98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Entered: 01/17/1996)
98 SEE DOCKET CARD FOR PREVIOUS ENTRIES (Entered: 01/17/1996)
101 ORDER that this matter is hereby scheduled for a status conference with District Judge Stanley S. Brotman on Thursday, January 25, 1996 at 2:00 pm in the visiting Judge's chambers of the District Court in St. Croix eod 01/31/96 (Entered: 01/22/1996)
99 MOTION TO RECONSIDER by defendants (Entered: 01/25/1996)
100 MEMORANDUM in support of motion for reconsideration by defendants (Entered: 01/25/1996)
102 MOTION TO RECONSIDER by defendants (Entered: 01/25/1996)
103 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's motion for an Order to show cause by Defendants (Entered: 02/02/1996)
104 MOTION in opposition to defendants' memorandum in support of motion for reconsideration by plaintiffs (Entered: 02/12/1996)
105 REPLY to defendants' response to motion to show cause by plaintiffs (Entered: 02/15/1996)
106 MOTION (SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL) for reasonable Attorneys' Fees and expenses by plaintiffs eod 03/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 03/21/1996)
107 MEMORANDUM of law in support of second supplemental motion for reasonable Attorneys' fees and expenses by plaintiffs eod 03/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 03/21/1996)
108 OPPOSITION to plaintiffs' supplemental motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses by defendant eod 04/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 04/17/1996)

04/17/1996
04/23/1996 04/30/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/06/1996 05/07/1996 05/15/1996 05/16/1996 05/20/1996 05/20/1996
05/22/1996 05/24/1996 06/04/1996 06/13/1996 06/14/1996 06/14/1996

109 MEMORANDUM of Law in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' second supplemental motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses eod 04/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 04/17/1996)
110 OPPOSITION (SUPPLEMENTAL) to plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses eod 04/23/96 [CAB] (Entered: 04/23/1996)
111 REPLY to defendants' opposition and supplemental opposition to motion for reasonable Attorneys' fees by plaintiffs eod 05/01/96 [CAB] (Entered: 04/30/1996)
112 NOTICE of filing of Declaration of Benjamin A. Currence in support of plaintiff's objections to special Masters' Report eod 05/06/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/03/1996)
113 DECLARATION of Benjamin A. Currence in support of plaintiff's objections to special Master's Report eod 05/06/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/03/1996)
114 OBJECTION to special Master's Report by plaintiff eod 05/07/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/06/1996)
115 ORDER OF REFERENCE (SSB) 4/24/96 eod 05/08/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/07/1996)
116 OBJECTION to Special Master's Report by defendants eod 05/15/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/15/1996)
117 BRIEF addressing impact of prison litigation perform act upon order of reference by defendants eod 05/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/16/1996)
118 ORDER (SSB) eod 05/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/20/1996)
119 NOTICE ASSIGNS HEARING to 07/09/96 at 09:30AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m at the District Court in St. Croix. Parties should be prepared to offer evidence and present argument on the plaintiffs' outstanding motion for an order to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt. All attorneys must be present eod 05/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/20/1996)
120 IMPACT of the prison Litigation Reform Act on the appointment and compensation of the special master eod 05/23/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/22/1996)
121 MOTION to withdraw as counsel of record by Plaintiffs' Counsel, Mark J. Lopez eod 05/24/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/24/1996)
121 ORDER (SSB) 5/30/96 that such motion be granted eod 06/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/04/1996)
122 NOTICE to taking deposition Duces Tecum of representative of office of the Governor eod 06/14/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/13/1996)
123 NOTICE of depositions of Dr. James Austin and Michael Mahoney eod 06/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/14/1996)
124 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE eod 06/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/17/1996 06/17/1996 06/19/1996 06/20/1996 06/21/1996 06/24/1996 06/25/1996 06/27/1996 06/27/1996 07/03/1996 07/03/1996
07/03/1996 07/10/1996 07/10/1996
07/15/1996
07/17/1996

125 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER to Quash notice to take depositions Duces Tecum eod 06/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/17/1996)
126 NOTICE of Deposition Duces Tecum of Assistant Warden Agnes George on Thursday, June 20, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. eod 06/18/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/17/1996)
127 ORDER (SSB) 6/17/96 that the defendants motion for a protective order is denied eod 06/20/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/19/1996)
128 NOTICE (Amended) of taking deposition Duces Tecum of representative of office of the Governor eod 06/20/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/20/1996)
129 MOTION for protective order to quash notice to take depositions Duces Tecum by defendants eod 06/21/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/21/1996)
130 RESPONSE to defendants' motion for a protective order by plaintiffs eod 06/24/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/24/1996)
131 NOTICE of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Elwood York, Director of the Bureau of Corrections eod 06/26/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/25/1996)
132 NOTICE of taking deposition of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Wednesday, July 2, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. eod 06/27/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/27/1996)
133 NOTICE of taking deposition of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Wednesday, July 2, 1996 at 11:00 a.m. eod 06/27/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/27/1996)
134 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM eod 07/09/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/03/1996)
137 ORDER (SSB) that the testimony of the witness, Alfonso Lambertis, will be taken at the Federal Courthouse in St. Thomas at 1:00 pm on July 8, 1996; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of the hearing will take place, as previously scheduled, in the Federal Courthouse in St. Croix on July 9, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. eod 07/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/03/1996)
138 ORDER (SSB) 7/3/96 eod 07/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/03/1996)
135 MOTION to terminate the Consent Decree by defts. eod 07/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/10/1996)
136 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to terminate Consent Decree Pursuant to 1996 Amendments to 18 U.S.C. Section 3626 eod 07/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/10/1996)
139 MOTION for an enlargement of time in which to file a response to deft. mot. to terminate the consent decree & for a stay of the automatic stay provision of PLRA by pltf. eod 07/16/96 [CAD] (Entered: 07/15/1996)
140 ORDER (GWB) that the pltf. mot. for an enlargement of time is GRANTED. & that the pltfs. mot. for stay of the automatic stay provision of the prison litigation reform act, 18 U.S.C. 3636(E) (2) IS GRANTED. eod 07/23/96 [CAD] (Entered: 07/17/1996)

07/19/1996 08/06/1996 08/07/1996 08/13/1996 09/12/1996 09/12/1996
09/16/1996 09/27/1996 09/27/1996 10/03/1996 10/04/1996 10/08/1996 10/10/1996 10/15/1996 10/17/1996

141 RETURN of USM service dated issued to Elwood York (unexecuted) eod 07/23/96 [CAD] (Entered: 07/19/1996)
142 STIPULATION (entered but not docketed) eod 08/07/96 [CAB] (Entered: 08/06/1996)
143 MEMORANDUM in response to defendants' motion to terminate the Consent Decree by plaintiffs eod 08/08/96 [CAB] (Entered: 08/07/1996)
144 OBJECTION to Special Master's July 18, 1996 report by plaintiffs eod 08/14/96 [CAB] (Entered: 08/13/1996)
146 ORDER (SSB) 9/6/96 that the time within which the Plaintiffs' may respond to Report No. 2 of the Special Master herein is extended to August 6, 1996 eod 09/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/12/1996)
147 ORDER (SSB) 9/4/96 Authorizing Clerk to make payment; that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s) $3789.45 to Michael Mahoney eod 09/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/12/1996)
145 ORDER (SSB) 9/11/96 Notice of hearing before Judge Stanley S. Brotman on Wednesday, October 30, 1996 at 8:45 a.m. at the District Court in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands eod 09/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/16/1996)
148 NOTICE and MOTION of the United States of America to intervene Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(a) and Memorandum in support eod 09/30/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/27/1996)
149 ORDER (SSB) 9/27/96 eod 10/03/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/27/1996)
150 NOTICE of appearance of Maureen Phelan Cormier eod 10/04/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/03/1996)
151 ORDER (SSB) 10/01/96 that the Motion of the United States of America to Intervene Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S2403(a) is GRANTED eod 10/07/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/04/1996)
152 NOTICE of appearance of Assistant Attorney General, Cornelius D. Williams, Jr. eod 10/09/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/08/1996)
153 MEMORANDUM of Law of the United States of America with respect to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act eod 10/10/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/10/1996)
154 REQUEST to enter and inspect premises by plaintiffs eod 10/15/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/15/1996)
155 MOTION (Third Supplemental) for reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses by Plaintiffs eod 10/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/17/1996)

10/24/1996
10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/29/1996 10/29/1996 10/29/1996 10/29/1996 10/31/1996 11/01/1996 11/15/1996 11/15/1996 11/18/1996 11/19/1996
11/19/1996 11/19/1996 11/21/1996

156 BRIEF in response to memorandum of law of the United States with respect to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act by plaintiffs eod 10/25/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/24/1996)
157 NOTICE of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Thursday, October 31, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. eod 10/29/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/28/1996)
158 NOTICE of taking Depositioin Duces Tecum of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Thursday, October 31, 1996 at 11:00 a.m. eod 10/29/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/28/1996)
159 NOTICE of taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Thursday, October 31, 1996 at 12:00 eod 10/29/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/28/1996)
160 NOTICE (Revised) of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Mr. Nellon Bowry eod 10/30/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1996)
161 NOTICE (Revised) of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Nellie Varlack eod 10/30/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1996)
162 NOTICE (Revised) of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Ms. Anise Hodge eod 10/30/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1996)
163 NOTICE of hearing on motion (SSB) 10/25/96 eod 10/31/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1996)
164 OBJECTION (s) to Special Master's Third Report by plaintiffs eod 11/01/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/31/1996)
165 OBJECTION to Subpoena by defendants eod 11/04/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/01/1996)
166 NOTICE of Motion by defendant eod 11/18/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/15/1996)
167 MOTION to extend deadline by defendants eod 11/18/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/15/1996)
169 MOTION for Leave to Amend by substituting successor in office eod 11/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/18/1996)
168 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 11/7/96 Hearing on application by Government to terminate consent agreement. Decision Reserved. Hearing on application by plt. to amend complaint. Ordered application Granted. Order to be submitted by Counsel eod 11/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/19/1996)
170 NOTICE or recent decision submitted by Intervenor The United States of America eod 11/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/19/1996)
171 ORDER (SSB) 11/19/96 that Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline is Denied eod 11/20/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/19/1996)
172 ORDER (SSB) 11/20/96 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s), $9,573.78 to Robert E. Glotz eod 11/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/21/1996)

11/22/1996 11/22/1996 11/25/1996 11/26/1996 12/10/1996 12/10/1996 12/13/1996 12/13/1996 12/23/1996
01/08/1997
01/14/1997 01/14/1997 01/30/1997
01/30/1997 02/12/1997

173 OPPOSITION to Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline by Plaintiffs eod 11/25/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/22/1996)
174 ORDER (SSB) 11/19/96 that Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline is DENIED eod 11/25/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/22/1996)
176 ORDER (SSB) 11/22/96 Granting leave to amend by substituting successors in office eod 12/02/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/25/1996)
175 MOTION for Modification of Consent Decree and supporting Memorandum of Law by The Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections eod 11/26/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/26/1996)
177 POST-HEARING BRIEF by plaintiffs eod 12/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/10/1996)
178 OPPOSITION to defendants' motion for modification of Consent Decree eod 12/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/10/1996)
179 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW by defendants eod 12/13/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/13/1996)
180 MOTION (Supplemental) for modification of Consent Degree and supporting Memorandum of Law eod 12/13/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/13/1996)
181 ORDER (SSB) 12/16/96 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices, the follwing: a. $4116.67 to Sonia I. Oquendo, M.D., M.P.H. eod 12/26/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/23/1996)
182 ORDER (SSB) 12/23/96 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices, the following: a. $2475.84 to NCCD & Darlene C. Grant, Esq., Special Master eod 01/09/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/08/1997)
183 ORDER (SSB) 1/6/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices(s), $23,118.10 to NCCD & Darlene C. Grant, Esq. eod 01/15/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/14/1997)
184 ORDER (SSB) 1/6/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay $4067.42 to NCCD & James Austin eod 01/15/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/14/1997)
185 ORDER (SSB) 1/29/97 that defendants' motion to modify the Settlement Agreement is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to hold defendants in civil contempt is GRANTED; See doc. for more information eod 01/31/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/30/1997)
186 OPINION (SSB) 1/29/97 on motions pertaining to the Settlement Agreement eod 01/31/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/30/1997)
187 LETTER to Judge Brotman by John Schumann eod 02/12/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/12/1997)

02/18/1997 02/20/1997 02/20/1997 02/24/1997 02/28/1997 03/07/1997 03/07/1997 03/19/1997 03/27/1997 03/27/1997 04/01/1997 04/01/1997 04/28/1997
07/14/1997
09/04/1997
09/15/1997
09/16/1997

188 MOTION (Fourth Supplemental) for reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses by plaintiffs eod 02/19/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/18/1997)
189 NOTICE of Motion eod 02/25/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/20/1997)
190 MOTION to Extend deadline by defendants eod 02/25/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/20/1997)
191 ORDER (SSB) 2/21/97 that Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART eod 02/25/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/24/1997)
192 OPPOSITION to Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline by plaintiffs eod 03/03/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/28/1997)
193 MOTION for Reconsideration by defendants eod 03/10/97 [CAB] (Entered: 03/07/1997)
194 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Reconsideration (Preamble) eod 03/10/97 [CAB] (Entered: 03/07/1997)
195 OPPOSITION to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Introduction eod 03/20/97 [CAB] (Entered: 03/19/1997)
196 APPEARANCE of Gina C. Harrison, Esq. eod 03/27/97 [CAB] (Entered: 03/27/1997)
197 WITNESS LIST by defendant eod 03/27/97 [CAB] (Entered: 03/27/1997)
198 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 3/31/97 Hearing on Motion for sanctions and application for fees; Decision reserved eod 04/01/97 [CAB] (Entered: 04/01/1997)
199 QUARTERLY Compliance Report No. 4 (DCG, Esq.) Special Master eod 04/01/97 [CAB] (Entered: 04/01/1997)
200 ORDER (SSB) 4/29/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s), $13,917.60 to NCCD & Darlene C. Grant, Esq. eod 04/29/97 [CAB] (Entered: 04/28/1997)
201 ORDER (SSB) that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said fund, in accordance with the attached invoice $43,132.59 eod 07/18/97 [CAD] (Entered: 07/14/1997)
202 ORDER (SSB) 8/20/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices(s) $16,748.62 to NCCD & Darlene C. Grant, Esq. eod 09/04/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/04/1997)
204 ORDER (SSB) 9/9/97 that Darlene Grant's term as Special Master be extended retroactively from April 30, 1997 until December 31, 1997 under the same terms provided by the Order of Reference eod 09/16/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/15/1997)
203 MOTION of defendants to extend time to respond to Special Master Report No. 5 eod 09/16/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/16/1997)

09/17/1997 09/17/1997
09/22/1997
09/29/1997
09/29/1997
09/30/1997 09/30/1997 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 10/23/1997
10/24/1997 10/27/1997 10/27/1997 10/27/1997 10/27/1997
10/27/1997

205 OPPOSITION to Special Master's Compliance Report No. 5 by plaintiffs eod 09/17/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/17/1997)
206 DECLARATION of Benjamin A. Currence in support of plaintiff's objections to Special Master's Quarterly Compliance Report No. 5 eod 09/17/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/17/1997)
207 ORDER (SSB) 9/16/97 that the defendants be and hereby are allowed until the 30th day of September, 1997 to file response to Special Master Report No. Five. Ref. 9/16/97 Motion eod 09/23/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/22/1997)
208 ORDER (SSB) 9/25/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with item 10/12/96 in attached invoice, $500.00 to Sonia I. Oquendo, M.D. eod 09/30/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/29/1997)
209 ORDER (SSB) 9/26/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices(s), $5845.96 to NCCD & Darlene C. Grant, Esq. eod 09/30/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/29/1997)
210 OPPOSITION to Special Master Compliance Report No. 5 by defendants eod 09/30/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/30/1997)
211 OPPOSITION (Supplemental) to Special Master Report No. 5 by plaintiffs eod 10/01/97 [CAB] (Entered: 09/30/1997)
212 MOTION for expedited discovery by plaintiffs eod 10/22/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/21/1997)
213 INTERROG (Second Set) and request for production of documents by plaintiffs eod 10/22/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/21/1997)
215 ORDER (SSB) 10/20/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices(s) $2466.90 to Robert E. Glotz eod 10/27/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/23/1997)
214 OPPOSITION to plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery by defendants eod 10/24/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/24/1997)
216 WITNESS LIST eod 10/28/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/27/1997)
217 NOTICE of service of defendants' interrogatories to plaintiff eod 10/28/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/27/1997)
218 LETTER eod 10/28/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/27/1997)
219 ORDER (SSB) 10/24/97 that the Clerk of the Dis;trict Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, $4,103.30 to NCCD & James Austin eod 10/28/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/27/1997)
220 LETTER eod 10/28/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/27/1997)

10/27/1997 10/29/1997 12/02/1997 12/02/1997 12/10/1997 01/07/1998 02/06/1998 02/11/1998 02/11/1998 02/11/1998 02/20/1998
03/31/1998 04/03/1998

221 ORDER (SSB) 10/24/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s) $17,580.47 to NCCD & Darlene Grant, Esq. eod 10/28/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/27/1997)
222 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 10/28/97 Matter came on for Hearing on Motions & Application for legal fees. Matter cont'd to 10/29/97 at 9:00 a.m. in Chambers. Court Reporter D. Rivas eod 10/29/97 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1997)
223 OPINION (SSB) 11/26/97 on Sanctions for Civil Contempt eod 12/10/97 [CAB] (Entered: 12/02/1997)
224 ORDER (SSB) 11/26/97 that plaintiffs' motion to impose monetary sanctions on defendants is DENIED eod 12/10/97 [CAB] (Entered: 12/02/1997)
225 ORDER (SSB) 12/10/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s) $2,006.65 to Robert E. Glotz eod 12/22/97 [CAB] (Entered: 12/10/1997)
226 ORDER (SSB) 12/19/97 that Darlene Grant's term as Special Master be extended from December 31, 1997 until June 31, 1998 under the same terms provided by the Order of Reference eod 01/07/98 [CAB] (Entered: 01/07/1998)
228 ORDER (SSB) 2/6/98 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virigin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s) $51,953.83 to NCCD & Darlene Grant, Esq. eod 02/12/98 [CAB] (Entered: 02/06/1998)
227 LETTER eod 02/12/98 [CAB] (Entered: 02/11/1998)
229 LETTER eod 02/12/98 [CAB] (Entered: 02/11/1998)
230 ORDER (SSB) 2/6/98 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s) $3,604.33 to Robert E. Glotz eod 02/12/98 [CAB] (Entered: 02/11/1998)
231 ORDER (SSB) 2/17/98 that defendants shall pay to attorneys for plaintiffs the total sum of One Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollary ($190,000.00) in satisfaction of Plaintiffs' Second, Third and Fourth Supplemental Applications for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses covering work performed through February 6, 1997; and, It is further Ordered that defendants pay the full amount of One Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($190,000.00) to the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation no later than March 13, 1998. Interest shall accrue in accordance with applicable provisions of Virgin Islands Law beginning March 14, 1998 eod 02/23/98 [CAB] (Entered: 02/20/1998)
232 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO (UNOPPOSED) file their Objections to Special Master Grant's Compliance Report Number 6. eod 04/01/98 [CAB] (Entered: 03/31/1998)
233 ORDER (SSB) 3/31/98 that plaintiffs and defendants may file their Objections to Special Master Grant's Report No. 6 no later than Apirl 13, 1998 eod 04/07/98 [CAB] (Entered: 04/03/1998)

04/09/1998 04/14/1998 04/15/1998 05/11/1998 05/11/1998 05/15/1998 06/25/1998 07/17/1998
07/21/1998 07/21/1998 07/30/1998 09/24/1998
10/14/1998

234 OPPOSITION to special master compliance report No. 6 by defts. eod 04/09/98 [CAD] (Entered: 04/09/1998)
235 OBJECTION to special master's compliance Report No. 6 by plaintiffs eod 04/15/98 [CAB] (Entered: 04/14/1998)
236 DECLARATION of Benjamin A. Currence in support of plaintiff's objections to special master's quarterly compliance Report No. 6 eod 04/16/98 [CAB] (Entered: 04/15/1998)
237 ORDER (SSB) 5/6/98 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices(s), $4658.00 to NCCD & Darlene Grant, Esq. Special Master eod 05/12/98 [CAB] (Entered: 05/11/1998)
238 LETTER eod 05/12/98 [CAB] (Entered: 05/11/1998)
239 ORDER ASSIGNS HEARING to 06/10/98 at 11:00AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m Inspection of St. thomas Criminal Justice Complex and half-way house at 9:00 a.m. eod 05/18/98 [CAB] (Entered: 05/15/1998)
240 APPEARANCE of co-counsel Ernest F. Batenga, Esq. on behalf of defendants eod 06/25/98 [CAB] (Entered: 06/25/1998)
241 ORDER (SSB) that Darlene Grant appointment was recently extended by this courts order of 12/19/97, from 12/31/97 until 6/30/98 & that Darlene Grant's appointment is due to expire on 6/30/98 & that the ext. of Darlene Grant appointment can only be accomplished by leave of court as stated by the order of reference & that all parties have approved of the ext. of Darlene Grant's appointment beyond the 6/30/98 expiration date & Darlene Grant's term as Special Master be extended from 6/30/98 until 12/31/98 under the same terms provided by the order of reference. eod 07/21/98 [CAD] (Entered: 07/17/1998)
242 MOTION for reasonable atty fees & expenses by pltf. (suppl.) fifth eod 07/22/98 [CAD] (Entered: 07/21/1998)
243 MEMORANDUM of law in support of pltf. first suppl. mot. for reasonable atty. fees & expenses eod 07/22/98 [CAD] (Entered: 07/21/1998)
244 ORDER (SSB) 7/27/98 that the Clerk of the District Court of the V.I. shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice a. $998.00 to James J. Balsamo, Jr., b. 9,951.49 to Darlene Grant, Esq. eod 07/31/98 [CAD] (Entered: 07/30/1998)
245 ORDER (SSB) 9/16/98 Matter scheduled before the Honorable Stanley S Brotman, U.S. District Judge on Friday, November 6, 1998 as follows: (1) 9:00 a.m. Inspection of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and half-way house. (2) 11:00 a.m.: Hearing on (a) objections to report of Special Master; (b) termination of modification of Consent Order eod 09/28/98 [CAB] (Entered: 09/24/1998)
246 ORDER (SSB) 10/9/98 by the Court sua sponte that the defendants appear before this Court on the 6th day of November, 1998 at 11:00 a.m. to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failure to pay invoices in the amount of FiftyThree Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars and Seventy Cents

11/06/1998
11/09/1998
11/10/1998 11/30/1998 11/30/1998 11/30/1998 12/09/1998 12/16/1998
12/16/1998 12/21/1998 01/06/1999 01/26/1999 01/29/1999

($53,987.70), pursuant to Schedule A attached hereto eod 10/15/98 [CAB] (Entered: 10/14/1998)
248 ORDER (SSB) that the sum of $4,407.84 be paid out of the Special Master's Account to Darlene Grant, Esq., Special Master, as an advance against the balance as may be determined on the above referenced invoices eod 11/12/98 [CAB] (Entered: 11/06/1998)
249 ORDER (SSB) 11/9/98 that within ten days, Defendants shall pay to Plaintiffs' attorneys the sum of $50,000 as an advance in partial payment of the fees and costs billed by Plaintiffs on July 17, 1998. This sum shall be a credit against the final amount of fees and costs billed but not yet resolved by the Court or the parties eod 11/12/98 [CAB] (Entered: 11/09/1998)
247 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 11/6/98 Status Conf. The Court is willing to issue an Order for partial payment. Report by the Special Master is received. The Court will enter an Order in the matter eod 11/10/98 [CAB] (Entered: 11/10/1998)
250 MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by defendant eod 11/30/98 [CAB] (Entered: 11/30/1998)
251 MOTION to disqualify special master Darlene C. Grant eod 11/30/98 [CAB] (Entered: 11/30/1998)
252 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in support of defendants motion to disqualify special master Darlene C. Grant eod 11/30/98 [CAB] (Entered: 11/30/1998)
253 STIPULATED Motion for enlargement of time to respond to defendants' motion to disquality special master eod 12/10/98 [CAB] (Entered: 12/09/1998)
254 ORDER (SSB) 12/8/98 that Counsel to the Attorney General Ernest F. Batenga be withdrawn as counsel of record and that Assistant Attorney General Cisselon S. Nichols be substituted as counsel of record eod 12/21/98 [CAB] (Entered: 12/16/1998)
255 ORDER (SSB) that Plaintiffs' Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Disqualify Special Master Darlene Grant is GRANTED eod 12/21/98 [CAB] (Entered: 12/16/1998)
256 OPPOSITION to defendants' motion to disqualify special master Darlene Grant eod 12/21/98 [CAB] (Entered: 12/21/1998)
257 RESPONSE to plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to disqualify special master Darlene Grant eod 01/06/99 [CAB] (Entered: 01/06/1999)
258 MOTION TO WITHDRAW their motion to show cause by plaintiffs eod 01/26/99 [CAB] (Entered: 01/26/1999)
259 ORDER (SSB) 1/27/99 that this issue together with the Motion to Disqualify Special Master Darlene Grant filed by Cisselon Nichols, Assistant Attorney General, be REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Resnick for resolution and, if necessary, report and recommendation eod 02/02/99 [CAB] (Entered: 01/29/1999)

01/29/1999 01/29/1999 02/07/1999 02/16/1999 02/24/1999
02/24/1999 03/19/1999 03/19/1999 03/19/1999 03/22/1999 03/23/1999 03/26/1999
03/29/1999 04/15/1999 04/15/1999

260 ORDER (SSB) 1/21/99 that Darlene Grant's term as Special Master be extended from December 31, 1998 until June 30, 1999 under the same terms provided by the Order of Reference eod 02/02/99 [CAB] (Entered: 01/29/1999)
261 ORDER (SSB) 1/21/99 that the caption of the within matter be AMENDED to substitute Charles W. Turnbull in place of Roy L. Schneider eod 02/02/99 [CAB] (Entered: 01/29/1999)
291 COURTROOM MINUTES ASSIGNS CONF (TELEPHONIC) to 02/29/00 at 02:00PM Room 310 (SSB) c/m eod 02/08/00 [CAB] (Entered: 02/07/1999)
262 ORDER (JLR) 2/16/99 that the defendants' motion to disqualify Special Master Darlene Grant will be heard on Friday, March 12, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. at Magistrate Court eod 02/23/99 [CAB] (Entered: 02/16/1999)
263 ORDER ASSIGNS HEARING to 04/15/99 at 11:00AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m On objections to report of Special Master; termination or modification of Concent Order; informal discussions with Attorney General Stridiron, all Counsel and the Director of Corrections eod 02/25/99 [CAB] (Entered: 02/24/1999)
263 Inspection of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and half-way house on Thursday, April 15, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Stanley S. Brotman, U.S. District Judge eod 02/25/99 [CAB] (Entered: 02/24/1999)
265 EXHIBIT on motion to disqualify Special Master eod 03/24/99 [CAB] (Entered: 03/19/1999)
266 NOTICE OF FILING of Report and Recommendation eod 03/24/99 [CAB] (Entered: 03/19/1999)
267 REPORT and RECOMMENDATION (JLR) 3/19/99 eod 03/24/99 [CAB] (Entered: 03/19/1999)
268 NOTICE of Correction (JLR) 3/22/99 Gov. Ex. 6 (98-6 was incorrect) eod 03/24/99 [CAB] (Entered: 03/22/1999)
264 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (Reporter Delores S. Rivas) Hearing on motion to disqualify special master before the Honorable Jeffrey Resnick District Judge eod 03/23/99 [CAB] (Entered: 03/23/1999)
269 ORDER (SSB) 3/22/99 that the deft. shall pay into the appropriate account in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the V.I. the sum of $1,224.80 & that the clerk of the District Court of the V.I. upon receipt of said funds, shall pay the following in accordance with the attached invoice $1,224.80 to James J. Balsamo Jr. eod 03/26/99 [CAD] (Entered: 03/26/1999)
270 OBJECTION to report and recommendation by defts eod 03/29/99 [CAB] (Entered: 03/29/1999)
271 OBJECTION to special master's compliance Report No. 7 by pltfs. eod 04/15/99 [CAB] (Entered: 04/15/1999)
272 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE eod 04/15/99 [CAB] (Entered: 04/15/1999)

04/15/1999 04/16/1999 04/23/1999 05/26/1999 06/03/1999 06/23/1999 07/29/1999
07/30/1999 09/03/1999
10/25/1999
11/04/1999 11/04/1999 12/02/1999 12/06/1999 12/08/1999

274 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of hearing held on March 12, 1999. Court Reporter Valerie Lawrence eod 04/21/99 [CAB] (Entered: 04/15/1999)
273 RESPONSE of the Special Master to Government's objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation with points and authorities eod 04/20/99 [CAB] (Entered: 04/16/1999)
275 INFORMATIONAL MOTION correcting the response of the special master to Government's objection to the Magistrate's report and recommendation with points and authorities eod 04/23/99 [CAB] (Entered: 04/23/1999)
276 REPORT Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report No. 7 eod 05/26/99 [CAB] (Entered: 05/26/1999)
277 ORDER (SSB) 6/1/99 that the defendants shall pay into the appropriate account in the Office of the Clerk of the District court of the Virgin Island the sum of $11,338.20 eod 06/07/99 [CAB] (Entered: 06/03/1999)
278 MOTION for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses by plaintiffs eod 06/24/99 [CAB] (Entered: 06/23/1999)
280 ORDER (SSB) 7/28/99 that defts. shall pay to the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation the total sum of $21,425.40 in satisfaction of pltf. mot. for reasonable attorney fees & expenses no later than 8/28/99 Interest shall accrue in accordance with applicable provisions of Virgin Islands Law. eod 08/02/99 [CAD] (Entered: 07/29/1999)
279 MOTION to deem conceded mot. for reasonable attorneys fees & expenses by pltf. eod 08/02/99 [CAD] (Entered: 07/30/1999)
281 ORDER (SSB) 9/1/99 that the Government of the Virgin Islands shall deposit with the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands monies in the sum of $1050.00 no later than September 10, 1999 Rec'd 9/8/99 eod 09/08/99 [CAB] (Entered: 09/03/1999)
282 ORDER (SSB) 10/21/99 that the defendants appear before this Court on the 9th day of December, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failure to pay invoices in the amount of ($13,613.00) pursuant to Schedule A attached hereto, and for failure to comply with the consent order. eod 10/26/99 [CAB] (Entered: 10/25/1999)
283 MOTION PRO HAC VICE of Donna H. Lee, Esq. eod 11/04/99 [CAB] (Entered: 11/04/1999)
284 DECLARATION of Donna H. Lee eod 11/04/99 [CAB] (Entered: 11/04/1999)
285 EXPERT REPORT of James J. Balsamo eod 12/03/99 [CAB] (Entered: 12/02/1999)
286 EVALUATION of HealthCare Services At The Criminal Justice Complex St. Thomas, USVI eod 12/07/99 [CAB] (Entered: 12/06/1999)
287 RETURN of service issued to Mr. Frank Buholz eod 12/08/99 [CAB] (Entered: 12/08/1999)

12/09/1999 12/17/1999 01/19/2000
04/04/2000 04/24/2000
05/30/2000 05/30/2000 06/05/2000 06/05/2000 06/28/2000
07/17/2000 08/02/2000
08/15/2000 08/15/2000 09/06/2000
09/11/2000 09/11/2000

288 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) Matter convened on Order as to why defendant not be held in contempt. eod 12/09/99 [CAB] (Entered: 12/09/1999)
289 ORDER (SSB) Authorizing Clerk to make payment eod 12/17/99 [CAB] (Entered: 12/17/1999)
290 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 12/30/99 Continued (telephonic) motion on Order to Show Cause why defts. should not be held in contempt. Hearing continued until January 31, 2000 @ 2:00 PM. eod 01/20/00 [CAB] (Entered: 01/19/2000)
292 COURTROOM MINUTES ASSIGNS CONF to 04/18/00 at 09:30AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m eod 04/04/00 [CAB] (Entered: 04/04/2000)
293 COURTROOM MINUTES ASSIGNS CONF (TELEPHONIC) to 05/16/00 at 09:30AM Room 000 (SSB) c/m (Reporter Frank Gable) eod 04/24/00 [CAD] (Entered: 04/24/2000)
294 MOTION for admission pro hac vice of Eric G. Balaban, Esq. eod 05/30/00 [CAB] (Entered: 05/30/2000)
295 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban eod 05/30/00 [CAB] (Entered: 05/30/2000)
296 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 6/1/00 Telephone Conference held. eod 06/06/00 [CAB] (Entered: 06/05/2000)
296 COURTROOM MINUTES ASSIGNS CONF (TELEPHONIC) to 07/12/00 at 04:00PM Room 310 (SSB) c/m eod 06/06/00 [CAB] (Entered: 06/05/2000)
297 ORDER Scheduling Inspection of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Annex for 9:00 a.m. 8/2/00 and Continuation of the 12/9/99 Contempt Hearing at 11:00 a.m. eod 06/29/00 [CAB] (Entered: 06/28/2000)
298 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) Telephonic Conference held before Judge Brotman on 7/13/00 at 10:00 a.m. eod 07/18/00 [CAB] (Entered: 07/17/2000)
299 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) matter came on for contempt hearing. Court set hearing in ninety days; Three maintence workers to be hired within sixty days. (Reporter S. Miller) eod 08/07/00 [CAD] (Entered: 08/02/2000)
300 MOTION (seventh supplemental) for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses by plaintiffs eod 08/16/00 [CAB] (Entered: 08/15/2000)
301 MEMORANDUM of Law in support of plaintiffs' seventh supplemental motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses eod 08/16/00 [CAB] (Entered: 08/15/2000)
302 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Expenses by Govt. of the Virgin Islands eod 09/07/00 [CAB] (Entered: 09/06/2000)
303 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 9/7/00 Telephone Conference held 9/7/00 eod 09/12/00 [CAB] (Entered: 09/11/2000)
303 COURT REPORTER: Frank Gable eod 09/12/00 [CAB] (Entered: 09/11/2000)

09/12/2000 09/12/2000
09/28/2000
09/29/2000 09/29/2000 10/18/2000 10/24/2000 11/28/2000 11/28/2000 11/29/2000
12/04/2000 12/04/2000 12/15/2000 12/15/2000

304 ORDER (SSB) 9/8/00 that the Government of the Virgin Islands has until 9/30/00 to file a responsive pleading in this matter eod 09/14/00 [CAB] (Entered: 09/12/2000)
305 ORDER (SSB) 9/7/00 Defendants shall complete construction at the Annex no later than 11/1/00. Defts. shall install working phones in each housing cluster of the CJC and Annex no later than 11/1/00. No later than 10/2/00 defendants shall hire two (2) additional FTE maintenance workers for the CJC and Annex to make repairs and to implement a preventive program. (Refer to Order for more information) eod 09/14/00 [CAB] (Entered: 09/12/2000)
306 ORDER (SSB) 9/20/00 Defts. shall ensure timely and appropriate administration of medications to prisoners at the CJC and Annex. Defts. shall conduct a utilization review of medications prescribed to CJC and Annex prisoners in order to determine the amount of quarterly payments to be made to the vendor. By October 20, 2000 Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs and the Court with a copy of their procurement agreement with the vendor. eod 09/28/00 [CAB] (Entered: 09/28/2000)
307 DECLARATION under penalty and perjury by Benjamin A. Currence, Esq. eod 10/02/00 [CAB] (Entered: 09/29/2000)
308 MOTION in opposition to plaintiff's motion for reasonable attorneys fees and expenses eod 10/02/00 [CAB] (Entered: 09/29/2000)
309 REPLY brief in support of plaintiffs' seventh supplemental motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and exepenses eod 10/19/00 [CAB] (Entered: 10/18/2000)
310 ORDER ASSIGNS HEARING to 12/20/00 at 09:00AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m eod 10/25/00 [CAB] (Entered: 10/24/2000)
311 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 11/20/00 Telephonic Conference eod 11/28/00 [CAB] (Entered: 11/28/2000)
311 COURT REPORTER: Ted Formaroli eod 11/28/00 [CAB] (Entered: 11/28/2000)
312 ORDER (SSB) 11/27/00 By December 4, 2000, Defendants shall submit to the Court and to Plaintiffs a memorandum of understanding describing the roles and responsibilities of the fire and police departments, as well as of BOC personnel, in the event of a fire or other emergency at the CJC or Annex eod 12/04/00 [CAB] (Entered: 11/29/2000)
313 OPINION MEMORANDUM (SSB) 11/30/00 on plaintiffs' counsel's Seventh Supplemental Motion for Resonably Attorney's Fees and Expenses eod 12/04/00 [CAB] (Entered: 12/04/2000)
314 ORDER (SSB) 11/30/00 that the plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses is GRANTED eod 12/04/00 [CAB] (Entered: 12/04/2000)
315 REPORT of James Balsamo entitled Environmental Health and Safety Inspection of the St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex eod 12/15/00 [CAB] (Entered: 12/15/2000)
316 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 12/12/00 Telephonic Conference eod 12/15/00 [CAB] (Entered: 12/15/2000)

12/15/2000 01/08/2001 01/10/2001 01/16/2001 01/22/2001
01/22/2001 01/22/2001 01/23/2001 01/31/2001
01/31/2001
01/31/2001
03/01/2001
03/01/2001 03/13/2001 03/13/2001 03/13/2001

316 COURT REPORTER: Frank Gable eod 12/15/00 [CAB] (Entered: 12/15/2000)
317 NOTICE of Change of Address by Eric Balaban Counsel for Plaintiffs eod 01/09/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/08/2001)
318 MOTION for modification of scheduling order by pltfs. eod 01/10/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/10/2001)
319 OPPOSITION to plaintiff's modification of scheduling order by defendants eod 01/16/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/16/2001)
320 ORDER (SSB) 1/18/01 RE: Hearing held on December 20, 2000; Defts. shall extend Dr. Braslow's term for an additional 120 days, effective from the date of this Order. See Order for additional info. eod 01/22/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/22/2001)
321 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 1/18/01 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE eod 01/23/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/22/2001)
321 COURT REPORTER: Ted Formaroli eod 01/23/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/22/2001)
322 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of Hearing RE: continuation of the December 9, 1999 contempt hearing eod 01/23/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/23/2001)
323 ORDER (SSB) that the Defts. shall submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law 14 days after the Plaintiff's have submitted its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Court eod 02/01/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/31/2001)
324 ORDER (SSB) 1/30/01 that the Government of the Virgin Islands shall deposit with the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands the amount of $35,646.80, for payment of Darlene Grant-Bruce, Esq., no later than 2/15/01 eod 02/01/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/31/2001)
325 ORDER (SSB) 1/26/01 that Defendants shall pay ADT the funds necessary to install and maintain a fully functioning smoke detection and fire alarm system at the CJC and Annex; Defts. shall hire and retain sufficient custody staff to perform duties; Refer to Order for more info. eod 02/01/01 [CAB] (Entered: 01/31/2001)
326 ORDER (SSB) 2/28/01 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall forward the above-referenced check, via Federal Express, to Darlene Grant-Bruce, Esq., at 210 West 137th Street (basement gate), New York, NY 10030 eod 03/01/01 [CAB] (Entered: 03/01/2001)
327 LETTER from Judge Brotman eod 03/01/01 [CAB] (Entered: 03/01/2001)
328 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW by pltfs. eod 03/13/01 [CAB] (Entered: 03/13/2001)
329 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban eod 03/13/01 [CAB] (Entered: 03/13/2001)
330 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE eod 03/13/01 [CAB] (Entered: 03/13/2001)

04/30/2001
04/30/2001 05/04/2001
05/22/2001 05/22/2001 05/23/2001 05/25/2001
06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/04/2001 06/04/2001 06/05/2001 06/05/2001 06/11/2001 08/01/2001 08/02/2001 08/22/2001 08/22/2001

331 ORDER ASSIGNS HEARING to 06/05/01 at 11:00AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m 9:00 a.m.:Inspection of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Annex eod 05/01/01 [CAB] (Entered: 04/30/2001)
332 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW (Proposed) by defendants eod 05/01/01 [CAB] (Entered: 04/30/2001)
333 ORDER ASSIGNS HEARING to 06/05/01 at 11:00AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m 9:00 a.m. Inspection of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Annex eod 05/07/01 [CAB] (Entered: 05/04/2001)
334 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) Telephone Conf. held 5/16/01 eod 05/23/01 [CAB] (Entered: 05/22/2001)
334 COURT REPORTER: Stephen Daner eod 05/23/01 [CAB] (Entered: 05/22/2001)
335 BRIEF (Post-Hearing) on contempt sanctions by plaintiffs eod 05/23/01 [CAB] (Entered: 05/23/2001)
336 ORDER (SSB) 5/23/01 Defendants shall pay James Balsamo's January 5, 2001 invoice for $1,620.30 by Tuesday, June 5, 2001 eod 05/25/01 [CAB] (Entered: 05/25/2001)
337 BRIEF (POST-HEARING) on contempt sanctions by defts. eod 06/04/01 [CAB] (Entered: 06/01/2001)
341 POST-HEARING BRIEF on contempt sanctions by defts. eod 06/07/01 [CAB] (Entered: 06/01/2001)
338 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW on Contempt Motion (SSB) 6/4/01 eod 06/05/01 [CAB] (Entered: 06/04/2001)
339 ORDER (SSB) Regarding Contempt Motion eod 06/05/01 [CAB] (Entered: 06/04/2001)
340 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) Matter commenced on hearing on contempt sanction. Matter taken under advisement eod 06/06/01 [CAB] (Entered: 06/05/2001)
340 COURT REPORTER: Theodore Dorsett eod 06/06/01 [CAB] (Entered: 06/05/2001)
342 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT Hearing held June 5, 2001. COURT REPORTER: Theodore A. Dorsett & Associates eod 06/12/01 [CAB] (Entered: 06/11/2001)
343 REPORT (INTERIM) on Health Care Services at the CJC and Annex, St. Thomas, USVI (July 25, 2001) eod 08/02/01 [CAB] (Entered: 08/01/2001)
344 ORDER (SSB) 8/1/01 that Defendants shall pay to Dr. Braslow the sum of $3,362.00 eod 08/03/01 [CAB] (Entered: 08/02/2001)
345 ORDER (SSB) On payment of James J. Balsamo, Jr. eod 08/23/01 [CAB] (Entered: 08/22/2001)
346 REPORT of Inspection of the Criminal Justice Complex & Annex by James J. Balsamo, Jr., eod 08/23/01 [CAB] (Entered: 08/22/2001)

09/24/2001 09/24/2001 10/01/2001
10/29/2001 11/09/2001
11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/30/2001
12/27/2001 12/27/2001 12/27/2001 12/27/2001 01/03/2002 01/14/2002 01/17/2002 01/17/2002 01/25/2002 01/30/2002

347 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) Telephonic Conf. held on Sept. 17, 2001 eod 09/25/01 [CAB] (Entered: 09/24/2001)
347 COURT REPORTER: Chuck McGuire eod 09/25/01 [CAB] (Entered: 09/24/2001)
348 ORDER (SSB) 9/28/01 Matter scheduled before the Hon. Stanley S. Brotman, U.S. Dist. Judge on 10/29/01. 10:00 a.m.: Inspection of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Annex; 1:30 p.m.: Continuation of contempt hearing and imposition of sanctions eod 10/02/01 [CAB] (Entered: 10/01/2001)
349 ORDER (SSB) 10/29/01 on Motions for Contempt and Sanctions eod 10/30/01 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/2001)
350 ORDER (SSB) 11/8/01 that defendants are purged of their contempt in this matter as previously determined by the Court in its Order dated June 4, 2001 eod 11/13/01 [CAB] (Entered: 11/09/2001)
351 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) held 10/29/01 on Contempt Hearing and Sanctions. eod 11/13/01 [CAB] (Entered: 11/13/2001)
351 COURT REPORTER: Chandra Kean eod 11/13/01 [CAB] (Entered: 11/13/2001)
352 MOTION TO DEEM CONCEDED plaintiffs' eight supplemental motion for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses by plantiffs eod 11/30/01 [CAB] (Entered: 11/30/2001)
353 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) matter came on for telephone conference held 12/18/01 before Judge Brotman eod 12/28/01 [CAD] (Entered: 12/27/2001)
353 COURT REPORTER (FRANK GABLE) eod 12/28/01 [CAD] (Entered: 12/27/2001)
354 EIGHTH suppl. mot. for reasonable atty. fees & expenses by pltf. eod 12/28/01 [CAD] (Entered: 12/27/2001)
355 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of pltf. eighth suppl. mot. for reasonable atty. fees & expenses eod 12/28/01 [CAD] (Entered: 12/27/2001)
356 RESPONSE in opposition to plaintiffs' request for attorneys fees and to have motion deemed as conceded eod 01/08/02 [CAB] (Entered: 01/03/2002)
358 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT Hearing held on October 29, 2001. Court Reporter: CHANDRA R. KEAN eod 01/15/02 [CAB] (Entered: 01/14/2002)
359 REPLY in support of Eighth Supplemental Motion for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Expenses by plaintiffs eod 01/18/02 [CAB] (Entered: 01/17/2002)
360 DECLARATION of Elizabeth Alexander in support of plaintiffs' fees reply brief eod 01/18/02 [CAB] (Entered: 01/17/2002)
361 DECLARATION of Bejamin Currence, Esq. eod 01/28/02 [CAB] (Entered: 01/25/2002)
362 ORDER (SSB) 1/28/02 Matter sched. before the Hon. Stanley S. Brotman, U.S. District Judge on 2/25/02 in the Dist. of the V.I. 9:00 a.m.: Inspection of St. Thomas

01/30/2002
03/04/2002 03/25/2002 06/07/2002 06/07/2002 07/12/2002 07/26/2002 07/26/2002 07/26/2002 07/26/2002 07/26/2002 08/29/2002 09/11/2002 09/16/2002 09/16/2002

Criminal Justice Complex and Annex; 11:30 a.m.: Continuation of contempt hearing and imposition of sanctions eod 01/31/02 [CAB] (Entered: 01/30/2002)
363 ORDER (SSB) 1/22/02 Matter is sched. before the Hon. Stanley S. Brotman, U.S. District Judge on 2/20/02 at the Dist. Court of the V.I. 9:00 a.m.: Inspection of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Annex; 11:30 a.m.: Continuation of contempt hearing and imposition of sanctions eod 01/31/02 [CAB] (Entered: 01/30/2002)
364 ORDER (SSB) 2/28/02 GRANTING plaintiffs' Eighth Motion for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Expenses eod 03/05/02 [CAB] (Entered: 03/04/2002)
365 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT Status Hearing held February 25, 2002. Court Reporter: CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR eod 03/26/02 [CAB] (Entered: 03/25/2002)
366 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 6/4/02 Telephonic Status Conf. eod 06/10/02 [CAB] (Entered: 06/07/2002)
366 COURT REPORTER: Frank Gable eod 06/10/02 [CAB] (Entered: 06/07/2002)
367 ORDER (SSB) 7/10/02 ASSIGNS hearing on 11/7/02 before Judge Brotman. 9:00 a.m.: Inspection of St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex and Annex; 11:30 a.m.: Continuation of hearing eod 07/15/02 [CAB] (Entered: 07/12/2002)
368 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION (Ninth) for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Expenses by plaintiffs eod 07/26/02 [CAB] (Entered: 07/26/2002)
369 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of plaintiffs' ninth supplemental motion for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses eod 07/26/02 [CAB] (Entered: 07/26/2002)
370 DECLARATION of Craig Cowie in support of plaintiffs' ninth supplemental motion for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses eod 07/26/02 [CAB] (Entered: 07/26/2002)
371 DECLARATION of Amy Fettig in support of plaintiffs' ninth supplemental motion for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses eod 07/26/02 [CAB] (Entered: 07/26/2002)
372 DECLARATION of Nina Chernoff in support of plaintiffs' ninth supplemental motion for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses eod 07/26/02 [CAB] (Entered: 07/26/2002)
373 OPPOSITION to plaintiffs' ninth supplemental motion for attorneys fees by defendants eod 08/30/02 [CAB] (Entered: 08/29/2002)
374 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief by plaintiffs eod 09/12/02 [CAB] (Entered: 09/11/2002)
375 REPLY in support of Ninth Supplemental Motion for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Expenses by plaintiffs eod 09/16/02 [CAB] (Entered: 09/16/2002)
376 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of fees reply eod 09/16/02 [CAB] (Entered: 09/16/2002)

09/16/2002 09/16/2002 11/07/2002
11/22/2002 11/22/2002
12/16/2002 12/16/2002 12/16/2002
01/02/2003 01/02/2003 01/14/2003 01/31/2003 02/05/2003
02/19/2003 04/22/2003 05/05/2003

377 DECLARATION of Elizabeth Alexander in support of plaintiffs' fees reply brief eod 09/16/02 [CAB] (Entered: 09/16/2002)
378 ORDER (SSB) 9/13/02 that Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED eod 09/17/02 [CAB] (Entered: 09/16/2002)
379 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) Hearing on Inspection of the Criminal Justice Complex. Matter taken under advisement. Ct. Reporter: VASHTI GERALD eod 11/12/02 [CAB] (Entered: 11/07/2002)
380 OPINION (SSB) 11/19/02 on plaintiffs' ninth supplemental motion for attorney's fees and expenses eod 11/25/02 [CAB] (Entered: 11/22/2002)
381 ORDER (SSB) 11/19/02 that Defendants pay Plaintiffs' attorney fees in the amount of $42,797.85 to satisfy Plaintiffs' Ninth Supplemental Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses eod 11/25/02 [CAB] (Entered: 11/22/2002)
382 MOTION to admit declaration into evidence for contempt proceedings by plaintiffs eod 12/16/02 [CAB] (Entered: 12/16/2002)
383 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban regarding supplemental exhibits eod 12/16/02 [CAB] (Entered: 12/16/2002)
384 ORDER (SSB) 12/10/02 that Charles Braslow, M.D. shall assist the Defendants in drafting a complete set of health care policies and procedures for use at the CJC and the CJC Annex within 120 days of the date of this Order eod 12/16/02 [CAB] (Entered: 12/16/2002)
385 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT Continuation of Hearing held on November 7, 2002 eod 01/02/03 [CAB] (Entered: 01/02/2003)
385 COURT REPORTER: Theodore A. Dorsett & Associates eod 01/02/03 [CAB] (Entered: 01/02/2003)
386 ORDER ASSIGNS CONF to 02/05/03 at 09:00AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m eod 01/14/03 [CAB] (Entered: 01/14/2003)
387 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW by plaintiffs eod 01/31/03 [CAB] (Entered: 01/31/2003)
388 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) Matter convened for Status Conf. Request for time to respond to finding of facts by Atty. Shredder Granted. Ct. Reporter: THEODORE DORSETT eod 02/06/03 [CAB] (Entered: 02/05/2003)
389 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW by defendants eod 02/19/03 [CAB] (Entered: 02/19/2003)
390 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT Status Conference held 2/5/03. Ct. Reporter: Theodore A. Dorsett & Associates eod 04/22/03 [CAB] (Entered: 04/22/2003)
391 ORDER ASSIGNS CONF to 06/04/03 at 09:00AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m eod 05/06/03 [CAB] (Entered: 05/05/2003)

05/27/2003 06/03/2003
06/03/2003 06/03/2003
06/04/2003
06/06/2003 06/06/2003 06/23/2003 07/07/2003
07/30/2003 07/30/2003 07/30/2003 08/28/2003 09/09/2003

392 ORDER (SSB) 5/19/03 Inspection of the St. Thomas Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) and Annex on 6/4/03 at 9 a.m. Status Conf. will be held immediately following the inspection at the Dist. Ct. of the V.I. eod 05/28/03 [CAB] (Entered: 05/27/2003)
393 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 5/28/03 Hearing on Telephonic Conf. on application of plaintiffs to allow their expert access to the Golden Grove Facility to examine the NCRI inmates. Ordered application GRANTED. Ct. Reporter: FRANK GABEL eod 06/03/03 [CAB] (Entered: 06/03/2003)
394 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW on contempt motion (SSB) 5/28/03 eod 06/04/03 [CAB] (Entered: 06/03/2003)
395 ORDER (SSB) 5/28/03 that Defendants are held in civil contempt for their willful failure to comply with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's September 7, 2000, January 18 and 26, 2001, Orders with regard to fire safety eod 06/04/03 [CAB] (Entered: 06/03/2003)
397 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 6/4/03 Matter convened for status conf. Ct. request Atty. Gen. Stridiron present a report within two weeks as to the Authority of the Gov't. on St. Thomas Hospital. Ct. Reporter: Tyrone Hodge eod 06/09/03 [CAB] (Entered: 06/04/2003)
396 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO file a progress report in accordance with the Court's May 28, 2003 Order by defts. eod 06/06/03 [CAB] (Entered: 06/06/2003)
398 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO file a progress report in accordance with the Court's May 28, 2003 Order eod 06/10/03 [CAB] (Entered: 06/06/2003)
399 RESPONSE to defts. mot. for enlargement of time & cross-mot. for enlargement of time by pltf. eod 06/23/03 [CAD] (Entered: 06/23/2003)
400 ORDER (SSB) 7/1/03 Directing defts. that w/in 60 days of the entry of this Order, that they shal submit to the Ct. & counsel a progress report setting forth particularity, their efforts to comply w/the provisions of the Agreemnt; that pltfs. shall arrange for Mr. Balsamo and Dr. Braslow to make an additional expert insp. of CJC & Annex; further that Mr. Balsamo and Dr. Braslow shall submit to the Ct. & parties reports detailing their findings w/in 60 days of completing their inspections. eod 07/08/03 [LBT] (Entered: 07/07/2003)
401 MOTION FOR ATTNY'S FEES & Expenses, pltfs' 10th Suppl. eod 07/31/03 [LBT] (Entered: 07/30/2003)
402 DECLARATION of Terrance Moore in supp. of pltfs' 10th suppl. mot. for reasonable Atty's fees & expenses. eod 07/31/03 [LBT] (Entered: 07/30/2003)
403 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in supp. of pltfs' 10th suppl. mot. for reasonable Atty's fees & expenses. eod 07/31/03 [LBT] (Entered: 07/30/2003)
404 CT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of hearing held on 6/6/03 before Honorable Judge Stanley Brotman by Nida Shadeed eod 08/28/03 [KWR] (Entered: 08/28/2003)
405 PROGRESS REPORT by Defts. eod 09/10/03 [KWR] (Entered: 09/09/2003)

10/16/2003 10/22/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 10/28/2003 10/28/2003 10/31/2003
10/31/2003 11/25/2003
12/04/2003 01/13/2004 01/13/2004 01/26/2004
06/10/2004

406 ORDER (SSB) 10/14/03 scheduling status conference on 12/3/03 at 9:00a.m. eod 10/22/03 [KWR] (Entered: 10/16/2003)
407 ORDER (SSB) 10/20/03 Scheduling a Status Conf. on 12/3/03 at 9:00a.m. in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. eod 10/24/03 [KWR] (Entered: 10/22/2003)
408 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) on Status Conf. held on 10/20/03; Status Rpts. to be submitted by 11/26/03; Status Hearing set for 12/3/03 eod 10/24/03 [KWR] (Entered: 10/23/2003)
408 COURT REPORTER: Theodore Formaroli eod 10/24/03 [KWR] (Entered: 10/23/2003)
409 CONSENT MOTIOn to approve stipulation regarding tenth supplemental mot. for reasonable atty.'s fees and expenses by Pltfs. eod 10/29/03 [KWR] (Entered: 10/28/2003)
410 STIPULATION regarding tenth supplemental mot. for reasonable atty.'s fees and expenses by Pltfs. eod 10/29/03 [KWR] (Entered: 10/28/2003)
411 COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) on tel. conf. call held on 10/27/03 regarding Atty. Balaban's scheduling of prisoner interviews and inspections. Order Balaban directed to take interviews on days scheduled and with same procedure eod 10/31/03 [KWR] (Entered: 10/31/2003)
411 COURT REPORTER: Theordore Formaroli eod 10/31/03 [KWR] (Entered: 10/31/2003)
412 ORDER (SSB) that Plaintiff's Motion for Atty's Fees and Expenses is Granted and it is further Ordered that Deft. shall pay to the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc. the total sum of $50,000.00 in full satisfaction of Plaintiffs Tenth Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses within thirty days of date of this Order.Interest shall accrue in accordance with applicable provision of Virgin Islands law.It is further Ordered that Plaintiffs Tenth Supplemental Motion for Reasonabel Attorney's Fee and Expenses is dismissed without Prejudice. eod 11/26/03 [TRH] (Entered: 11/25/2003)
413 Minutes:Evidentiary Hearing Held. eod 12/04/03 [TRH] (Entered: 12/04/2003)
414 Motion to Reinstate their Tenth Supplemental Motion for Reasonable Attorne's Fees and Expenses by Plaintiffs. eod 01/14/04 [TRH] (Entered: 01/13/2004)
415 Declaration of Eric Balaban in Support of Motion to Reinstate. eod 01/14/04 [TRH] (Entered: 01/13/2004)
416 ORDER (SSB)1/21/04 that Pltf motion is GRANTED;IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defts. shall pay to the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc. the total sum of $53,260.43 in satisfaction of Pltf. Tenth Supplemental Motion of Atty.'s Fees and Expenses within fourteen days of the date of this Order. eod 01/27/04 [TRH] (Entered: 01/26/2004)
417 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DEC. 3, 03 BY N.ANTOINETTE CERGE. (Entered: 06/10/2004)

07/22/2004 07/26/2004
07/30/2004 08/19/2004 09/08/2004 10/15/2004
10/22/2004 10/25/2004 11/18/2004 11/23/2004 11/23/2004 11/23/2004 12/10/2004 12/23/2004 01/10/2005 01/18/2005 02/08/2005 02/08/2005

418 CTRM. MIN. status conf held in St.Croix Ct. Reporter Theodore Formaroli. (Entered: 07/22/2004)
419 ORDER (SSB)7/21/04 That Defts shall tranfer all prisoners adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility on St.Croix to an appropriate forensic Facility by Aug. 19, 04. The specific prisoners to be tranferred were those referred to at the Dec.3 hearing and are known to parties. (Entered: 07/26/2004)
420 TRANSCRIPT of hearing held on 7/19/04 (Entered: 07/30/2004)
421 ORDER (SSB)8/16/04 That matter scheduled for hearing on Tuesday Sept. 7, 04 at 9:00am (Entered: 08/19/2004)
422 CTRM. MIN. for hearing on updates on Prison COURT REPORTER CHANDRA KEAN; (Entered: 09/08/2004)
423 ORDER (SSB) pursuant to the hearing held on 9/8/04 that Defts. shall submit a rpt. by 10/12/04 to the Ct. and to Pltfs. documenting the status of the transfer of prisoners adjudged N/G by reason of insanity and Defts. shall complete construction of a forensic unit in the territory by 11/30/04 such that the unit will be available to safely house chronically and seriously mentally ill persons (Entered: 10/15/2004)
424 Progress Report by Atty Schrader (Entered: 10/22/2004)
425 TRANSCRIPT by Chandra Kean of status hearing on Sept. 8, 04 (Entered: 10/25/2004)
426 ORDER (SSB)11/15/04 That settlement conf. 2/15/05 at 2:00pm (Entered: 11/18/2004)
427 MOTION for reasonable Atty's fees and Expenses by Pltf. (Entered: 11/23/2004)
428 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of Pltf. Elventh Supplemental Motion for Reasonable Atty's Fees and Expenses (Entered: 11/23/2004)
429 DECLARATION of Elizabeth Alexander (Entered: 11/23/2004)
430 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO respond to the fess mot. by Defts. (Entered: 12/10/2004)
431 OPPOSITION to Pltf's Eleventh supplemental motion for Atty's Fees (Entered: 12/23/2004)
432 MOTION for extension of time to file reply brief by Pltf. (Entered: 01/10/2005)
433 MOTION (AMENDED) for extension of time to file reply brief by Pltf. (Entered: 01/18/2005)
434 REPLY in support of Eleventh Supplemental motion for reasonable Atty's fees and expenses by Defts (Entered: 02/08/2005)
435 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of fees reply (Entered: 02/08/2005)

02/08/2005 02/24/2005
03/07/2005 03/07/2005 03/31/2005 04/12/2005 04/14/2005 07/27/2005 12/12/2005 12/16/2005 01/10/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 03/20/2006 03/24/2006 03/27/2006

436 DECLARATION of Elizabeth Alexander (Entered: 02/08/2005)
437 ORDER (SSB)That Defts shall pay to the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc the total sum of $59,000.00 in satisfaction of Pltf Eleventh Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses no later than March 8, 2005. Interest shall accrue in accordance with applicable provisions of Virgin Islands law. (Entered: 02/24/2005)
438 NOTICE of change of address by Pltf. (Entered: 03/07/2005)
439 ORDER (GWB)That matter is scheduled for status conf. for Thursday April 14,05 at 1:00 pm (Entered: 03/07/2005)
440 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conf. before Judge. S.Brotman by T. Dorsett (Entered: 03/31/2005)
441 NOTICE of complaince by Deft. (Entered: 04/12/2005)
442 CTRM. MIN. hearing before Judge Brotman Ct. Reporter C.Kean. (Entered: 04/14/2005)
443 CTRM. MIN. Telephone hearing on 7/21/05 with Judge S.Brotman. (Entered: 07/27/2005)
444 MOTION (Twelfth supplelmenatal) for reasonable Atty.'s Fees expenses by Pltf. (Entered: 12/12/2005)
445 Supplemental declaration of Eric Balaban in support of Pltfs Twelth Supplemental motion for reasonable Att.'s fees expenses by Eric Balaban (Entered: 12/16/2005)
446 CTRM. MIN. (SSB) for status hearing; Court Reporter: C.Kean (Entered: 01/10/2006)
447 MOTION for default judgement on their Twelth Supplemental motion for reasonabel attorney's fees and expenses by Pltf (Entered: 01/19/2006)
448 DECLARATION of Alica Gathers in support of Pltfs Twelth Supplemental Motion for reasonable Atty. fees and expenses (Entered: 01/19/2006)
449 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of Pltfs Twelth supplemental motion for resonable Atty's fees and expenses (Entered: 01/19/2006)
450 OPPOSITION to Pltfs motion for default judgment and twelfth supplemental motion for attorneys fees by Defts (Entered: 03/20/2006)
451 REPLY in support of motion for default judgment and their twelfth supplemental motion for reasonable Atty's fees and expenses by Pltf. (Entered: 03/24/2006)
452 ORDER (SSB)3/22/06 That Defts shall hire a part-time physician and two half-time registerd nurses to provide medical service at the Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) Annex. Subject to availablility of funds, Defts. shall pay for this this staff using money from the Remedial fund until such time that the notice of personnel action (NOPA) process is completed.2.Within seven (7) business days of the date of this

03/31/2006
06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/27/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006
07/07/2006 07/14/2006 08/01/2006 08/02/2006 08/02/2006
08/15/2006 08/17/2006

order, Defts shall produce a list of all necessary equipment and policies that must be in place to provide appropriate medical services at eh CJC Annex. (Entered: 03/27/2006)
453 ORDER (GWB)That motion for default judgment on the twelfth supplemental motion for reasonable atty's fees and expenses and Defts oppoisition is GRANTED. (Entered: 03/31/2006)
454 MOTION for appointment of a temporary health care receiver by Pltfs (Entered: 06/16/2006)
455 MEMORANDUM in support of motion for appointment of a temporary health care receiver by Pltfs (Entered: 06/16/2006)
456 MOTION for an order holding Defts in civil contempt for violations of the settlement agreement and the Courts remedial orders by Pltfs (Entered: 06/16/2006)
457 PROPOSED FINDINGS/CONCL. BY Plfts (Entered: 06/16/2006)
458 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of contempt motion. (Entered: 06/16/2006)
459 MOTION to modify the Court's March 22, 2006 Order by Deft (Entered: 06/27/2006)
460 CTRM. MIN. telephone conference /Judge S.Brotman/Cr. Theodore Formaroli (Entered: 06/30/2006)
461 MOTION for an enlargment of time to respond to Pltf's motion for appointment of a temporary health care receiver and motion for an order holding Defts in civil contempt for violations of the settlement agreement and the Court's remedial orders by Defts. (Entered: 06/30/2006)
462 OPPOSITION to defendants motion to vacate the Court's March 22, 2006 Order by Pltf (Entered: 07/07/2006)
463 REPLY to Pltf's opposition response to Defts motion to modify the Court's March 22, 2006 order by Pltf. (Entered: 07/14/2006)
464 OPPOSITION RESPONSE to mot. for appt. of a health care receiver by defts. (Entered: 08/01/2006)
465 ORDER (SSB)scheduling a hearing on mot. by deft. to modify courts order of 3/22/06 for 8/7/06 at 2:00 pm via telephone conference (Entered: 08/02/2006)
466 ORDER (SSB) scheduling hearing on pltfs mot. for appt. of temporary Health Care Receiver and to hold defts in civil contempt for violations of settlement agreement and courts remedial orders on Wednesday, 9/6/06 at 9:00 am if the hearing is not completed on that date, it will be continued on Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 2:00 (Entered: 08/02/2006)
469 NOTICE informative by Defts (Entered: 08/15/2006)
467 MOTION for extension of time to file reply brief by Pltf. (Entered: 08/17/2006)

08/17/2006 08/23/2006
08/31/2006
08/31/2006 08/31/2006 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 10/27/2006 10/27/2006
10/27/2006
10/27/2006 11/01/2006 11/07/2006 11/09/2006 11/09/2006 11/13/2006 11/13/2006 11/17/2006

468 CTRM. MIN. telephone hearing/status conf. before Judge Brotman; Cr. T.Formaroli (Entered: 08/17/2006)
470 ORDER (SSB)8/21/06 That Pltf's motion is GRANTED. Pltfs shall have until Sept 1, 2006 to file their reply to Defts opposition response to motion for appointment of a Health Care Receiver. (Entered: 08/23/2006)
Motion Under Advisement, re: ( 461) MOTION for an enlargment of time to respond to Pltf's motion for appointment of a temporary health care receiver and motion for an order holding Defts in civil contempt for violations of the settlement agreement and the (Entered: 08/31/2006)
471 REPLY in support of mot. for appointment of a temporary health care receiver by Plt. (Entered: 08/31/2006)
472 CTRM. MIN. Held 8/30/06 (SSB) Telephone conf. held. (Ct. Reptr. Stephen Daner. (Entered: 08/31/2006)
473 MOTION to hold Defts in contempt of Court's March 31, 2006 fees Order by Pltfs (Entered: 09/01/2006)
474 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of fees contempt motion . (Entered: 09/01/2006)
475 MOTION to compel Defts to respond to Pltfs Interrotgatories and to compel the Atty Gen. to appear at a deposition by Ptlf. (Entered: 10/27/2006)
476 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to compel Defts to respond to Pltfs interrogatories and to compel the Atty General to appear at a deposition by Pltf (Entered: 10/27/2006)
477 MOTION for expedited consideration of their motion to compel Defts to respond to Pltfs interrogatories, and to compel the Atty. Gen. to appear at a deposition by Pltf (Entered: 10/27/2006)
478 DECLARATION of Eric Balaban in support of Pltfs motion to compel. (Entered: 10/27/2006)
479 OPPOSITION to Pltf's motion to compel by Deft. (Entered: 11/01/2006)
480 MEMORANDUM supplemental in support of Pltfs motion to compel by Pltf. (Entered: 11/07/2006)
481 NOTICE of rule 30(b)(6) deposition by Pltfs (Entered: 11/09/2006)
482 NOTICE (Amended) of rule 30(b)(6) deposition by Pltfs (Entered: 11/09/2006)
483 NOTICE of service of Deft's responses to Pltf's first set of interrogatories by Defts. (Entered: 11/13/2006)
484 MOTION for protective order by Atty Eric Balaban (Entered: 11/13/2006)
485 MOTION (consent) to approve and enter joint stipulation by Pltfs (Entered: 11/17/2006)

11/17/2006 11/22/2006
11/30/2006 12/27/2006
12/27/2006
12/27/2006 01/12/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 02/07/2007
03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/23/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007

486 STIPULATION (JOINT) by Parties (Entered: 11/17/2006)
487 ORDER (SSB)That parties stipulate to the finding and opinions in the May 15, 2006 expert report by Jeffrey Metzner M.D. (Ex. A) which are hereby incorporated into the record of this case. Defendants are ordered to implement Dr. Metzner's recommendations , found at pages 28-30 of Dr. Metzner's report. Those recommendationa are incorporated by reference into this order. Defendants shall respond to plaintiffs requests for production no later than Dec 1, 2006. (Entered: 11/22/2006)
488 STIPULATION Joint by Parties (Entered: 11/30/2006)
489 MOTION to hold defendants in contempt of the Court's Nov. 22, 2006 Order, and to reinstate their motion to compel and supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to compel by Pltfs (Entered: 12/27/2006)
490 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to hold defendants in contempt and to reinstate their motion to compel and supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to compel by Defts (Entered: 12/27/2006)
491 DECLARATION by Eric Balaban (Entered: 12/27/2006)
492 OPPOSITION response to plaintiffs motion to hold defendants in contempt and to reinstate their motion to compel by Defts (Entered: 01/12/2007)
493 PROPOSED FINDINGS/CONCL. BY Pltf. (Entered: 01/18/2007)
494 DECLARATION by Eric Balaban (Entered: 01/18/2007)
495 ORDER (SSB)That plaintiffs motion is GRANTED and it is further Ordered that defendants are hereby held in contempt of the Court's Nov. 20, 2006 order. (Entered: 02/07/2007)
496 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW (SSB) 2/27/07 (Entered: 03/02/2007)
497 ORDER (SSB) 2/27/07 Granted Pltf.'s mot. to hold defts. in contempt for their violation of the settlement agreement and the Court's remedial Orders and Defts. mot. to modify the Court's 3/22/06 Order is Denied (Entered: 03/02/2007)
498 CONSENT MOTION to modify Contempt Order dd 2/27/07 by Pltfs. (Entered: 03/23/2007)
499 MOTION (Consent ) to modify Feb. 27, 2007 Contempt Order. (Entered: 04/12/2007)
500 ORDER (SSB)4/9/07 That within sixty (60) days of their of the progress report ,plaintiff shall arrange for Dr. Metzner to conduct a follow-up expert inspection.Following Dr. Metzner's inspection, this Court shall set this matter for a hearing to consider the imposition of contempt sanctions, as well as any other pending matters. The foregoing modification shall have no effect on the parties existing rights and obligtions under the Feb. 27, 2007 Order except as expressly set forth herein. (Entered: 04/12/2007)

04/12/2007 04/19/2007 05/21/2007 09/11/2007
09/13/2007 10/18/2007 10/19/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007
11/09/2007
11/09/2007
11/12/2007 11/16/2007

501 CONSENT MOTION to modify 2/27/07 contempt order by Defts. (Entered: 04/12/2007)
502 ORDER (SSB) 4/9/07 Granted Pltfs.' Consent Mot. to modify 2/27/07 contempt Order (Entered: 04/19/2007)
503 PROGRESS REPORT by Defts. (Entered: 05/21/2007)
504 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 461 MOTION for an enlargment of time to respond to Pltf's motion for appointment of a temporary health care receiver and motion for an order holding Defts in civil contempt for violations of the settlement agreement and the Court's remedial orders by Defts. :(SSB) dated 9/7/07 Motion Hearing set for 11/30/2007 09:00 AM in District Judge Ctrm1-STT before Stanley Brotman. (KWR) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
505 AMENDED ORDER TO REFLECT CHANGE OF TIME FOR HEARING (SSB) 9/11/07 that a Motion Hearing is set for 11/30/07 @ 10:30a.m. (Attachments: # 1 letter) (Correa, Joel) Modified on 9/13/2007 (KWR). (Entered: 09/13/2007)
506 MOTION scheduling order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Declaration# 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
507 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Motion for Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
508 Consent MOTION Scheduling Order re 506 MOTION scheduling order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
509 ORDER (SSB) dated 10/25/07 That having reviewed plaintiffs motion for a Scheduling Order, and considering the pending evidentiary hearing set in the case to commence on November 30, 2007, and based on the agreement of the parties, the Court hereby ORDERS that the parties abide by the following Scheduling Order. (TRH) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
510 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEUDLE AND TIME FOR ARGUMENT (SSB) dated 11/8/07 that court will hear argument telephonically on 11/19/2007 11:00 AM AST before Stanley Brotman. Call to be placed by Defendants' counsel (CBF) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
511 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Elizabeth Alexander and exhibits# 2 Affidavit Declaration of Eric Balaban and exhibits# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Eric Balaban# 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
512 MOTION to Stay Defendants' Motion for Permanent Stay by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/12/2007)
513 RESPONSE to Motion re 512 MOTION to Stay Defendants' Motion for Permanent Stay filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Balaban Declaration# 2 Exhibit Ex A to Declaration) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007 11/19/2007 11/20/2007
11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/26/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/30/2007
12/04/2007 12/05/2007

514 MOTION in Limine as written Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to the Court's October 25, 2007 Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Declaration and Exhibits of Balaban) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
515 NOTICE Notice of Filing the Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of E. Balaban# 2 Attach 1 Metzner Report# 3 Appendix Appendix 1 of REport# 4 Appendix Appendix 2 of Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
516 NOTICE Appendix III of Metzner Report by Lawrence Carty re 515 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit A-2# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Ex C# 5 Exhibit Ex D# 6 Exhibit Ex E# 7 Exhibit Ex F# 8 Exhibit Ex G part 1# 9 Exhibit Ex G part 2# 10 Exhibit Ex G part 3# 11 Exhibit Ex G part 4# 12 Exhibit Ex H# 13 Exhibit Ex I# 14 Exhibit Ex J# 15 Exhibit Ex K# 16 Exhibit Ex L# 17 Exhibit Ex M# 18 Exhibit Ex N Redacted# 19 Exhibit Ex O# 20 Exhibit Ex P# 21 Exhibit Ex Q# 22 Exhibit Ex R Redacted# 23 Exhibit Ex S part 1# 24 Exhibit Ex S part 2# 25 Exhibit Ex S part 3# 26 Exhibit Ex S part 4# 27 Exhibit Ex T) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
517 Second MOTION in Limine by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
518 MOTION to Expedite by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
521 ORDER (SSB) dated 11/26/07 That the temporary stay barring filing of the Report is hereby tereminated and the Court"s Order of November 8th 2007 is hereby vacated.Plaintiff is to file the Report of Jeffrey L. Metzner. M.D. forthwith. (TRH) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
519 RESPONSE in Opposition re 514 MOTION in Limine as written Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to the Court's October 25, 2007 Scheduling Order filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
520 NOTICE Notice of filing of Supplementat Progress Report by Bureau of Corrections (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
522 RESPONSE in Opposition re 517 Second MOTION in Limine filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
526 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard : Show Cause Hearing held on 11/30/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -Report# 2 Exhibit BLetter June 18, 2007# 3 Exhibit C-Letters dated Jan.30,Feb 6, Feb7# 4 Exhibit E- Dr. Metzner's Report# 5 Exhibit F- Job Discription# 6 Exhibit G- Memo. BOC-Dept of Health) (TRH) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
523 NOTICE Notice of Filing of November 28, 2007 Health Care Scope of Services by Bureau of Corrections (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
524 MOTION for Protective Order Motion to File Under Seal by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 12/05/2007)

12/05/2007 12/10/2007
12/12/2007 12/14/2007 12/21/2007 12/28/2007 01/02/2008 01/03/2008 01/08/2008 01/10/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/18/2008 02/13/2008

525 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 511 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit attachments) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
527 ORDER (SSB) dated 12/10/07granting 525 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 511 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by plaintiff; deft. shall submit to pltf a settlement offer on pltfs. pendings fees motion before filing their fees response. Responses due by 12/21/2007 (CBF) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
528 ORDER (SSB) dated 12/12/07 that w/in 30 days of receipt of the transcript of 11/30/07 counsel shall file with the court Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (CBF) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
529 MOTION to Amend/Correct 528 Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
530 RESPONSE in Opposition re 511 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CJUA exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
531 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
532 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
533 ORDER (SSB) dated 01/03/2008granting 532 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Plaintiffs (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
534 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE for February 4, 2008 (SSB) dated 01/08/2008 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
535 ORDER extending Plaintiff's deadline to file their fees reply brief. Extended until February 18, 2008.(SSB) dated 01/10/2008 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
536 Supplemental MOTION for Discovery Proposed Order by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
537 Proposed Pretrial Order Revised Proposed Order by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
538 ORDER (SSB) dated 01/17/08 granting 531 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Defendants (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
540 RESPONSE to Discovery Request by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 02/13/2008)

02/19/2008 02/21/2008 02/22/2008 02/27/2008 03/06/2008 03/17/2008 06/02/2008 06/25/2008
06/26/2008 10/02/2008
10/07/2008 11/10/2008

541 REPLY to Response to Motion re 530 Response in Opposition to Motion, 511 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Affidavit # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
542 ORDER MODIFYING AND SUPERCEDING COURT'S ORDER OF DECEMBER 18, 2007. Scheduling Order setting forth items to be completed as discussed at conference on February 4, 2008. (SSB) dated 2/21/08 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
543 RESPONSE to Discovery Request by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
544 REPLY to Plaintiffs' Request for an Interim Award for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections.Responses due by 3/17/2008 (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
545 REPLY to Response to Motion re 541 Reply to Response to Motion, 544 Reply to Defendants' Opposition Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Interim Fees Award filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eric Balaban) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
546 ORDER SETTING DATE FOR CJC AND CJC ANNEX INSPECTION on June 2, 2008.(SSB) dated 3/17/08 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
547 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Matter came on for Evidentiary hearing held on 6/2/2008. (Court Reporter Ted Dorsett.) (CAD) Modified on 7/2/2008 (CAD). (Entered: 06/10/2008)
548 Transcript of Proceedings held on June 2, 2008 Hearing on Motions, before Judge Stanley S. Brotman. Court Reporter Theodore A Dorsett, Telephone number 340777-7950. 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.. Redaction Request due 7/16/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/28/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2008. (CBF) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
549 NOTICE OF Filing Official Transcript Related Document: 548 Transcript of 6/2/08 (CBF) (CBF). (Entered: 06/26/2008)
550 Resolution of outstanding motions(SSB) dated 10/02/2008finding as moot 507 Motion to Expedite; finding as moot 508 Motion ; finding as moot 512 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 514 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 517 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 518 Motion to Expedite; finding as moot 524 Motion for Protective Order; finding as moot 536 Motion for Discovery (TRH) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
551 ORDER SETTING DATE FOR STATUS CONFERENCE, to be held on December 2, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.(SSB) dated 10/07/08 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
552 ORDER (SSB) dated 11/10/08granting 511 Motion for Attorney Fees (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

11/10/2008 12/02/2008 01/12/2009 01/12/2009 01/12/2009
01/13/2009 01/26/2009 01/27/2009 01/30/2009 02/09/2009
02/11/2009 02/19/2009

553 OPINION Granting Plaintiffs' Thirteenth Supplemental Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (SSb) dated 11/10/08 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
554 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Status Conference held on 12/2/2008. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (TRH) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
555 MOTION Termination of the Consent Decree by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
556 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Terminate Consent Decree by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) Modified on 9/17/2009 (TRH). (Entered: 01/12/2009)
557 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt of the Court's November 10, 2008 Fees Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit E. Balaban's Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Ex A to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Ex B to Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Ex C to Declaration) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
558 ORDER regarding issues from December 2, 2008 hearing. (SSB) dated 01/13/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
559 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 557 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt of the Court's November 10, 2008 Fees Order filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
560 Opposition to Motion re 555 MOTION Termination of the Consent Decree filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 E. Balaban Declaration) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
561 SUPPLEMENT re 559 Reply to Opposition to Motion by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
562 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 559 Reply to Opposition to Motion, 557 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt of the Court's November 10, 2008 Fees Order filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
563 MOTION for Enlargement of Time by Defendant Turnbull, Charles W. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
564 Opposition to Motion re 557 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt of the Court's November 10, 2008 Fees Order Suppplement re Opposition to Motion for Order to Show Cause filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 02/19/2009)

02/19/2009
02/23/2009 02/23/2009 02/23/2009 02/24/2009 02/25/2009 02/25/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 03/06/2009 03/06/2009 03/06/2009 03/11/2009

565 Opposition to Motion re 563 MOTION for Enlargement of Time and Cross-Motion for and Order to Show Cause why Defendants Should Not be Held in Contempt of the Court's January 13, 2009 Order filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Balaban Declaration and Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
566 ORDER scheduling telephonic hearing on 02/23/09 at 11:00 am E.S.T. (SSB) dated 02/23/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
567 ORDER scheduling telephonic hearing for 02/26/09 at 2 pm E.S.T. (SSB) dated 02/23/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
568 ORDER scheduling evidentiary hearing on 03/20/09. (SSB) dated 03/23/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
569 SCHEDULING ORDER. Defendants shall have until 03/05/09 to comply with 01/13/09 Order. Resolving docket nos. 563 and 565.(SSB) dated 02/23/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
574 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 2/23/2009. (Court Reporter Frank Gable.) (KAB) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
575 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 2/19/2009. (Court Reporter Car Nami,Jr..) (KAB) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
570 SUPPLEMENT to Oppostion to Motion for Order to Show Cause by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
571 SUPPLEMENT Mail Reciept in Support of Opposition to Motion for Order to Show Cause by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
572 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 2/19/2009. (Court Reporter Carl Nami Jr..) (TRH). (Entered: 02/27/2009)
573 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 2/23/2009. (Court Reporter Frank Gable.) (TRH) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
576 MOTION for Hearing and Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
577 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
578 NOTICE Notice of Service by Bureau of Corrections (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
581 Document Entered In This Case by Error.REPORT of Mediation by Hon. Stanley S. Brotman, case The matter has been recessed for further mediation. Date to be determined. (TRH) Modified on 3/16/2009 (TRH). (Entered: 03/13/2009)

03/12/2009 03/13/2009 03/16/2009
03/24/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/26/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/07/2009 04/09/2009

579 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 576 MOTION for Hearing and Scheduling Order filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
580 ORDER (SSB) granting 576 Motion for scheduling Order (TRH) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
582 ORDER (SSB) dated 3/16/2009 on February 23, 2009, this Court entered an Order (rec.doc. 568 ) setting a March 20, 2009 hearing date for oral argument from the parties on the respective burdens of proof at an evidentiary hearing on Defendants Motion to Terminate (rec.doc. 556 ). The Court, having held a hearing on Mrach 12, 2009, hearby Orders that is February 23, 2009 Order is hereby VACATED. The Court further ORDERS that the parties shall each file briefs no later than April 3, 2009 on the respective burdens of proof at a hearing on Defendants termination motion. Each party shall file response briefs no later that April 10, 2009. After the parties have filed thier briefs, this Court shall set a date for oral argument by seperate Order if it determines argument is necessary. (TRH) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
583 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Status Conference held on 3/12/2009. Matter held in chambers; Parties shall brief the Court by April 3, 2009 (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAD) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
584 NOTICE Notice of Filing Expert Reports by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Balaban Declaration) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
585 NOTICE Filing Martin Expert Report by Lawrence Carty re 584 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru E, # 2 Exhibit F thru L, # 3 Exhibit M thru N, # 4 Exhibit O thru U) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
586 NOTICE Metzner Expert Report by Lawrence Carty re 584 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part I, # 2 Appendix Redacted Part II, # 3 Exhibit A thru D, # 4 Exhibit E thru L, # 5 Exhibit M thru O) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
587 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Lawrence Carty. Amendment to 585 Notice (Other) Corrected Martin Expert Report. (Attachments: # 1 Balaban Declaration, # 2 Martin Expert Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
588 MOTION for Reconsideration by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
589 MOTION allocation of burden of proof re 582 Order,,, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
590 SUPPLEMENT to Motion to Terminate by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
591 REPLY to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs' Expert Reports t filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
592 Opposition to Motion re 588 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

04/10/2009 04/16/2009 04/17/2009 04/27/2009 04/30/2009
05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009
05/11/2009 05/12/2009

593 REPLY to re 590 Supplement filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections Regarding the Burden of Proof at the PLRA Termination Hearing filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Responses due by 4/23/2009 (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
594 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to Amend March 13, 2009 Scheduling Order by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
595 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
596 ORDER setting Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 10 a.m. for telephonic hearing. (SSB) dated 04/27/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
597 ORDER that Defendants shall produce all documents and information responsive to Plaintiffs' requests in letters dated January 13, 2009 and February 23, 2009; and that Defendants shall produce all monthly reports by the 8th of each month and shall file past reports within 14 days.(SSB) dated 04/30/2009 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
598 ORDER (SSB) dated 05/08/2009denying 588 Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's March 13, 2009 Scheduling Order. (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
599 ORDER (SSB) dated 05/08/2009denying 594 Motion to Amend the March 13, 2009 Scheduling Order. (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
600 OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE. (SSB) dated 05/08/2009 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
601 ORDER accompanying this Court's Opinion of same date Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Evidence. Defendants are barred from presenting evidence in support of their Motion to Terminate (1) that disputes the findings and recommendations found in the expert reports of Jeffrey Metzner, M.D., and Steve Martin, or (2) of the remedial efforts they have taken since Dr. Metzner and Mr. Martin completed their on-site tours. The evidentiary hearings discussed within the Opinion shall take place on May 28, May 29, June 1, and June 2, 2009.(SSB) dated 05/08/2009 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
602 NOTICE Notice of Withdrawl by Bureau of Corrections (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
603 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/29/2009, before Judge Hon. Stanley S. Brotman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Stephen J. Daner, CCR, RPR. 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.. Redaction Request due 6/2/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/12/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/10/2009. (TRH) (Entered: 05/12/2009)

05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/22/2009 05/28/2009
06/02/2009 06/16/2009 07/05/2009
07/05/2009
08/13/2009 08/27/2009

604 ORDER setting hearing dates for Thursday May 28, 2009 and Tuesday June 2, 2009. (SSB) dated 05/15/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
605 ORDER that on May 28, 2009 the Court will hear argument respecting Defendants' attempt to withdrawal their Motion to Terminate. (SSB) dated 05/15/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
606 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 4/29/09. (Court Reporter Stephen Daner.) (CAD) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
607 NOTICE Filing Declarations by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-8) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
608 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Motion Hearing held on 5/28/2009 re 602 Notice of Withdrawl by Bureau of Corrections (Schrader,Richard)Exhibit # 1 (Dr.Metzner's Report)is Mark and Kept at the Clerk Office with Hard File. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 2 Exhibit Medical Director -Position, # 3 Exhibit CJC and CJC Annex Health Staffing Plan, # 4 Errata Minutes of Meeting 2/21/2009, # 5 Exhibit Notification of Personnel Action) (TRH) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
609 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Motion Hearing held on 6/2/2009. 602 Notice of Withdrawl by Buearu of Correction (Schrader,Richard) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CURRICULUM VITAE) (TRH) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
610 ORDER pursuant to June 2, 2009 hearing. (SSB) dated 06/16/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
611 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 28, 2009, Evidentiary Hearing, before Judge Stanley Brotman. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, Telephone number 340-774-9112. 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.. Redaction Request due 7/26/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2009. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 07/05/2009)
612 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on June 2, 2009, Evidentiary Hearing (cont'd), before Judge Stanley Brotman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Chandra Kean, Telephone number 340-774-9112. 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.. Redaction Request due 7/26/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2009. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 07/05/2009)
613 ORDER setting forth new schedule for filings (SSB) dated 08/13/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
614 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Post-trial Briefs by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

09/03/2009 09/18/2009 10/06/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/21/2009 10/22/2009
10/28/2009 11/04/2009 11/04/2009
11/05/2009 11/05/2009 11/20/2009 11/23/2009 12/02/2009

615 ORDER (SSB) dated 09/03/09 granting 614 Motion for Extension of Time to File (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
616 Proposed Findings of Fact by Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
617 Motion for Extension of Time by Ballantine, Rosalie Simmonds (Schrader, Richard)Text Modified on 10/7/2009 (TRH). (Entered: 10/06/2009)
618 Proposed Pretrial Order Proposed Order for Extension of Time by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
619 ORDER (SSB) granting 617 Motion for Extension of Time to File Briefs (TRH) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
620 Proposed Findings of Fact by Bureau of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
621 MOTION to Amend/Correct 619 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Briefs by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
622 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
623 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
624 REPLY to re 620 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections, 616 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Responses due by 11/17/2009 (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY Filer Submitted Filing that was Improperly Signed. Filer Instructed to Refile Corrected FilingRe: 624 Reply to. (TRH) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
625 REPLY to re 620 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Responses due by 11/18/2009 (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
626 NOTICE Proposed Order by Bureau of Corrections Proposed Order for Enlargement of Time (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
627 ORDER (ssb) dated 11/23/2009granting 623 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
628 NOTICE Informative Notice re Attorney Fees LItigation by Bureau of Corrections (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 12/02/2009)

12/11/2009 12/15/2009
01/29/2010
02/09/2010 02/11/2010 03/05/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010 06/01/2010 06/15/2010 06/22/2010 06/25/2010 07/13/2010

629 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
630 ORDER. Plaintiffs' Fourteeth Supplemental Motions for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Expenses is conditionally dismissed. Defendants have 60 days to pay the National Prison Project of the ACLU the sum of $84,272.18. (SSB) dated 12/15/09 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
631 ORDER (SSB) The Court hereby sets Friday March 5, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. as the date and time on which an inspection of the Criminal Justice Complex ("CJC")and CJC Annex shall take place. Immediately following the inspection, at 11:00 a.m. a hearing shall take place with Honorable Stanley S. Brotman, Senior United States District Court Judge at the District Court of the Virgin Islands, at the Ron de Lugo Federal Building, St.Thomas. Counsel for all parties are expected to attend. (TRH) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
632 ORDER amending order dated 01/29/2010. (SSB) dated 02/09/2010 (DiOrio, Angela) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
633 NOTICE INFORMATIVE by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
634 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Status Conference held on 3/5/2010. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAD) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
635 OPINION In response to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding defendants' compliance with the Mental Health and Corrections Remedies.(SSB) dated 5-17-10 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
636 ORDER in response to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding Defendants' Compliance with the Mental health and Corrections Remedies.(SSB) dated 5-17-10 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
637 MOTION for Reconsideration by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
638 Opposition to Motion re 637 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
639 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 6/22/2010. (TRH) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
640 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 638 Opposition to Motion, 637 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
641 ORDER for a Video Conference scheduled July 21, 2010 at 1pm at the Camden Courthouse and the Courthouse of the Virgin Islands.(SSB) dated 07-13-10 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

07/15/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/26/2010 09/09/2010
09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/14/2010 09/14/2010

642 STATUS REPORT July 15th Progress Report by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
643 NOTICE First Notice of Filing of Exhibits by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
644 NOTICE Second Notice of Filing of Exhibits by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
645 NOTICE Third Notice of Filing of Exhibits by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
646 NOTICE Fourth Notice of Filing of Exhibits by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
647 NOTICE Fifth Notice of Filing of Exhibits by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
648 NOTICE Sixth Notice of Filing of Exhibits by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
649 NOTICE Seventh Notice of Filing of Exhibits by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
650 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Status Conference held on 7/21/2010. (Court Reporter FTR-Camden, NJ.) (CBF) Modified on 7/26/2010 (TRH). (Entered: 07/26/2010)
651 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
652 ORDER(SSB) : Telephone Conference scheduled for September 14, 2010 @ 10:00 a.m. with participants to initiate the call per Judge Brotman. dated 09-13-10 (Checchio, Donna) Modified on 9/13/2010 (TRH). (Entered: 09/13/2010)
653 MOTION to Substitute Party by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
654 ORDER (SSB) dated 9/14/10denying 651 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Mr. Schrader was granted an extension until September 24, 2010 to file the Status Report. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
655 Status Conference set for 9/29/2010 09:00 AM before Stanley Brotman.(ssb) dated 09/14/10 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 09/14/2010)

09/14/2010 09/16/2010 09/24/2010 09/28/2010 09/29/2010 09/30/2010 10/06/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010 10/15/2010
10/18/2010 10/19/2010

656 ORDER for defendants to produce documents/information according to the time line by Judge Brotman.(ssb) dated 09/14/10 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
657 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 9/14/2010. (Court Reporter Barbara Fisher.) (CBF) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
658 STATUS REPORT September 24, 2010 by Bureau of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
659 SUPPLEMENT Supplement to Motion for Substitution by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
660 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/29/2010. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (LT) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY Filer Instructed to RefileRe: 659 Supplement. (TRH) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
661 NOTICE of authority re: security audit by Lawrence Carty re 637 MOTION for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
662 NOTICE by Bureau of Corrections (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
663 Proposed Pretrial Order Proposed Order by Bureau of Corrections. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY Filer Is Informed To File This Document As An Attachment To The Notice.Re: 663 Proposed Pretrial Order. (TRH) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
664 NOTICE by Bureau of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
665 Supplemental MOTION to Supplement as filed Plaintiffs' Fifteenth Supplemental Motion for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Expenses by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Balaban Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A to Balaban Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Balaban Declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
666 Amended MOTION to Substitute Party Renewed Motion to Substitute Parties by Defendant Bureau of Corrections. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
667 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on September 29, 2010 HEARING, before Judge STANLEY S. BROTMAN. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number (340)7749112. 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.. Redaction Request due

10/21/2010 10/25/2010 11/08/2010 11/10/2010 11/15/2010 11/16/2010 11/16/2010 11/18/2010 11/26/2010 11/29/2010
12/02/2010 12/02/2010

11/12/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/19/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/18/2011. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
668 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 661 Notice (Other) filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
670 ORDER (ssb) dated 10-25-10granting 669 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Responses due by 11/15/2010 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
671 ORDER (SSB) dated 11-8-10granting in part; and Defendants shall implement the following additional rembedies within 90 days. 637 Motion for Reconsideration (Checchio, Donna) Text Modified on 11/8/2010 (TRH). (Entered: 11/08/2010)
672 NOTICE Appoint Court Monitor by Lawrence Carty Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint a Court Monitor (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Balaban Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
673 NOTICE Notice of Filing of November 15th 2010 Status Report by Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
674 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
675 ORDER (SSB) dated 11-16-10settling 665 Motion to Supplement (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
676 MOTION for Reconsideration by Defendant Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
677 NOTICE Notice of Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Susan McCambpell as a Monitor by Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 11/26/2010)
678 REPLY to re 676 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Defendant Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Responses due by 12/13/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
679 ORDER - Amended Order issued 12/2/10 by Judge Brotman granting 676 Motion for Reconsideration. The order dated 12/2/10 shall replace and supersede the November 8, 2010 order. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
680 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Motion for Appointment of Court Monitor by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

12/06/2010 12/10/2010 12/15/2010 01/18/2011 02/15/2011 03/04/2011 03/17/2011 04/04/2011 04/11/2011
04/13/2011 04/22/2011 05/25/2011 05/27/2011

681 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 677 Notice (Other) Appointment of Court Monitor filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
682 Opposition to Motion re 680 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Motion for Appointment of Court Monitor filed by Defendant Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
683 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 680 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Motion for Appointment of Court Monitor, 682 Opposition to Motion filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
684 NOTICE Notice of Filing by Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity Notice of Filing of January 18, 2011 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
685 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 2/10/2011. (CAD) Modified on 10/11/2011 (TRH). (Entered: 02/15/2011)
686 MOTION to Appoint Expert by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
687 Opposition to Motion re 686 MOTION to Appoint Expert filed by Defendant Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity. (Schrader, Richard) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
688 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 687 Opposition to Motion, 686 MOTION to Appoint Expert filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
689 ORDER that by April 20, 2011, defendants provide plaintiffs and the Court with full and complete answers, including all responsive documents, to the April 6, 2011 letter from plaintiff to defendant, which is hereby attached.(SSB) dated 4-11-11 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
690 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 4/11/2011. (CBF) Modified on 10/11/2011 (TRH). (Entered: 04/13/2011)
691 NOTICE in Response to Court's Request for Additional Information by Lawrence Carty re 686 MOTION to Appoint Expert (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
692 NOTICE of Appearance by George Phillips on behalf of Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen (Phillips, George) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
693 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 5/27/2011. (CBF) Modified on 10/11/2011 (TRH). (Entered: 05/27/2011)

06/03/2011 06/28/2011 06/30/2011 07/05/2011 07/08/2011
07/11/2011 07/25/2011 08/22/2011 08/24/2011 09/08/2011 10/05/2011
10/07/2011
10/07/2011

694 Minute Entry. Proceedings held in chambers before Judge Stanley Brotman: Settlement Conference held on 6/3/2011. (CBF) Modified on 6/6/2011 (CBF). Modified on 10/11/2011 (TRH). (Entered: 06/03/2011)
695 ORDER granting 686 Motion to Appoint Expert. James Austin is appointed as the Court's Population Manager and Classification Expert by Judge Stanley S. Brotman dated June 28, 2011. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
696 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley Brotman: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 6/30/2011. (CBF) Text Modified on 6/29/2011 (CBF). Modified on 10/11/2011 (TRH). (Entered: 06/30/2011)
697 ORDER that Jeffrey Schwartz, M.D. is hereby appointed the Court's security and staffing expert.(SSB) dated 7-1-11 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
698 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Nunc Pro Tunc of Attorney: Eric Balaban by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Currence, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
699 ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion (docket# 294) Nunc Pro Tunc to admit Eric Balaban Pro Hac Vice effective June 1, 2000.(SSB) dated 7-11-11 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
700 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley Brotman: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 7/25/2011. (CBF) Modified on 10/11/2011 (TRH). (Entered: 07/26/2011)
702 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 8/22/2011. (TRH) Modified on 10/11/2011 (TRH). (Entered: 08/25/2011)
701 NOTICE of service of request for production by Lawrence Carty (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
703 NOTICE of Appearance by Carol Thomas-Jacobs on behalf of Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
704 NOTICE of service of response to request for production of documents by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. re 701 Notice (Other) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
705 MOTION for Reconsideration re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert James Austin by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
706 NOTICE of Filing Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of Court's order by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.

10/11/2011
10/11/2011 10/11/2011
10/12/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/25/2011
10/26/2011 10/30/2011

re 705 MOTION for Reconsideration re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert James Austin MOTION for Reconsideration re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert James Austin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
707 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 705 MOTION for Reconsideration re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert James Austin MOTION for Reconsideration re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert James Austin by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
708 ORDER (SSB) dated 10-11-11granting 705 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Reconsideration. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
709 MOTION to Seal Jails Security Audit by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) Modified on 10/1/2012 (TRH). (Entered: 10/11/2011)
713 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 10/12/2011. (TRH) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
710 MOTION to Compel by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Stipulation of Compliance) (Balaban, Eric) Modified on 10/1/2012 (TRH). (Entered: 10/14/2011)
711 MEMORANDUM in Support re 710 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
712 Opposition to Motion re 709 MOTION to Seal Jails Security Audit filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
714 Emergency MOTION to Compel Dr. Schwartz to Produce Communications to and from Plaintiffs' Counsel by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) Modified on 10/1/2012 (TRH). (Entered: 10/25/2011)
715 Opposition to Motion re 710 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendants Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/26/2011)
716 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 712 Opposition to Motion filed by Defendants Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/30/2011)

11/02/2011 11/02/2011 11/07/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/11/2011
11/13/2011 11/14/2011 11/29/2011 11/29/2011 12/13/2011 12/19/2011

717 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 715 Opposition to Motion, 710 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
718 Opposition to Motion re 714 Emergency MOTION to Compel Dr. Schwartz to Produce Communications to and from Plaintiffs' Counsel filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
719 Opposition to Motion re 705 MOTION for Reconsideration re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert James Austin MOTION for Reconsideration re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert James Austin filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
720 NOTICE of filing expert report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
721 NOTICE of filing proposed orders by Lawrence Carty re 709 MOTION to Seal Jails Security Audit, 710 MOTION to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
722 MOTION to Vacate /disqualify Dr. Schwartz as court-appointed expert by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
723 NOTICE of Objections to Security Audit by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. re 720 Notice (Other) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/13/2011)
724 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Hearing held on 11/14/2011; Court Continue hearing to a date to be determine. (Court Reporter FTR-Gold/C. Kean.) (TRH) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
725 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 722 MOTION to Vacate /disqualify Dr. Schwartz as court-appointed expert by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
726 ORDER (SSB) dated 11-29-11granting 725 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 722 MOTION to Vacate /disqualify Dr. Schwartz as courtappointed expert Responses due by 12/13/2011 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
727 Opposition to Motion re 722 MOTION to Vacate /disqualify Dr. Schwartz as courtappointed expert filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
728 ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to file their reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Emergency Motion 722. Ordered that defendants shall file their reply on or before January 13, 2012.(SSB) dated 12-19-11 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

12/20/2011 01/06/2012 01/06/2012 01/13/2012
01/23/2012 02/09/2012 03/21/2012 04/09/2012 04/10/2012
04/11/2012
05/29/2012 06/04/2012
06/05/2012

729 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 12/20/2011. (CBF) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
730 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 1/4/2012. (Court Reporter Camden Office.) (CBF) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
731 MOTION to Compel by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) Modified on 10/1/2012 (TRH). (Entered: 01/06/2012)
732 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 727 Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Court Appointed Expert filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
733 REPLY to re 731 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty filed by Defendants Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. Responses due by 2/6/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
734 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 731 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
735 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 3/21/2012. (CBF) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 4/10/2012 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 2 before District Judge Stanley Brotman. (CBF) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
736 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Motion Hearing held on 4/10/2012 re 722 MOTION to Vacate /disqualify Dr. Schwartz as court-appointed expert filed by Everett Hansen, Julius Wilson, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, John P. de Jongh, Jr., Fong, Viola A, Kurt Walcott. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (TRH) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
737 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Motion Hearing held on 4/11/2012 re 722 MOTION to Vacate /disqualify Dr. Schwartz as court-appointed expert filed by Everett Hansen, Julius Wilson, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, John P. de Jongh, Jr., Fong, Viola A, Kurt Walcott. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (TRH) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
738 NOTICE of Filing Grievance Procedures by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
739 MOTION re 722 MOTION to Vacate /disqualify Dr. Schwartz as court-appointed expert by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
740 ORDER (SSB) dated 6-4-12withdrawing 722 Motion to Vacate ; withdrawing 739 Motion (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 06/05/2012)

07/25/2012 08/07/2012 08/10/2012 08/13/2012 08/15/2012
08/16/2012
08/17/2012 08/17/2012
08/20/2012
08/20/2012 08/27/2012 09/12/2012 09/28/2012

741 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Status Conference held on 7/25/2012. (CBF) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
742 ORDER for Defendants to produce audit by August 15, 2012 to the Court and within 30 days from date herein parties shall confer in an effort to resolve and settle their differences.(SSB) dated 8-7-12 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
743 MOTION to Amend/Correct 742 Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
744 AMENDED ORDER OF AUGUST 7, 2012. (SSB) dated 8-13-12 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
745 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to File Audit Report by Defendant John P. de Jongh, Jr.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (SMITH-FRANCOIS, ARIEL) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
746 REPLY to re 745 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to File Audit Report filed by Defendant John P. de Jongh, Jr. and Cross Motion to Amend August 13, 2012 Order 744 filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Responses due by 8/30/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
747 ORDER (SSB) dated 8-17-12granting 743 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 745 Motion for Extension of Time to File (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
748 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery through Friday, August 31, 2012 by Defendant John P. de Jongh, Jr.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (SMITH-FRANCOIS, ARIEL) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
749 REPLY to re 748 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery through Friday, August 31, 2012 filed by Defendant John P. de Jongh, Jr. filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Responses due by 9/4/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
750 ORDER (SSB) dated 8-20-12granting 748 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. No further extension of time will be granted. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
751 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 8/27/2012. (TRH) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
752 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 9/12/2012. (TRH) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
753 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 9/28/2012. (CBF) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

11/21/2012 11/21/2012 12/11/2012
02/08/2013 02/26/2013 02/28/2013 03/04/2013 03/05/2013
03/20/2013 04/10/2013 04/15/2013

754 ORDER issued regarding the Audit of the Remedial Account. Attached also is Order dated October 29, 2001.(SSB) dated 11-21-12 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
755 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 11/21/2012. (TRH) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
756 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on November 14, 2011, before Judge STANLEY S. BROTMAN. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.774.9112. 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.. Redaction Request due 1/4/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/14/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/14/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement April 10, 2012, # 2 Supplement April 11, 2012) (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
757 MOTION to Compel by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
758 Opposition to Motion re 757 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
759 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman: Telephone Conference held on 2/28/2013. (TRH) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
760 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 757 MOTION to Compel by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
761 ORDER (SSB) dated 3-5-13granting 760 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 760 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 757 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff shall file their Reply in Support of their Motion to Compel (dkt 757) by March 20, 2013. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
762 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 758 Opposition to Motion, filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
763 ORDER setting Settlement Conference for 4/18/2013 at 09:00 AM in STT Visiting Judge Chambers before District Judge Stanley Brotman. (SSB) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (AO) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
764 NOTICE Informative by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

05/13/2013 05/13/2013 06/17/2013 06/20/2013 06/25/2013 06/26/2013 07/19/2013
07/24/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013

765 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and for Notice to the Class by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit proposed Notice to Class, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
766 ORDER- Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval and Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement signed by the Honorable Stanley S. Brotman on May 13, 2013.(SSB) dated 5-13-2013 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
767 MOTION to Extend the Deadlines 766 Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) Modified on 6/17/2013 (KAB). Modified on 6/26/2013 (TRH). (Entered: 06/17/2013)
768 Response re 767 MOTION to Amend/Correct 766 Order filed by Defendants Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
769 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
770 ORDER (SSB) dated 6-25-13granting 767 Motion to Extend Deadline. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
771 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply To Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
772 ORDER (SSB) dated 7/24/13granting 771 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 771 has been granted by the Honorable Stanley S. Brotman. Response due by 7/31/2013. Responses due by 7/31/2013 (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
773 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees Settlement Order by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
774 ORDER (SSB) dated 8-1-13 conditionallydismissing 769 Motion for Attorney Fees by the Honorable Stanley S. Brotman. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
775 MOTION for Leave to File Over-Length Brief by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
776 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/12/2013)

08/13/2013 08/14/2013 08/14/2013
08/14/2013 08/14/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 05/13/2014
05/14/2014
05/14/2014
12/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY FILER DID NOT ATTACH PROPOSED ORDER Re: 776 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment . (KAB) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
777 NOTICE by Lawrence Carty re 776 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
778 NOTICE of No Objection to the Court Approving Class Settlement Agreement by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. re 777 Notice (Other) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRYLOCAL COUNSEL DID NOT SIGN DOCUMENT Re: 777 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
779 ORDER (SSB) dated 8-14-13granting 775 Motion for Leave to File (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
780 ORDER (SSB) dated 8-29-13granting 765 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment; granting 776 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment by the Honorable Stanley S. Brotman. (Checchio, Donna) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
781 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Stanley Brotman Via Video Conference and Judge Curtis V. Gomez sitting on the Bench : Settlement Conference held on 8/29/2013. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (TRH) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
782 Consent MOTION to Appoint Expert Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Appoint Corrections Expert by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY ATTORNEY SIGNATURE IS MISSING. PLEASE REFILE Re: 782 Consent MOTION to Appoint Expert Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Appoint Corrections Expert. (KAB) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
783 MOTION to Amend/Correct 782 Consent MOTION to Appoint Expert Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Appoint Corrections Expert by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
784 NOTICE Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Burns' Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY ATTORNEY E-SIGNATURE IS MISSING.PLEASE RE- FILE Re: 784 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
785 NOTICE Expert Report by Lawrence Carty Notice of Filing Expert Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Kathy Burns Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/11/2014 01/02/2015
02/18/2015 02/18/2015 02/19/2015 02/22/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015
02/25/2015 02/26/2015 02/27/2015 02/27/2015 03/04/2015 03/04/2015

786 NOTICE Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty Filing Expert Report of Kathy Burns (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Kathy Burns Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
787 ORDER (CVG) An evidentiary hearing is hereby SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 AM on February 23, 2015. The parties shall be prepared to produce such evidence as is necessary to advise the Court of the status of the consent decree in this matter. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
788 NOTICE Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Bogard's Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY ATTORNEY E-SIGNATURE IS MISSING.PLEASE REFILE Re: 788 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
789 NOTICE Filing of Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Bogard's Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
790 NOTICE Unavailability of David M. Bogard to Testify at February 23, 2015 Status Hearing by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Currence, Benjamin) (Entered: 02/22/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NEEDED Re: 790 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
791 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/23/2015. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Minute Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
792 ORDER (CVG) that the defendants shall file their documents by the deadlines stated herein. (HRH) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
793 NOTICE of Filing by Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
794 NOTICE of Appearance by Shari N D'Andrade on behalf of Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
795 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lawrence Carty re 790 Notice (Other) of Unavailability of David M. Bogard (Currence, Benjamin) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NOT SIGNED.PLEASE REFILE Re: 794 Notice of Appearance, 793 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
796 ORDER (CVG) granting 783 Consent Motion to Appoint Expert. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 03/04/2015)

03/04/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/10/2015
03/10/2015
03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/26/2015

797 NOTICE of Filing Four Month Status Report by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
798 NOTICE of Filing Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
799 NOTICE of Filing Regarding the Semi-Annual Impact Report and Remedial Account by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NOT SIGNED. PLEASE REFILE THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ONLY Re: 798 Notice (Other), 797 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
800 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on February 23, 2015 STATUS HEARING, before Judge CURTIS V. GOMEZ. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 4/3/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/13/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/11/2015. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
801 NOTICE of Filing Amended Certificates of Service by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr. re 793 Notice (Other), 798 Notice (Other), 794 Notice of Appearance (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Certificate of Service re D.E. 793, # 2 Exhibit Amended Certificate of Service re D.E. 794, # 3 Exhibit Amended Certificate of Service re D.E. 797, # 4 Exhibit Amended Certificate of Service re D.E. 798) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
802 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Balaban Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C thru M, # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
803 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
804 NOTICE Filing Amended Motion by Lawrence Carty re 802 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
805 Amended MOTION to Enforce Judgment by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Eric Balaban, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C thru M, # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY PROPOSED ORDER IS NEEDED Re: 803 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce. (KAB) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/26/2015 03/26/2015 03/31/2015 03/31/2015 03/31/2015 04/01/2015
04/01/2015 04/01/2015 04/01/2015 04/01/2015 04/10/2015 04/13/2015

806 NOTICE of filing proposed order by Lawrence Carty re 803 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
807 ORDER: Defendants shall respond to the Amended MOTION to Enforce Judgment [805} no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 31, 2015. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Miller, Ruth) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
808 Opposition to Motion re 805 Amended MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
809 ORDER (RM) setting hearing on Amended Motion to Enforce Judgment 805 . Motion Hearing set for 4/2/2015 at 09:30 AM in STT Courtroom 2 before Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (AO) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
810 MOTION to Continue April 2, 2015 Hearing and to Appear Telephonically by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
811 ORDER (RM): Telephone Conference set for 4/1/2015 at 01:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller. Conference call information will be provided via email. AT LEAST ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH PARTY MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE CONFERENCE. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (AO) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
812 ORDER finding as moot 810 Motion to Continue (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Miller, Ruth) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
813 Minute Order (RM). Proceedings held in chambers before Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller: Telephone Conference held on 4/1/2015. (AO) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
814 ORDER (RM): Motion Hearing previously set for 4/2/2015 is CANCELLED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (AO) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
815 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller: Status Conference held on 4/1/2015. (TRH) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
816 MOTION For Brief Extension of Time To Comply With Court's Oral Order dated April 1, 2015 by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson, John P. de Jongh, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
817 ORDER granting 816 Motion for brief extension to comply with Court's April 1, 2015 oral directive and written Order [DE 813]: all files shall be provided no later than April 15, 2015. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Miller, Ruth) (Entered: 04/13/2015)

05/22/2015 06/02/2015 06/16/2015
06/26/2015 07/06/2015 07/08/2015 07/09/2015 07/13/2015
07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/16/2015 07/23/2015

818 MOTION for Hearing by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
819 MOTION re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
820 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 819 MOTION re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
821 Opposition to Motion re 819 MOTION re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
822 NOTICE of Filing (Status Report) by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
823 NOTICE of Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bogard Report) (Balaban, Eric) Modified on 7/9/2015 (KAB). (Entered: 07/08/2015)
824 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Produce Documents by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
825 MEMORANDUM in Support re 819 MOTION re 695 Order on Motion to Appoint Expert as written: Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Enforce 2011 Order Appointing Dr. Austin filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Balaban, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
826 NOTICE of Filing by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY INCOMPLETE FILING Re: 826 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
827 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Quarterly Goals and Status of Remedial Account and Semi-Annual Impact Report by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
828 MOTION to Withdraw 824 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Produce Documents Plaintiffs' Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Enforce by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 07/23/2015)

07/23/2015
07/23/2015 07/23/2015 08/18/2015 08/21/2015 09/17/2015 09/18/2015
09/22/2015 09/22/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015 10/05/2015

829 Opposition to Motion re 824 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Compel Defendants to Produce Documents filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
830 ORDER (RM) granting 828 Motion to Withdraw Motion to Enforce at docket entry 824. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Miller, Ruth) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
831 ORDER (RM) finding as moot 824 Motion to Enforce Judgment as the motion was withdrawn. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Miller, Ruth) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
832 NOTICE Filing of Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Burns Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
833 ORDER (CVG) amending the Consent Decree. (HRH) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
834 MOTION for Permission to File Revised Proposed Quarterly Goals by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
835 Cross MOTION to Amend/Correct as written: Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Amend Quarterly Goals by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit E Balaban, # 2 Exhibit Revised Goals, # 3 Exhibit letter to D'Andrade, # 4 Exhibit expert's proposed goals, # 5 Exhibit VI Consortium, # 6 Exhibit Bogard Email, # 7 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
836 MOTION to Continue Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Hearing by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
837 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 836 MOTION to Continue Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Hearing by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion to Continue Hearing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
838 Response re 834 MOTION for Permission to File Revised Proposed Quarterly Goals filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
839 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Amend Quarterly Goals and Defendants' Motion for Permission to File Revised Proposed Quarterly Goals by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
840 Opposition to Motion re 835 Cross MOTION to Amend/Correct as written: Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Amend Quarterly Goals filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

10/06/2015 10/06/2015 10/08/2015 10/09/2015
10/09/2015 10/09/2015 10/13/2015 10/13/2015 10/16/2015 10/17/2015 10/18/2015

841 Response re 836 MOTION to Continue Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY FILER USED WRONG EVENT Re: 841 Response,. (KAB) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
842 MOTION to Enforce Judgment of Settlement Agreement, MOTION to Compel Defendants to Allow Plaintiffs' Scheduled Site Visit, MOTION to Expedite Consideration by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Letter, # 2 Exhibit B Letter, # 3 Exhibit C Letter, # 4 Exhibit D Email, # 5 Exhibit E Press Release, # 6 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
843 Opposition to Motion re 842 MOTION to Enforce Judgment of Settlement Agreement MOTION to Compel Defendants to Allow Plaintiffs' Scheduled Site Visit MOTION to Expedite Consideration filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
844 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Order by Lawrence Carty re 842 MOTION to Enforce Judgment of Settlement Agreement MOTION to Compel Defendants to Allow Plaintiffs' Scheduled Site Visit MOTION to Expedite Consideration (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
866 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Telephone Conference held on 10/9/2015. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAB) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
845 MEMORANDUM in Support re 837 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 836 MOTION to Continue Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Hearing Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
846 REPLY to re 838 Response filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. Responses due by 10/26/2015 (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
847 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 840 Opposition to Motion, Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs'' Cross-Motion to Amend Quarterly Goals filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
848 MOTION to Compel , MOTION to Enforce Judgment by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) Modified on 4/14/2016 (KAB). (Entered: 10/17/2015)
849 ORDER (CVG) that Plaintiffs counsel shall be permitted to conduct a site visit at the Criminal Justice Complex and CJC Annex from October 19-23, 2015, and further

10/27/2015 10/27/2015 10/27/2015
10/30/2015 11/03/2015 11/13/2015 11/18/2015 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 11/20/2015

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to Enforce Judgment of Settlement Agreement 842 is DENIED AS MOOT. (NAW) (Entered: 10/18/2015)
850 ORDER (CVG) The hearing previously scheduled for November 27, 2015, at 9:00 AM is hereby RE-SCHEDULED to commence promptly on December 9, 2015, at 9:00 AM. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
851 ORDER (CVG) The Motion for Permission to File Revised Proposed Quarterly Goals 834 , Cross Motion to Amend/Correct 835 , Motion to Continue 836 , Amended Motion to Amend/Correct 837 , and Motion to Expedite 839 are all DENIED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) Modified on 10/28/2015 (KAB). (Entered: 10/27/2015)
852 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on Friday, October 9, 2015, before Judge CURTIS V. GOMEZ. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 11/20/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/30/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/28/2016. (Kean, Chandra) Modified on 10/28/2015 (KAB). (Entered: 10/27/2015)
853 MOTION to Expedite , MOTION for Reconsideration re 851 Order, Terminate Motions,, by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
854 Response re 848 MOTION to Compel MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
855 NOTICE Expert Reports by Lawrence Carty PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT QUARTERLY REPORTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bogard Report, # 2 Exhibit Burns Report, # 3 Exhibit Austin Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
856 MOTION to Expedite , MOTION to Compel , MOTION to Enforce Judgment by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
857 NOTICE Withdrawal of Motion to Enforce by Lawrence Carty re 848 MOTION to Compel MOTION to Enforce Judgment (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NOT DATED.PLEASE REFILE THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ONLY Re: 857 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
858 NOTICE Corrected Docket Entry Certificate of Service by Lawrence Carty re 857 Notice (Other) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

11/20/2015 11/20/2015 11/23/2015 11/24/2015 11/27/2015 12/01/2015 12/07/2015 12/09/2015 12/09/2015 12/16/2015 12/23/2015 12/24/2015

859 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Quarterly Status Report by Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Balaban Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A thru E, # 3 Exhibit F thru I, # 4 Exhibit J thru P, # 5 Exhibit Q thru U, # 6 Exhibit V thru Z, # 7 Exhibit AA thru CC, # 8 Exhibit DD - II) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
860 STATUS REPORT regarding Defendants' Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NOT SIGNED. PLEASE SUBMIT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ONLY Re: 860 Status Report. (KAB) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
861 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Compel Production of Videos and Documents by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Balaban, # 2 Exhibit A thru E, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
862 NOTICE of Filing of Defendants' Proposed Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 11/27/2015)
863 NOTICE of Objections by Lawrence Carty re 862 Notice (Other), (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
864 Opposition to Motion re 856 MOTION to Expedite MOTION to Compel MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
865 MOTION to Seal Motion to Appoint Medical Expert by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
867 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/9/2015. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2016: # 2 Chambers Conference) (CAB). (Entered: 12/09/2015)
868 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Quarterly Goals by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
869 Response re 864 Opposition to Motion, Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Compel Production of Documents filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Balaban Declaration, # 2 Exhibit EX A to Balaban Declaration) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
870 Response re 868 Notice (Other) Regarding Plaintiffs' Proposed Quarterly Goals filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity,

12/28/2015 01/13/2016 02/01/2016 02/02/2016
02/11/2016 02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/16/2016 02/17/2016 02/18/2016 02/19/2016

Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendants' Revised Quarterly Goals) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/24/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: FILER USED WRONG EVENT Re: 870 Response,. (KAB) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
871 MOTION re 868 Notice (Other) for Expedited Order to Accept Plaintiffs' Proposed Quarterly Goals, MOTION to Expedite by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
872 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Security Expert's Report by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
873 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on December 9, 2015 Quarterly Review Hearing, before Judge CURTIS V. GOMEZ. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 2/26/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2016. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
874 NOTICE of status of Plaintiffs' pending motions by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
875 NOTICE of Status of Defendants' Pending Motion by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
876 MOTION for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc to Comply with the Court's Oral Order on February 2, 2016 by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
877 NOTICE of filing Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Appendix A) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
878 NOTICE of filing Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
879 NOTICE of filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
880 ORDER (CVG) A site visit to the Criminal Justice Complex and Alva Swan Annex shall commence promptly at 9:00 AM on February 26, 2016, prior to the quarterly evidentiary hearing. The government shall be prepared to provide the Court with an overview of the facilities to allow the Court to assess the government's compliance

02/19/2016 02/19/2016
02/19/2016 02/23/2016 02/25/2016
02/26/2016 02/26/2016 02/29/2016 03/11/2016 03/17/2016

with the consent decree. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
881 MOTION for Experts to Testify Telephonically at February 26, 2016 Hearing, MOTION to Expedite by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
882 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiffs' Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
883 NOTICE of Filing Defendants' Status Report For the Quarter Ending February 5, 2016 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
884 NOTICE of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for Experts to Appear Telephonically by Lawrence Carty re 881 MOTION for Experts to Testify Telephonically at February 26, 2016 Hearing MOTION to Expedite (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
885 ORDER (CVG) The motion to enforce judgment 802 , motion to expedite the motion to enforce judgment 803 , motion for hearing 818 , motion for extension of time 820 , motion to expedite the motion for reconsideration 853 , motion to expedite 856 , motion to expedite 861 , and motion for expedited order to accept plaintiff's quarterly goals 871 are all MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
886 NOTICE of Filing of Defendants' Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
888 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/26/2016. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/27/2016: # 1 continution of chambers conference) (CAB). (Entered: 03/01/2016)
887 MOTION for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals and Expedited Relief by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Balaban, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
889 ORDERED (CVG) that the Motion to Enforce the June 28, 2011 order 819 is GRANTED. (NAW) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
890 ORDER (CVG) The defendants shall respond to plaintiff's Motion for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals 887 no later than March 23, 2016. (This is a

03/18/2016
03/23/2016 03/23/2016 03/28/2016 04/01/2016 04/06/2016 04/06/2016 05/06/2016 05/06/2016 05/06/2016

TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
891 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on February 26, 2016, before Judge CURTIS V. GOMEZ. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 4/11/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/20/2016. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
892 NOTICE of Filing of Defendants' Fourth Quarterly Goal by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
893 Opposition to Motion re 887 MOTION for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals and Expedited Relief filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
894 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 893 Opposition to Motion, Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
895 ORDER (CVG) The Joint Motion for Extension of Time 872 , Motion for Extension of time Nunc Pro Tunc 876 , and Motion for Experts to Testify Telephonically 881 are MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
896 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Telephone Conference held on 4/6/2016. (W, K) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
897 ORDER (CVG) The Motion for Court Order Accepting Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals 887 is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
898 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Report by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
899 ORDER (CVG) the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Security Expert's Report 898 is hereby GRANTED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
900 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for 9:00 AM on May 27, 2016, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:30 AM on May 27, 2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/16/2016 05/18/2016
05/19/2016 05/20/2016 05/20/2016
05/20/2016 05/24/2016 05/26/2016 05/27/2016 06/03/2016 08/13/2016

901 NOTICE of Filing Expert Quarterly Reports by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Appendix A, # 3 Appendix B, # 4 Appendix C, # 5 Appendix D, # 6 Exhibit B) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
902 NOTICE of Filing of Classification Expert's Report on Goals For Quarter Ending on May 6, 2016 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dr. Austin's Report on Quarterly Goal, # 2 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
903 NOTICE of Filing Security Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
904 NOTICE of Filing Quarterly Report of Mental Health Expert by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Appendix A, # 3 Appendix B, # 4 Appendix C) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
905 STATUS REPORT on Quarterly Goals by Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Eric Balaban Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibit, # 42 Exhibit, # 43 Exhibit, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit, # 46 Exhibit, # 47 Exhibit, # 48 Exhibit, # 49 Exhibit, # 50 Exhibit, # 51 Exhibit, # 52 Exhibit, # 53 Exhibit, # 54 Exhibit, # 55 Exhibit, # 56 Exhibit, # 57 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
906 NOTICE of Filing of Defendants' Status Report Concerning Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
907 MOTION for Court Reporter by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
908 NOTICE of Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Appendix A) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/26/2016)
910 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/27/2016. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/26/2016: # 2 in chambers conference) (CAB). (Entered: 06/20/2016)
909 NOTICE of Filing Quarterly Goals by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
911 NOTICE of Filing Mental Health Expert's Quarterly Report by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt

08/15/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016 08/20/2016
08/22/2016 08/22/2016
08/22/2016 08/22/2016 08/23/2016

Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 08/13/2016)
912 NOTICE of Filing Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
913 STATUS REPORT on Defendants' Quarterly Goals For the Quarter Ending on August 5, 2016 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
914 NOTICE Status Report by Lawrence Carty (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
915 Affidavit in Support re 907 MOTION for Court Reporter Status Report filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/20/2016)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRYRe: 915 Affidavit in Support of Motion, Filer used the wrong event; Filer must re-file using Notice event. (CBF) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
916 NOTICE of Filing of Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Quarterly Status Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Eric Balaban Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 1, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 2, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit I Part 1, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit I Part 2, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit P Part 1, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit P Part 2, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit R Part 1, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit R Part 2, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit T, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit U, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit V, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit AA, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit BB, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit CC, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit DD, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit HH, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit JJ, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit LL, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit OO, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit QQ, # 37 Exhibit Exhibit RR) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
917 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
918 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
919 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 27, 2016, QUARTERLY REVIEW HEARING, before Judge CURTIS V. GOMEZ. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript

08/24/2016 08/25/2016
08/25/2016 08/26/2016 09/07/2016
09/20/2016 09/20/2016 10/04/2016 10/04/2016

Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 9/16/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/26/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/25/2016. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
920 Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 8/26/2016 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
921 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 27, 2016, QUARTERLY REVIEW HEARING (in-chambers conference included), before Judge CURTIS V. GOMEZ. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 9/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/28/2016. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
922 NOTICE of Filing Classification Expert's Quarterly Report by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
923 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/26/2016. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/29/2016: # 2 In Chambers Conference) (CAB). (Entered: 08/26/2016)
924 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on August 26, 2016, Quarterly Review Hearing, before Judge CURTIS V. GOMEZ. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 10/3/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/14/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2016. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
925 MOTION to Set Quarterly Goals by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Text of Proposed Order, # 7 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
926 MOTION to Reschedule November 25, 2016 Quarterly Evidentiary Hearing by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
927 MOTION for Joinder in Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule November 25, 2016 Quarterly Evidentiary Hearing by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
928 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/04/2016)

10/05/2016 10/06/2016
10/20/2016 10/28/2016
11/02/2016 11/07/2016 11/14/2016 11/18/2016
11/18/2016 12/07/2016
12/08/2016 12/13/2016 01/04/2017

929 REPLY to Defendants' Motion for Joinder in Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule November 25, 2016 Quarterly Evidentiary Hearing filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Responses due by 10/20/2016 (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
930 Opposition to Motion re 925 MOTION to Set Quarterly Goals filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
931 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 930 Opposition to Motion, filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/20/2016)
932 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for November 25, 2016, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 am on December 8, 2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
933 Consent MOTION to Continue December 8, 2015 Hearing by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
934 MOTION to Withdraw Consent Motion to Continue Hearing by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
935 NOTICE of Filing Expert Quarterly Reports by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
936 STATUS REPORT on Quarterly Goals by Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Eric Balaban Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
937 STATUS REPORT For The Quarter Ending November 4, 2016 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
938 NOTICE of Supplement to Defendants Opposition to Motion to Set Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson re 930 Opposition to Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
939 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/8/2016. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
940 NOTICE of Filing Defendants' Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
941 ORDER (CVG) The government shall, through such process as is necessary, procure the attendance of the Commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Health and the Director of the Division of Mental Health to testify at the February 24, 2017,

01/25/2017
02/10/2017
02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/24/2017 02/24/2017 02/24/2017 02/27/2017

evidentiary hearing. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
942 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on December 8, 2016 Quarterly Review Hearing, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 2/21/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/2/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2017. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
943 NOTICE of Filing Experts' Quarterly Goals Reports by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Security Expert's Quarterly Goals Report, # 2 Exhibit Mental Health Expert's Quarterly Goals Report) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
944 STATUS REPORT For the Quarter Ending February 3, 2017 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: INCORRECT DIVISION.PLESASE RE-FILE Re: 944 Status Report. (KAB) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
945 STATUS REPORT For the Quarter Ending February 3, 2017 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
946 NOTICE of Filing Implementation Plan and Estimated Timeline by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Joint Notice) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
947 NOTICE of Filing Status Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
948 NOTICE of Unavailability and Request to Be Excused From February 24, 2017 Hearing by Lawrence Carty (Currence, Benjamin) Modified on 2/24/2017 (KAB). (Entered: 02/24/2017)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS DONE INCORRECTLY.PLEASE REFILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ONLY Re: 948 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
950 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/24/2017. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
949 NOTICE of Filing of Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

03/29/2017
04/07/2017
05/10/2017 05/12/2017 05/12/2017 05/17/2017 05/19/2017 05/19/2017
05/19/2017 05/22/2017

951 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on February 24, 2017 Quarterly Review Hearing, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 4/24/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/4/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/30/2017. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
952 ORDER (CVG) The motion to set quarterly goals 925 ; motion to reschedule November 26, 2016, quarterly evidentiary hearing 926 ; motion for joinder in plaintiffs' motion to reschedule November 25, 2016, quarterly evidentiary hearing 927 ; motion for extension of time to file response/reply 928 consent motion to continue December 8, 2015, hearing 933 ; and motion to withdraw consent motion to continue hearing 934 are all MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW). (Entered: 04/07/2017)
953 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
954 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
955 Emergency MOTION to Cancel Quarterly Hearing by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
956 MOTION for Joinder in Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion to Cancel Hearing by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
957 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
958 STATUS REPORT by Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
959 STATUS REPORT by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
960 REPLY to re 955 Emergency MOTION to Cancel Quarterly Hearing filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. Responses due by 6/5/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Balaban Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/26/2017 06/13/2017 06/13/2017
08/15/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/24/2017 08/25/2017 08/25/2017

961 Joint MOTION for Ruling or Status Conference with the Court by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
962 ORDER (CVG) The Emergency Motion to Cancel Quarterly Hearing 955 is hereby DENIED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW). (Entered: 05/22/2017)
963 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for 9:00 am on May 26, 2017, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:15 am on May 26, 2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW). (Entered: 05/22/2017)
964 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/26/2017. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
965 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty for proceedings held on May 26, 2017 before Judge Curtis V. Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
966 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 26, 2017 Quarterly Review Hearing, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. 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.. Redaction Request due 7/10/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/17/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2017. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
967 NOTICE of Filing Expert Quarterly Reports by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
968 STATUS REPORT by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
969 STATUS REPORT by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
970 NOTICE of Filing of Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals for Quarter Ending August 4, 2017 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
971 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/25/2017. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List) (TRH) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
972 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: In Chambers Conference held on 8/25/2017. (Court Reporter N/A.) (TRH) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017 08/31/2017 08/31/2017 09/01/2017 09/29/2017 10/02/2017 11/02/2017 11/15/2017 11/16/2017
11/17/2017 11/17/2017 11/21/2017

973 NOTICE of Filing of Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals for Quarter Ending November 3, 2017 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
974 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty for proceedings held on August 25, 2017 before Judge Curtis V. Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
975 NOTICE of Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
976 NOTICE of Filing (Joint Notice) by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
977 MOTION For Extension of Quarterly Goals Deadline by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
978 Response re 977 MOTION For Extension of Quarterly Goals Deadline filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
979 MOTION to Expedite , MOTION to Continue Hearing Date by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
980 Response re 979 MOTION to Expedite MOTION to Continue Hearing Date filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
981 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 980 Response, 979 MOTION to Expedite MOTION to Continue Hearing Date filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
982 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter currently scheduled for November 24, 2017, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on December 19, 2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
983 STATUS REPORT of Defendants Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
984 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter currently scheduled for December 19, 2017, is hereby CANCELLED. A status conference is hereby SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on December 19, 2017. The

12/01/2017 12/19/2017 01/03/2018 01/23/2018 02/07/2018
02/09/2018 02/14/2018 02/16/2018
02/16/2018 02/19/2018 02/23/2018 03/02/2018

deadline for compliance with quarterly goals scheduled for November 3, 2017, is hereby EXTENDED to February 2, 2018. (AFS) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
985 NOTICE to the Court by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
993 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Status Conference held on 12/19/2017. (Court Reporter none.) (CAB) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
986 ORDER (CVG) The motion for joinder 956 and the motion for ruling or status conference 961 are MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (SA) (Entered: 01/03/2018)
987 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Quarterly Report by Plaintiff Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
988 ORDER (CVG) The motion for extension of time is GRANTED. The deadline for David Bogard to submit his expert compliance report is EXTENDED to February 15, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
989 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Burns Quarterly Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
990 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Bogard Quarterly Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/14/2018)
991 STATUS REPORT on Conditions and Compliance with Quarterly Goals by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
992 NOTICE by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson Defendants Status Report for the Quarter Ending February 2, 2018 (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/23/2018 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 3 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/19/2018)
994 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/23/2018. (Court Reporter Vashti Gerald-Berry.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 02/24/2018)
995 NOTICE of Quarterly Goals and Protocol by Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Goals, # 2 Exhibit Protocol) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

03/07/2018 996 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty for proceedings held on February 23, 2018 before Judge Curtis V. Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

04/03/2018

997 ORDER (CVG) The motion for extension of quarterly goals deadline 977 is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/25/2018

998 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on August 25, 2017, before Judge Curtis V Gomez Re: 974 . Court Reporter/Transcriber Chandra Kean. 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.. Redaction Request due 5/21/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/1/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/27/2018. (CBF) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/26/2018

999 Consent MOTION reschedule hearing by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/26/2018

1000

Amended MOTION to Continue Hearing Date by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

05/04/2018 1001 NOTICE of Unavailability by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/10/2018 1002 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Bogard Quarterly Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/11/2018 1003 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Burns Quarterly Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/16/2018

1004

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on February 23, 2018, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Vashti Gerald-Berry, Telephone number 340-626-3630. 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.. Redaction Request due 6/11/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/21/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/17/2018. (CAB) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/17/2018

1005

ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter currently scheduled for May 25, 2018, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on June 27, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/17/2018 1006 MOTION to Continue Date for Filing Quarterly Reports by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At

The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/18/2018

1007 STATUS REPORT by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/25/2018

1008

STATUS REPORT on Conditions and Compliance with Quarterly Goals by Lawrence Carty. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Eric Balaban, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

06/11/2018

1009

NOTICE of Filing Agreed Upon Goals For Quarter Ending August 3, 2018 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/13/2018

1010

Response re 1009 Notice (Other), Regarding Quarterly Goals filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/15/2018

1011

MOTION to Expedite , MOTION to Compel by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018 1012 ORDER (RM): ORDER: Defendants shall respond to the MOTION to Compel 1011 no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 20, 2018.(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/20/2018

1013

Response re 1011 MOTION to Expedite MOTION to Compel filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/25/2018 1014 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller: Telephone Conference held on 6/25/2018. (TRH) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/27/2018 1015 NOTICE Notice of Unavailability by Lawrence Carty re 1005 Order, Set Hearings (Currence, Benjamin) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018

1016

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/27/2018. (Court Reporter Desiree Hill.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/13/2018: # 2 Chambers Conference) (CAB). (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/28/2018

1017

ORDER (CVG) By no later than July 2, 2018, at 3:00 P.M., the plaintiffs shall file a brief addressing any proposed additional goals for the quarter. By no later than July 5, 2018, at 3:00 P.M., the defendants shall file a brief addressing their position on the additional goals proposed by the plaintiffs. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

07/02/2018

1018

MOTION for Additional Quarterly Goals re 1009 Notice (Other), by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/05/2018

1019

Opposition to Motion re 1018 MOTION for Additional Quarterly Goals re 1009 Notice (Other), filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

08/08/2018

1020

NOTICE of Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/09/2018

1021

MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonic by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/10/2018

1022

NOTICE of Filing Expert's Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/17/2018

1023

STATUS REPORT re: Third Quarter 2018 by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/17/2018 1024 STATUS REPORT by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/18/2018

1025

ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter currently scheduled for August 24, 2018, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 a.m. on September 27, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 08/18/2018)

08/20/2018

1026

MOTION to Continue Evidentiary Hearing by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/23/2018

1027

ORDER (CVG) The motion to continue docketed at ECF 1026 is hereby GRANTED. The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for September 27, 2018, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on September 5, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/30/2018 1028 NOTICE of Unavailability of Local Counsel by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/31/2018

1029

MOTION for Leave to Appear to Appear Telephonically , MOTION to Expedite by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

09/04/2018 1030 ORDER (CVG) The motions for leave to appear by telephone docketed at ECF 1021 and ECF 1029 are hereby DENIED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/05/2018

1031 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/5/2018. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

1032

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz for proceedings held on June 27, 2018 before Judge Curtis V. Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

1033

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz for proceedings held on September 5, 2018 before Judge Curtis V. Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/13/2018

1034

NOTICE of Filing Agreed Upon Goals For Quarter Ending November 2, 2018 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/13/2018

1035

MOTION re 1034 Notice (Other), to Add Additional Goals and Substitute Involuntary Medication Goal by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/14/2018 1036 ORDER (CVG) In addition to the goals set forth in ECF 1034 , the BOC shall also complete the goals set forth in this order before the end of the current quarter on November 2, 2018.(CAA) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/25/2018

1037

MOTION for Reconsideration of September 14, 2018 Order, Or In The Alternative an Enlargement of the Quarterly Goals Deadline by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

10/09/2018 1038 Opposition to Motion re 1037 MOTION for Reconsideration of September 14, 2018 Order, Or In The Alternative an Enlargement of the Quarterly Goals Deadline filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others

Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/15/2018

1039

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 06/27/2018, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Desiree Hill. 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.. Redaction Request due 11/8/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/19/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/16/2019. (CAB) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/23/2018

1040

REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 1038 Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

10/24/2018

1041

ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter shall commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on November 28, 2018, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018

1042

ORDER (CVG) The motion to continue docketed at ECF 999 and the amended motion to continue docketed at ECF 1000 are MOOT. The motion to continue the date for filing quarterly reports docketed at ECF 1006 is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to May 17, 2018. The motion for additional quarterly goals docketed at ECF 1018 is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/26/2018

1043

NOTICE of Filing of Supplemental Exhibit to Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative Enlargement of the Quarterly Goals Deadline by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

11/06/2018

1044

ORDER (CVG) A telephonic status conference in this matter shall commence promptly at 3:30 P.M. AST on November 6, 2018, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. The parties shall call 340-774-1800 in advance of the conference. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/06/2018

1045 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Telephone Conference held on 11/6/2018. (Court Reporter Persha Stout-Warner.) (TRH) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/09/2018

1046

NOTICE of Filing Security Expert Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Report by Security Expert, David Bogard) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/09/2018 1047 NOTICE of Filing Mental Health Expert Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Report by

Mental Health Expert, Kathryn Burns, # 2 Exhibit B - Experts' Protocol Revision Recommendations) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/14/2018

1048

MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Videos and for an Extension of Time to File Status Report by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/14/2018)

11/16/2018

1049

NOTICE of Filing Proposed Order by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz re 1048 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Videos and for an Extension of Time to File Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/16/2018

1050

ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion to compel and for an extension of time ECF 1048 is GRANTED. Mapp shall produce all documents requested by Carty as set forth in Exhibit D ECF[1048-4] to Carty's motion, and all videos requested by Carty during class counsel's October 30-November 2, 2018, site visit, for Carty's receipt by Monday, November 19, 2018. The deadline for Carty to file a Quarterly Status Report is hereby EXTENDED to November 23, 2018. (CAA) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/16/2018 1051 STATUS REPORT by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/23/2018

1052

STATUS REPORT for Third Quarter 2018 by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/23/2018)

11/27/2018

1053

ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled to commence at 9:00 A.M on November 28, 2018, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 8:45 A.M. on November 28, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

11/28/2018

1054 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/28/2018. (Court Reporter Persha Stoutt-Warner.) (TRH) Modified on 11/28/2018 (TRH). (Entered: 11/28/2018)

11/28/2018 1055 Exhibit and Witness List. (TRH) (Entered: 11/28/2018)

11/28/2018 1056 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Status Conference held on 11/28/2018. (TRH) (Entered: 11/28/2018)

12/05/2018 1057 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha,

Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz for proceedings held on November 28, 2018 before Judge Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/05/2018)

12/11/2018

1058

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 09/05/2018, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Persha Stoutt-Warner, Telephone number 340-643-7385. 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.. Redaction Request due 1/4/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/14/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/14/2019. (Stoutt-Warner, Persha) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/13/2018

1059

MOTION to Expedite , MOTION for Additional Goals by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/16/2018

1060

ORDER (CVG) The Virgin Islands shall file a brief responding to Carty's motion, ECF 1059 , by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 18, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 12/16/2018)

12/17/2018

1061

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

12/17/2018

1062

ORDER (CVG) The Virgin Islands's motion for an extension of time ECF 1061 is hereby GRANTED. The Virgin Islands's deadline to respond to ECF 1059 is hereby EXTENDED to 3:00 P.M. on December 20, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

12/17/2018

1063

ORDER (CVG) No later than December 27, 2018, the Virgin Islands Government shall submit a brief addressing the following areas: (1) the total number of inmates in need of intermediate or inpatient care at appropriate psychiatric facilities as of September 14, 2018, as well as the current custodial and procedural status of those inmates; (2) the dates certain by which the GVI will transfer each of those inmates to psychiatric facilities; and (3) for the 2018 calendar year, the number of inmates in need of intermediate or inpatient care at appropriate psychiatric facilities that have been released. (CAA) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

12/19/2018

1064

ORDER (CVG) The parties shall file a notice with the Court advising the Court of any change in position or status of any principal involved in this matter, including counsel, at least seven days in advance of the effective date of any change in status or position; provided, however, that, such notice to the Court shall be filed immediately if a principal is afforded less than seven days notice before a change in status or position is effective. (CAA) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/20/2018

1065

Opposition to Motion re 1059 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Additional Goals filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018

1066

REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 1065 Opposition to Motion, 1059 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Additional Goals filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018 1067 NOTICE of Resignation of Claude E. Walker by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/21/2018

1068

MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/27/2018

1069

ORDER (CVG) The Virgin Islands's motion for an extension of time, ECF 1068 , to file a response to the Court's December 17, 2018, Order, ECF 1063 , is hereby GRANTED. The Virgin Islands shall file its response no later than December 28, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

12/28/2018

1070 Response re 1063 Order,, filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 12/28/2018)

01/02/2019

1071

NOTICE of Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Mental Health Expert Report, # 2 Exhibit B- Appendix of Inmate Case Summaries) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

01/03/2019 1072 ORDER (CVG) No later than 3:00 P.M. on January 11, 2019, to the extent Carty wishes to do so, he shall reply to the GVIs response to the Courts December 17, 2018, Order. (CAA) (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/04/2019

1073

ORDER (CVG) By the end of the current quarter, the BOC shall submit a plan detailing how and when training will be completed on the Use of Force policies including: Umbrella Use of Force, Restraint Devices, Video Recording, Cell Extractions, and Reporting Requirements. No later than March 15, 2019, the BOC shall complete training on the Use of Force policies including: Umbrella Use of Force, Restraint Devices, Video Recording, Cell Extractions, and Reporting Requirements. Carty's motion for additional goals, ECF 1059 , is DENIED. Carty's motion for additional goals, ECF 1035 , is MOOT. (CAA) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/09/2019

1074

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1070 Response, 1072 Order by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 01/09/2019)

01/10/2019 1075 ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion for an extension of time, ECF 1074 , to file a response to the Virgin Islands Government's status report regarding seriously

mentally ill prisoners, ECF 1070 , is hereby GRANTED. Carty shall file his response no later than 3:00 P.M. on January 14, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/11/2019 1076 Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/22/2019 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 2 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/14/2019

1077

STATUS REPORT Response re: Interim Hospitalization Plan Update by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/18/2019 1078 NOTICE to the Court by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

02/01/2019

1079 NOTICE of Filing Training Plan by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/01/2019)

02/06/2019

1080

ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled to commence at 9:00 A.M. on February 22, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:30 A.M. on February 22, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 02/06/2019)

02/07/2019

1081

NOTICE of Filing Mental Health Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mental Health Expert Quarterly Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/07/2019)

02/08/2019

1082

NOTICE of filing Security Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Security Expert Quarterly Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

1083

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11-282018, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Persha StouttWarner, Telephone number 340-643-7385. 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.. Redaction Request due 3/4/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/12/2019. (Stoutt-Warner, Persha) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/12/2019

1084

NOTICE of Filing to inform the Court that Wynnie Testamark is newly appointed Director of the Bureau of Corrections by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/12/2019)

02/14/2019 1085 NOTICE of filing Supplemental Expert Quarterly Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal

Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Expert Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/15/2019

1086 STATUS REPORT by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/15/2019

1087

STATUS REPORT on Quarterly Goals for Quarter Ending February 1, 2019 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/19/2019 1088 MOTION for Protective Order by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/22/2019

1095 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/22/2019. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (CAB) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/01/2019

1089

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz for proceedings held on 02/22/2019 before Judge Curtis V. Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/04/2019

1090

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1088 MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019

1091

ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion for an extension of time, ECF 1090 , to file a response to the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections's motion for a protective order, ECF 1088 , is hereby GRANTED. Carty shall file his response by March 8, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/05/2019

1092

ORDER (CVG) By no later than 3:00 P.M. on April 1, 2019, the parties shall each file a brief with the Court addressing whether the Court should consider appointing a receiver; and, if so, whether the Court should schedule a show cause hearing regarding such appointment. (CAA) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/07/2019

1093

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Briefs on Appointment of a Receiver by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/08/2019

1094 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 1088 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis

Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/15/2019

1096

ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion for an extension of time ECF 1093 is hereby GRANTED. The parties shall each file their briefs in response to the Court's March 5, 2019, order (ECF 1092 ) no later than 3:00 P.M. on April 10, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019

1097

MOTION for Extension of Time to Comply with Court Order by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/22/2019

1098

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/26/2019

1099

ORDER (CVG) The Virgin Islands's motion for an extension of time to reply ECF 1098 is hereby GRANTED. The Virgin Islands shall file its reply to Carty's opposition to the Virgin Islands's motion for a protective order no later than March 29, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

03/26/2019

1100

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/22/2019, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Persha StouttWarner, Telephone number 340-643-7385. 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.. Redaction Request due 4/19/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/27/2019. (StouttWarner, Persha) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

04/01/2019

1101

NOTICE Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Expert's Status Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/08/2019 1103 Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/24/2019 10:15 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 04/08/2019)

04/10/2019

1102

MOTION for Extension of Time To File Brief Regarding Appointment of Receiver (Unopposed Motion) by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

04/10/2019

1104

ORDER (CVG) The motion of the Virgin Islands for an extension of time ECF 1102 is hereby GRANTED. The Virgin Islands shall file its brief in response to the Court's March 5, 2019, order (ECF 1092 ) no later than 3:00 P.M. on April 15, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

04/10/2019

1105

ORDER (CVG) The parties shall each file their briefs in response to the Court's March 5, 2019, order (ECF 1092 ) no later than 3:00 P.M. on April 15, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

04/15/2019

1106

REPLY to re 1092 Order, Plaintiffs' Brief Regarding The Appointment of A Receiver filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. Responses due by 4/28/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019

1107

Response re 1105 Order Brief on Consideration of Receivership filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

05/07/2019

1108

NOTICE of filing MH expert quarterly report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - MH Expert Quarterly Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/07/2019)

05/07/2019

1109

NOTICE of filing security expert quarterly report. by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/07/2019)

05/08/2019

1110

NOTICE of Filing Agreed Upon Goals For Quarter Ending May 3, 2019 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 05/08/2019)

05/09/2019

1111

Response re 1110 Notice (Other), Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Notice of Filing of Quarterly Goals filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/17/2019

1112

NOTICE of Filing Expert Report Addendum by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019

1113

STATUS REPORT by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019 1114 STATUS REPORT for the Quarter Ending May 3, 2019 by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal

Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/21/2019

1115

Motion to enforce the settlement agreeman and Motion to Compel by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) Modified on 5/31/2019 (KAB). (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/22/2019 1116 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lawrence Carty. Fong, Viola A served on 5/22/2019, answer due 6/12/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (TNS) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/22/2019

1117

ORDER (CVG) A site visit to the Criminal Justice Complex shall commence promptly at 9:55 AM on May 24, 2019, prior to the quarterly evidentiary hearing. The government shall be prepared to provide the Court with an overview of the facilities to allow the Court to assess the government's compliance with the consent decree. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/24/2019

1118 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/24/2019. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Minute Entry) (CAB) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/24/2019 1120 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/28/2019

1119

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz for proceedings held on 05/24/19 before Judge Curtis V. Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

06/07/2019 1121 NOTICE (Defendants' Response to Court Order) by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019

1122

NOTICE of Filing Proposed Stipulation by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/19/2019

1123

MOTION for Entry of Protocol for Completion of Quarterly Goals as an Order by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/26/2019 1124 NOTICE of Agreed Upon Quarterly Goals by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 06/26/2019)

06/26/2019

1125

Opposition to Motion re 1123 MOTION for Entry of Protocol for Completion of Quarterly Goals as an Order filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson. (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 06/26/2019)

07/05/2019

1126

REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 1123 MOTION for Entry of Protocol for Completion of Quarterly Goals as an Order filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 07/05/2019)

07/09/2019

1127

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5-242019, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Persha StouttWarner, Telephone number 340-643-7385. 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.. Redaction Request due 8/2/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/12/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/10/2019. (Stoutt-Warner, Persha) (Entered: 07/09/2019)

07/15/2019

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRYRe: 1126 Reply to Opposition to Motion,by Filer: Docket Event and Document does not match. (CBF) (Entered: 07/15/2019)

07/19/2019 1128 NOTICE of Withdrawal by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (D'Andrade, Shari) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

07/25/2019

1129 ORDER (CVG) A status conference in this matter shall commence promptly at 10:30 A.M. on August 1, 2019, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (This is a TEXTONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 07/25/2019)

07/25/2019

1130

MOTION to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 07/25/2019)

07/26/2019

1131

ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion to appear telephonically, ECF 1130 , is hereby GRANTED. Carty's counsel shall call 340-774-1800 in advance of the August 1, 2019, status conference. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 07/26/2019)

07/30/2019

1132

ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter is hereby SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:30 A.M. on August 29, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 07/30/2019)

08/02/2019

1133

ORDER (CVG) The Court Experts shall each file a plan proposing specific, demonstrable, and tangible tasks necessary to be undertaken to obtain substantial compliance with the provisions of the 1994 and 2013 Settlement Agreements, which tasks shall be completed in the short-term, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 5, 2019. To the extent they wish to do so, the parties shall file any objections to the

Court Experts' proposed short-term tasks, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 7, 2019. The Court Experts shall each file a plan proposing specific, demonstrable, and tangible tasks necessary to be undertaken to obtain substantial compliance with the provisions of the 1994 and 2013 Settlement Agreements, which tasks shall be completed in the near-term, mid-term, and long-term, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2019. To the extent they wish to do so, the parties shall file any objections to the Court Experts' proposed near-term, mid-term, and long-term tasks, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 2019. The parties shall provide copies of this order to the Court Experts. (CAA) (Entered: 08/02/2019)

08/05/2019

1134

NOTICE of Filing Expert Reports by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz re 1133 Order,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Security Expert Report, # 2 Exhibit B - Mental Health Expert Report) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/05/2019)

08/07/2019

1135

Response re 1134 Notice (Other), to Expert Reports filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019 1136 NOTICE of Defendants' Objections to the Court's Experts Proposed Short-Term Tasks by Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/09/2019

1137

NOTICE of Filing Quarterly Expert Reports by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/15/2019

1138

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Quarterly Status Report by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/15/2019

1139

ORDER (CVG) The Governments motion, ECF 1138 , for an extension of time to file its quarterly status report is GRANTED. The Government shall file its quarterly status report no later than August 22, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/15/2019

1140

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Quarterly Status Report by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/15/2019

1141

ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion, ECF 1140 , for an extension of time to file his quarterly status report is GRANTED. Carty shall file his quarterly status report no later than August 22, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/15/2019 1142 ORDER (CVG) The BOC shall complete the outlined tasks by the ordered deadlines. Failure to comply timely with any of the provisions in this order may result in the

imposition of sanctions starting at $2500 per day for each task that is not completed. (CAA) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/16/2019

1143

NOTICE of Filing Expert Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/16/2019)

08/19/2019

1144

NOTICE of Filing Expert Tasks Report by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/19/2019)

08/22/2019

1145

STATUS REPORT for Quarter Ending August 2, 2019 by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/22/2019)

08/22/2019 1146 STATUS REPORT ON QUARTERLY GOALS FOR THE QUARTER ENDING AUGUST 2, 2019 by Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/22/2019)

08/22/2019

1147

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Court Experts Near-Term, Mid-Term and Long-Term Proposed Tasks by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/22/2019)

08/23/2019

1148

Cross MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objections by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/23/2019)

08/23/2019

1149

ORDER (CVG) The Government's motion, ECF 1147 , and Carty's motion, ECF 1148 , for an extension of time to file a response to the Court Experts' proposed near-term, mid-term, and long-term tasks are hereby GRANTED. To the extent either party wishes to do so, the parties shall file any objections to the Court Experts' proposed near-term, mid-term, and long-term tasks, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 6, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/23/2019)

08/26/2019 1150 Subpoena Returned executed on Jimmy Warren on 8/22/19 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (AM) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/26/2019 1151 AFFIDAVIT of Service for personally served on Jimmy Warren on 8/22/19, filed by Lawrence Carty. (AM) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/27/2019 1152 Subpoena Returned executed (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (TRH) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

08/27/2019 1153 Subpoena Returned excuted (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (TRH) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

08/28/2019

1154

NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Counsel's Unavailability for Quarterly Status Hearing by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019 1155 NOTICE Amended Notice of Unavailability by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

1156

ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for August 29, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:00 A.M. on September 11, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/31/2019

1157

Response re 1142 Order, filed by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Position Description -Mental Health Professional, # 2 Exhibit Dr. Lu's Report, # 3 Exhibit Contract for Installation of new CCTV system, # 4 Exhibit 8/21 Letter from Alliance Data Services, # 5 Exhibit 8/29 Email from Alliance Data Services, # 6 Exhibit Sign-in Sheet, # 7 Exhibit AD Directive re Hospital Security, # 8 Exhibit Training Material re Hospital Security (H), # 9 Exhibit Training Material re Hospital Security (H-1), # 10 Exhibit Evacuation Drill Schedule, # 11 Exhibit Update re Staffing Plan) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/31/2019)

09/06/2019

1158

Response re 1143 Notice (Other), 1144 Notice (Other) Objections to Experts' Tasks Reports filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

09/06/2019 1159 NOTICE of Objections to Court Expert Near, Mid and Long Term Goals by Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

09/11/2019

1161 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/11/2019. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (CAB) (Entered: 09/13/2019)

09/11/2019 1162 Exhibit and Witness List. (Attachments: # 1 continuation of exhibit sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 09/13/2019)

09/13/2019

1160

ORDER (CVG) No later than 3:00 p.m. on September 25, 2019, the BOC shall file a plan proposing specific, demonstrable, and tangible tasks necessary to be undertaken to obtain substantial compliance with the provisions of the 1994 and 2013 Settlement Agreements. To the extent he wishes to do so, Carty shall file any response to the BOCs proposed plan by no later than 3:00 p.m. on October 1, 2019. (CAA) (Entered: 09/13/2019)

09/18/2019

1163

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz for proceedings held on September 11, 2019 before Judge Curtis Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

09/25/2019

1164

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plan and Respond to Plan by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/25/2019)

09/25/2019

1165

ORDER (CVG) The parties' joint motion, ECF 1164 , for an extension of time to file their documents in accordance with the Courts September 13, 2019, Order, ECF 1160 , is hereby GRANTED. The BOC shall file its plan proposing specific, demonstrable, and tangible tasks necessary to be undertaken to obtain substantial compliance with the provisions of the 1994 and 2013 Settlement Agreements by no later than 3:00 p.m. on September 27, 2019. To the extent he wishes to do so, Carty shall file any response to the BOC's proposed plan by no later than 3:00 p.m. on October 4, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 09/25/2019)

09/27/2019

1166

Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plan Plan Proposing Tasks to Obtain Substantial Compliance with the Provisions of the 1994 and 2013 Settlement Agreements by Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/27/2019)

09/30/2019

1167

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/11/2019, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Persha StouttWarner, Telephone number (340)643-7385. 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.. Redaction Request due 10/24/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/3/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/1/2020. (Stoutt-Warner, Persha) (Entered: 09/30/2019)

09/30/2019

1168

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Proposed Plan by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/30/2019)

09/30/2019 1169 Response re 1160 Order, Directing BOC to File Compliance Plan filed by Defendants Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/30/2019)

09/30/2019 1170 ORDER (CVG) The BOC's motion for a protective order, ECF 1088 , is DENIED. (CAA) (Entered: 09/30/2019)

10/01/2019

1171

ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion, ECF 1168 , for an extension of time to file a response to the BOC's plan is hereby GRANTED in part. To the extent he wishes to do so, Carty shall file any response to the BOCs proposed plan by no later than 3:00 p.m. on October 7, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 10/01/2019)

10/01/2019 1172 NOTICE Response to August 15, 2019 Order Directing BOC to Complete Certain Tasks by September 30, 2019 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mental Health

Professional Posting, # 2 Exhibit Fire Drill Records, # 3 Exhibit Maintaing Housing Assisgnment - Training, # 4 Exhibit Shake Down Logs, # 5 Exhibit Shake Down Logs, # 6 Exhibit Keep Separate - Training) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/01/2019)

10/02/2019

1173

MOTION for Reconsideration re 1171 Order,, Terminate Motions, , Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Compliance Plan Response by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/02/2019)

10/02/2019

1174

ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion, ECF 1173 , for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. To the extent he wishes to do so, Carty shall file any response to the BOC's proposed plan by no later than 3:00 p.m. on October 9, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 10/02/2019)

10/09/2019

1175

Response re 1169 Response filed by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 2019.09.11 Excerpted Hearing Transcript, # 2 Exhibit B - 2019.05.24 Hearing Transcript, # 3 Exhibit C - 2017.05.26 Hearing Transcript) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

10/09/2019 1176 NOTICE of Defendants' Quarterly Goal for the Period Ending November 2, 2019 by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

10/09/2019 1177 NOTICE of Unavailability by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Kenneth E Mapp (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

10/22/2019

1178

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/11/2019, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Persha StouttWarner, Telephone number (340)643-7385. 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.. Redaction Request due 11/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/23/2020. (StouttWarner, Persha) (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/22/2019

1179

ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter is hereby SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on November 22, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/23/2019

1180 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp for proceedings held on September 11, 2019 before Judge Curtis Gomez.. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/23/2019)

10/25/2019 1181 MOTION to Continue Hearing by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha,

Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/25/2019

1182

NOTICE of Filing Quarterly Goals Response by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz re 1176 Notice (Other) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/30/2019

1183

ORDER (CVG) Carty's motion to reschedule the quarterly evidentiary hearing, ECF 1181 , is GRANTED. The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for November 22, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30 a.m. on November 21, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 10/30/2019)

11/06/2019

1184

NOTICE of Filing Expert Quarterly Reports by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/06/2019)

11/15/2019

1185

STATUS REPORT by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/20/2019

1186

NOTICE of Appearance by Kelvin Vidale on behalf of Defendants Fong, Viola A, Frazer, Vincent, in His Official Capacity, Everett Hansen, Kenneth E Mapp, Kurt Walcott, Julius Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Vidale, Kelvin) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

11/20/2019

1187

NOTICE Defendants Status Report by Kenneth E Mapp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13) (Vidale, Kelvin) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

11/21/2019 1188 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/21/2019. (Court Reporter Persha Stoutt-Warner.) (TRH) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 1189 Exhibit List. (TRH) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 1190 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Status Conference held on 11/21/2019. (Court Reporter n/a.) (TRH) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

11/22/2019

1191

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz for proceedings held on November 21, 2019 before Judge Curtis V. Gomez.. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

11/25/2019 1192 Response re 1122 Notice (Other), 1121 Notice (Other) to Courts November 21, 2019, Order filed by Defendant Kenneth E Mapp. (Vidale, Kelvin) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/25/2019

1193

NOTICE of Filing Proposed Remedial Tasks Order by Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/27/2019

1194

MOTION to Add Quarterly Goal, to Expedite Consideration, and Notice of Agreedto Goals by Plaintiffs Lawrence Carty, Jeff Immel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated At The Criminal Justic, Mao Penha, Penn, William Jr, Dennis Swartz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

11/27/2019

1195

ORDER (CVG) By no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 2, 2019, the BOC shall file a response to Carty's motion to add a quarterly goal, ECF 1194 . (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

11/27/2019 1196 NOTICE of Filing of Virgin Islands Quarterly Goals for Period Ending February 7, 2020 by Kenneth E Mapp re 833 Order (Vidale, Kelvin) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

12/01/2019 18:16:18

CRClearinghouse Client Code: Chen

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:94-cv-00078CVG-RM

30

Cost:

3.00

 
 Matter of Federal Detainers Housed or Lodged in Facilities..., Not Reported in...

1997 WL 182301 District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St.
Thomas and St. John.
In the Matter of FEDERAL DETAINEES HOUSED OR LODGED IN FACILITIES OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS.
Misc. No. 97–15. | April 2, 1997.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Julio Brady, Attorney General, Christiansted, VI.
Alva A. Swan, Deputy Attorney General and Acting Director of B.O.C., Charlotte Amalie, VI.
Ronald Parra, Officer in Charge, I.N.S.
Jim A. Hurd, Jr., United States Attorney, St. Thomas, VI.
Opinion

*1 Pursuant to the power and authority vested in the Court under section 24 of the Revised Organic Act, 48 U.S.C. § 1614,1 and after due consideration by the Court upon the recommendation of Special Master Darlene C. Grant, Esq. in Carty v. Farrelly, Civ. No. 94–78, regarding the general conditions and overcrowded inmate populations at the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections [“B.O.C.”],2 it is hereby
ORDERED THAT: No persons detained under process of the United States Government and any of its agencies, including, but not limited to, individuals detained as a result of immigration or other administrative processes, shall be lodged or housed in any B.O.C. facility in the Virgin Islands;
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: Any federal detainee presently in custody in any B.O.C. facility in the Virgin Islands forthwith shall be moved to alternate facilities suitable for housing such federal detainees.

ORDER MOORE, Chief Judge.

Parallel Citations
36 V.I. 268
	  

Footnotes

1

The Revised Organic Act of 1954 is codified at 48 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1645 (1995), reprinted in 1 V.I. CODE ANN., Historical

Documents, 73–177 preceding tit. 1 (1995) (as amended) [“Revised Organic Act”].

2

In a letter to the United States Marshal for the District of the Virgin Islands dated September 15, 1994, the undersigned confirmed

a directive issued from the bench that all federal inmates, both pretrial detainees and post-conviction prisoners, were to be held in

federal facilities. The reasons for this order were twofold: the federal government had gone to great expense to build a pretrial

detention facility for Virgin Islands’ detainees at Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, and the deplorable conditions at the St. Thomas jail.

Obviously, removing all federal inmates from Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections [“B.O.C.”] facilities, including the prison on

St. Croix, will help relieve the overcrowded conditions on St. Thomas.

	  

1