Dunn v. Voinovich

m IBHI III • • • • • • • HI » • • • • • •

a

• •

••

•

PC-OH-004-001

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

KENNETH J. MURPHY CLEW
Jail 843W95

JUAN DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. Cl-93-0166

SUUTHEiV ' ? • " " 0:110 WEST 01V CliCr«iNATI

vs.

JUDGE SPIEGEL

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, et al.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEINBERG

Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE

ROBERT B. NEWMAN (0023484) Kircher, Robinson, Cook,
Nevrman and Welsh 1014 Vine Street Suite 2520 Cincinnati, OH 45202-1299 (513) 381-3525 Counsel for Plaintiffs

ANDREW BERGMAN (0054582) Assistant Attorney General Chief Counsel's Staff 3 0 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-3428 (614) 466-2872 Counsel for Defendant Governor Voinovich

ALPHONSE A. GERHARDSTEIN(0032053) 1409 Enquirer Building 617 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 621-9100 Counsel for Plaintiffs

JOSEPH MANCINI (0022419) Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Section 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-3428 (614) 644-7233 Counsel for Defendants and the,Ohio Department Rehabilitation and b'

.

•

DIANE M. WEAVER (O0G51'65T£

Assistant A t t o r n e y ^ S

Health & Human S ^ S G

3 0 Es^t Broad

Columbus, OH

(614) 465-3600 Counsel 'For Defc,"iiarits-Hpgan;

the Chio DepartrsMu.of i l

Health

--nar-^j-

,'./•'•

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV
XV
XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV xxv XXVI XXVli
XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII

Introduction

.

Parties General Provisions Scope of the Consent Decree Interpretation of the Consent Decree . . . . Time Frames Policy and Objectives of the Consent Decree Definitions Initial (Intake) Mental Health Services . . Mental Health Evaluations Mental Health Services Orientation Single Provider Additional Mental Health Staff Bed/Treatment Space for Seriously Mentally
111 Inmates Adjustments to Mental Health Staffing
And Space Allocated for Mental Health Services Medication Forced Medication Housing Assignments Suicide Prevention Physical Restraints Control Units Medical Records Confidentiality

Mental Health Classification System . . . .

Discharge from Caseload

Staff Training Transfer of Seriously Mentally 111 Inmates
from Prison-to-Prison Monitoring Dispute Resolution Compliance Emergencies Modification Continuing Court Jurisdiction Over
The Consent Decree

Page
1 1 2 2 4 4 5 7 9 10 11 11 12
14
16 16 17 18 18 19 19 21 21 22 23 23
25 25 29 31 31 31
32

- i-

I. INTRODUCTION a) This is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. b) The Plaintiff class challenges the constitutional adequacy of the delivery of mental health services to seriously mentally ill adult inmates in the actual physical custody and control of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC") . c) This Court has jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(3). d) On JTUAJB' *7} I99S . this Court certified this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. PARTIES a) The representative inmate Plaintiffs are Juan Dunn, Jeffrey D. Hartwell, Marco Henderson, Donald J. Hall, Eugene T. Lemmons, Donald M. Glenn, Lewis Williams, Jr., Jose H. Machin and Thomas Ruffing. b) The Defendants named in Plaintiffs' amended complaint filed on October 6, 1993 are: George Voinovich, Governor of the State of Ohio; Reginald Wilkinson, Director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; Michael F. Hogan, Director of the Department of Mental Health; and the Department of Mental Health.
- 1-

c) By agreement of the parties, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Director Michael F. Hogan, and the Department of Mental Health are dismissed as party defendants in this action.
III. GENERAL PROVISIONS a) This Consent Decree resolves all issues between Plaintiff class and the Defendants, including the Defendants dismissed in Section lie of this Consent Decree, arising out of the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief set forth in Plaintiffs' amended complaint. b) The terms of this Consent Decree shall be applicable to and binding upon the Plaintiff class and the Defendants in their official capacities, and their officers, agents, employees, assigns and successors. c) By entering into this Consent Decree, the Defendants, including the Defendants dismissed in Section lie of this Consent Decree, do not admit to any liability regarding the allegations asserted in this action. Moreover, this Consent Decree may not be used as evidence of liability in any other legal proceeding.
IV. SCOPE OF TEE CONSENT DECREE a) This Consent Decree applies to adult male inmates in Ohio who are in the actual physical custody and control of DRC within the following facilities: Allen Correctional Institution, Lima; Belmont Correctional Institution, St. Clairsville; Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Chillicothe; Corrections Medical Center,
- 2-

Columbus; Correctional Reception Center, Orient; Dayton Correctional Institution, Dayton; Graf ton Correctional Institution, Grafton; Hocking Correctional Facility, Nelsonville; Lebanon Correctional Institution, Lebanon; Lima Correctional Institution, Lima; London Correctional Institution, London; Lorain Correctional Institution, Grafton; Madison Correctional Institution, London; Mansfield Correctional Institution, Mansfield; Marion Correctional Institution, Marion; Montgomery Education & Pre-Release Center, Dayton; North Central Correctional Institution, Marion; Oakwood Correctional Facility, Lima; Orient Correctional Institution, Orient; Pickaway Correctional Institution, Orient; Ross Correctional Institution, Chillicothe; Southeastern Correctional Institution, Lancaster,- Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Lucasville,- Trumbull Correctional Institution, Leavittsburg; and the Warren Correctional Institution, Lebanon.
Adult women inmates in Ohio who are in the actual physical custody and control of DRC within the Franklin Pre-Release Center, Columbus,- Northeast Pre-Release Center, Cleveland; and the Ohio Reformatory for Women, Marysville.
This Consent Decree applies to all of the above facilities as well as any new facilities which perform the same functions and which become operational and confine inmates during the life of this Consent Decree.
- 3-

quauiqBaaq/paq oq BuxqBxaJ sasqqBui .103 33Bqs 50 quauiuBxssBaj ao uoxqxppB aq;q oq BuxqBxaJ saaqqBui .103 sauiB.13 auixq aijj, (q
•asaoaa quesuoo sxnq 50 Aaqua 30 aqsp atjq UIOJJ stiquoui (9) xxs paaoxa qou n ^ t i s Joqxuom atjq PUB S33"tquTB-[ci aqq JCOJ xssunoo oq aanpaooad pue Xoxiod qons 30 uoxssxuiqns aiiq a o j auieaj auixq eqq 'aajcoaa quesuoo sxiiq ux aanpaooad ptre Aoxxod qdope oq pae^BB aAEq squepuagea
SZJIYHJ SKIX *IA
qou T T ^ s quamnoop aqq sqjBJp oqw Aq;ied aqq qsux^Bc paqajdiaqux sx quavunoop E qexiq axna atiq ' a a a o a a quasuoo sxqq 30 Buxq3eap aijq u t paqBdxoxqjBd SABII saxq^ed qqoq aouxs (q
Hqaodan leux^,, s,uiBai q^adxg atiq ^et^qxa SH oq u'suoxqoaaaoo pu^ uoxqeqxxTq^^H 30 quauiqaedaa oxqo stiq ux Hq-[E3H XBquaw :qaodaa TBUX^,, s ^ e a j , qjadxg ^^q s e oq pue D^a 'JoqDsaxa 'UOSUX3(TXM "Y pi^uxBaH pue (..HWd..) XEquaw 30 quamqaBdaa ' j o q a a j x a 'UBBOH X9BIIOXW ' ^ a J03 pajcedaad quauinoop ^661 qsnBnv aqq iiqxw quaqsxsuoo aauttBui B UX paqs-xdzaqux aq
quasuoo sxiiq qsqq saxqaBd aqq 30 quaqux a^q sx qi (B aaaoaa ISZSSOD sax £0 noiAvxaHdHaxNi *A
•PJTJUT ' E I I I A uoxqoas ux pauxsap SB ,,ssauxXT snoxaas,, aouax.iadxa Asm Xaqq qBijq auixq aqq Btrx-inp ^na 3° PUB Apoqsno x^^T8-^1!^ XBn3°B BV& UT saqBuiux asotjq oq aq oq 3J:B qoxt{i«i saoxA^as asoqq ajB aaaoaa quasuoo sxqq paqxaosap puB paux3ap SB saoxAaas qqxBaq x^quaw (q

and medical records are dealt with separately in the various paragraphs of this Consent Decree and are not subject to Section Via.
c) Whenever a specific time for the achievement of a particular goal is not specified herein, then the time to undertake or achieve that particular goal shall be a "reasonable time" as interpreted initially by the monitor.
d) Any dispute which may arise under this section shall be resolved in accordance with Section XXIX governing Dispute Resolution.
VII. POLICY AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSENT DECREE a) This Consent Decree is intended to resolve the declaratory and injunctive claims of the Plaintiff .class by providing for a comprehensive system of constitutionally mandated mental health care for those male and female inmates described in Section IV. b) The objectives in providing such mandated mental health care are:
i) to reduce the disabling effects of serious mental illness and enhance the inmate's ability to function within the prison environment;
ii) to reduce or, when possible, eliminate the needless extremes of human suffering caused by serious mental illness,- and
iii) to maximize the safety of the prison environment for staff, inmates, volunteers, visitors, and any other persons lawfully on prison premises.
- 5-

c) Mandated mental health services shall be provided to inmates in the least restrictive available environment and by the least intrusive measures available consistent with the professional judgment of the appropriate mental health professionals and the security of the institution.
d) Mental health services shall be provided within the framework of a community mental health model. The allocation of mental health staff; the designation and allocation of various mental health services, including bed space devoted to psychiatric care; and, the staff and space needed to support such services will initially be distributed, and subsequently adjusted, to allow for the most economical, efficient and appropriate delivery of mental health services.
e) Pursuant to the community mental health model described above, inmates with serious mental illness will be distributed relatively evenly throughout the DRC system as encompassed by this Consent Decree and in accordance with the professional judgment of the appropriate staff.
f) Inmates with serious mental illness shall not be barred from participation in available prison programs solely because of their illness. Reasonable accommodation shall be made as necessary to achieve this end.
g) Mandated mental health services shall be adjusted upward or downward as the prison population of Ohio may increase or decrease.
- 6-

h) Counsel for Plaintiffs shall be afforded the opportunity to review and comment upon all matters in this Consent Decree which require either the development of policy and procedure or the implementation of matters specified herein. To that end, the Defendants agree to provide counsel with the appropriate material sufficiently in advance of the various target dates established here to allow for study and comment but in no event less than thirty days before a specific target date.
i) In the development of the various policies and procedures agreed upon herein, the Defendants agree to articulate objectives that are as precise as the subject allows and which are subsequently susceptible to empirical validation.
j) This Consent Decree shall be implemented in light of the principles expressed in "An Outline for a Systems Approach to Holistic Behavioral Health Care for Offenders," an undated document reproduced in its entirety at Appendix G, Vol. II of the Expert Team's "Final Report."
VIII. DEFINITIONS a) Serious mental illness means a substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or cope with the ordinary demands of life within the prison environment and is manifested by substantial pain or disability. Serious mental illness requires a mental health diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, as appropriate, by mental health staff.
- 7-

It is expressly understood that this definition does not include inmates who are substance abusers, substance dependent, including alcoholics and narcotic addicts, or persons convicted of any sex offense, who are not otherwise diagnosed as seriously mentally ill.
b) Initial Mental Health Screening: A part of the normal reception and classification process, utilizing standard forms and procedures and designed broadly to identify those incoming inmates who may need further evaluation which, in turn, may lead to mental health services.
c) Mental Health Evaluation: A clinical assessment by a qualified mental health professional performed on those inmates who are referred from the initial intake screening or by various processes and individuals at any time thereafter. An evaluation is a more intensive and detailed procedure than intake screening.
d) Crisis Intervention Services-. Timely and adequate response to any mental health emergency with access to the full range of mental health services, including psychotropic medication, available within the prison system.
e) Crisis Beds-. Beds that are available within the prison for short-term, aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the inmate prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting.
f) Residential Treatment Unit ("RTU")i A housing unit within the prison for inmates with mental illness who do not then need inpatient treatment but who do require the therapeutic milieu
- 8-

and the full range of services and variable security available in the RTU.
g) Outpatient Mental Health Services-. The provision of appropriate mental health care and supportive services for those inmates with mental illness who are able to be housed and function in the general prison population.
h) Inpatient Services: Intensive, inpatient hospitalization during the period of an inmate's acute psychosis and designed to return the inmate to a less intensive treatment environment at the earliest, clinically appropriate time.
i) Mental Health Professional: Those persons who by virtue of their training and experience are qualified to provide mental health care within the provisions of the state's licensure laws.
j) Control Unit: A special housing area within a prison with inmates placed there for disciplinary or administrative reasons.
IX. INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES a) All inmates entering the Ohio DRC shall be the recipients of mental health screening upon admission to the prison system and within the shortest possible time. Absent an emergency which may dictate acting sooner, twenty four (24) hours after admission shall be considered the norm for the completion of such screening. b) Such screening shall be performed by a staff member trained in screening and may include correctional officers, nurses, and mental health professionals.
- 9-

c) Mental health screening shall be accomplished by the use of a standardized form which shall be completed for all inmates who enter the prison system.
d) The screening process shall maintain a low threshold for follow-up evaluation and should include review of pertinent records which accompany the inmate as well as questions designed to identify prior mental health treatment; suicidal tendencies; the signs of serious mental illness, including unusual, observable behavior; and severe thought disorganization.
e) Written policy and procedures shall provide for prompt referral for a mental health evaluation as appropriate.
f) The Defendants shall develop appropriate screening forms and procedures; conduct training for those who perform such screening; and develop criteria designed to achieve consistency in the evaluation of the screening information and the occasions when mental health evaluations are appropriate.
X. MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS a) Mental health evaluations, or an appropriate alternative response, shall be provided in a timely fashion as dictated by the nature of the referral. In cases of emergency, provision shall be made for prompt evaluation upon receipt of the referral.
Referral may be made by: i) staff involved in the initial mental health screening; ii) security staff; iii) mental health staff;
- 10 -

iv) self-referral; or v) any other credible source.
b) The results of a mental health evaluation shall be
recorded in writing and included as part of the mental health record.
c) Mental health evaluations or consultations shall be performed by appropriate mental health professionals.
XI. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION Information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every inmate's initial reception and orientation to the DRC institutions encompassed by this Consent Decree. The basic objective of such orientation is to convey by the most effective oral and written means a description of the available mental health services and how an inmate may obtain access to such services. The Defendants will develop and implement written policy and procedure concerning such orientation. Such policy and procedure also will encompass staff training, the utilization of written material and oral communications, and any special issues of communication relating to any relevant disabilities possessed by inmates.
XII. SINGLE PROVIDER Having decided that it is fiscally and administratively appropriate to do so, the Directors of DMH and DRC have decided that the care and treatment of seriously mentally ill persons
- 11 -

encompassed by this Consent Decree shall be under the exclusive direction and control of the Ohio DRC. DRC will prepare and submit to the Ohio legislature proposed legislation to achieve implementation of such single provider system. DRC may enter into any arrangements it deems desirable on such matters as contracting for services encompassed by this Consent Decree; reconfiguring administrative positions; agreeing to the adoption of standards for mental health services and subsequent monitoring by another state agency or agencies, such monitoring to be in addition to the outside monitoring specifically provided for herein at Section XXVIII, infra; or any other matters related to the services encompassed by this Consent Decree.
XIII. ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF a) In order to provide constitutionally mandated mental health services, and subject to the terms and conditions which follow, the Defendants agree to hire and place in service such additional mental health staff as is required to reach a total of 246.5 PTE mental health staff based on a total DRC prison population of 40,253 inmates.
These positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Consent Decree.
b) In addition to the 9.35 FTE psychiatrists presently employed by DRC and DMH providing mental health services to the seriously mentally ill, the Defendants agree to hire an additional 16.15 PTE psychiatrists as part of the overall total for new mental
- 12 -

health positions. The remaining number of mental health professionals and activity therapists shall be hired and placed in
service in such proportion as is dictated by the professional
judgment of the appropriate'DRC officials and subject to review by the monitor.
The Defendants agree to be guided by the staffing proposals offered in the "Final Report" of August 1.994 and by the "Policy and Objectives" set out in Section VII of this Consent Decree. However, it is imperative that the Defendants be able to maintain flexibility on the details of the allocation of staff at the outset of compliance and thereafter in light of the inevitability of changing circumstances.
c) The Defendants hereby undertake to hire and place the agreed upon mental health staff not later than three (3) years from the date of entry of this Consent Decree. The Defendants agree also that within six (6) months of the entry of this Consent Decree they will specify in writing annual targets for the hiring and placement of said staff with such targets submitted to the monitor and Plaintiffs' counsel for initial review. Thereafter, the Defendants will submit quarterly reports on such hiring and placement as it relates to the achievement of the yearly targets.
The monitor shall review the Defendants' efforts to hire and place the agreed upon staff. And where a target may not have been met, the monitor will review the reasons therefor and work with the parties on techniques by which to achieve the annual and overall three (3) year targets.
- 13 -

In the event that the Defendants have acted in good faith to achieve compliance with said staffing targets but have not achieved a target then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, anynecessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties after notice to the monitor.
All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs.
The above provision is in addition to any mechanisms for dispute resolution as set out in Section XXIX, infra.
XIV. BED/TREATMENT SPACE FOR SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL INMATES a) The Defendants agree to provide not less than 120
inpatient hospital beds for male inmates and 11 inpatient hospital beds for female inmates based on an overall prison population of 40,253 inmates.
b) The Defendants agree to provide 710 residential beds in addition to the above hospital beds, to be allocated among crisis beds and RTUs in accordance with the "Policy and Objectives" described in Section VII, herein, and the study described, infra at c.
c) in order to determine precisely what bed space for mental health services is available, may be available through renovation, or made available through new construction, the Defendants hereby agree to undertake a study of these issues and report thereon to the monitor and Plaintiffs' counsel on or before September 30, 1995.
- 14 -

This detailed study will be conducted by a multidisciplinary team appointed by the Director of DRC or his designee and shall include persons with expertise in mental health and security. Plaintiffs' counsel will be invited to provide input into this study.
The study shall address the following issues and such other relevant issues as the multi-disciplinary team deems appropriate:
i) the residential space required for crisis beds and RTUs.
ii) the space required for individual and group activities, dayrooms, programs related to mental health treatment, and the required office space and equipment needed for staff.
iii) the distribution, and the timing thereof, of such space following the principles set out in Section VII, "Policy and Objectives" herein and the general approach recommended by the Expert Team in their "Final Report."
iv) a detailed plan on precisely where such space is or may be located and whether such space may be available by renovation, construction, modular units, or in any other fashion,
v) a detailed plan which addresses target dates for the implementation of all bed/treatment space which is the subject of the agreement and study referred to in this paragraph.
- 15 -

XV. ADJUSTMENTS TO MENTAL HEALTH STAFFING AND SPACE ALLOCATED FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
a) Where specific agreements have been reached herein concerning additional staffing and bed/treatment space, the parties have utilized 40,253 as the base figure for the overall inmate population. The parties agree that wherever the Defendants have agreed to conduct studies and where prison population forms a basis for such studies, then the same number of inmates -- 40,253 -shall be utilized as the base figure.
b) The parties agree that the number of staff, including mental health professionals, and the bed/treatment space devoted to mental health services for the seriously mentally ill, as encompassed by Sections XIII and XIV herein, shall be increased proportionately with certain increases in the inmate population and may be decreased proportionately on the same basis.
c) Within six (6) months of the entry of this Consent Decree, the parties shall agree upon a precise formula by which to operationalize the above noted adjustments.
XVI. MEDICATION The Defendants shall establish procedures for the administration of medications which achieve the following objectives:
i) the timely administration or taking of the medication by the inmates;
ii) the regular charting of the efficacy of such medication;
- 16 -

iii) availability of sufficient and proper staff; iv) blood tests are medically prescribed and blood samples taken in a timely fashion: v) the timely performance of lab work; and vi) inmates for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed are provided with appropriate education and information about such drugs.
XVII. FORCED MEDICATION The Defendants shall adopt a policy and procedure on the use of involuntary, psychotropic medication. Said policy, and its implementing procedures, shall in all respects comply with Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) and within that constitutional framework:
i) assure that any such forced medication shall occur only within the context of an ongoing treatment regimen and in a treatment setting (defined as a hospital, RTU, or an infirmary with "crisis beds" for the seriously mentally ill);
ii) the medical record shall demonstrate the consideration and rejection of less intrusive alternatives along with the rationale for resorting to forced medication;
iii) include strict time limits on any judicial or administrative order permitting such forced medication; and
iv) in deciding to utilize forced medication it must be documented in the record that the gains anticipated from the medication outweigh any possible side effects.
- 17 -

XVIII. BOUSING ASSIGNMENTS Cell assignments for seriously mentally ill inmates shall be based on the recommendations of the inmate's mental health treatment team unless appropriate security staff view such recommended housing as a serious threat to security. In such a case, the security staff representative shall state in writing the factual basis for his or her opinion. The issue shall then be resolved by an interdisciplinary review team which includes both mental health and custody staff. When such review fails to resolve any such disagreement then final review of the decision shall be undertaken by the warden or the warden's designee and a decision rendered in writing within twenty four (24) hours of the filing of the security staff report noted above.
XIX. SUICIDE PREVENTION a) The Defendants shall develop a written policy, defined procedures, and a program for identifying and responding to suicidal inmates. The program components shall include: identification, training, assessment, monitoring, housing, referral, communication, intervention, notification, reporting, and review. b) The overall objectives of such policy and procedure shall be to minimize the risk of inmate suicides and to minimize the harm when suicide attempts occur. This will be accomplished through the dissemination of information, techniques, and procedures which will aid in the identification of potential suicides.
- 18 -

XX. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS a) The Defendants shall develop a written policy and procedure on the use of physical restraints in dealing with the seriously mentally ill which shall encompass a definition for immobilizing restraints; procedures for utilization thereof, including duration,- who may authorize; required record keeping; criteria and procedure for release; areas authorized for use of such restraints; frequency of use; and staff responsibilities. b) The written policy and procedure shall include as principles:
i) physical restraints shall never be used for the purpose of punishment;
ii) medical approval and monitoring shall be required after an initial and time-limited use of restraints? and
iii) detailed records shall be maintained.
XXI. CONTROL UNITS a) Inmates with serious mental illness should not be placed in a control unit solely because of their illness unless there is no other setting immediately available and then only for the shortest period of time consistent with the need to protect the inmate from himself or herself, to protect others, or to prevent the destruction of property. b) Inmates with serious mental illness may be placed in a control setting when such an inmate has been the subject of a Rules Infraction Board ("RIB") proceeding or found to be within the rules governing administrative and control status and placement (see Ohio
- 19 -

Administrative Code, S e e s 5120-9-08, Disciplinary Control; 5120-911, Security Control; 5120-9-13, Administrative Control; and 51209-131, Local Control).
c) Regular on site mental health rounds shall be provided to all inmates in control units.
Policy and procedure for such mental health rounds shall be developed and, inter alia, shall identify (by profession) the mental health professionals who will provide the rounds; distinguish the function of rounds and treatment; the frequency of such rounds; and provide detailed reference to the emergency-type placement described in Section XXla.
d) The hearing officer shall indicate whether or not an inmate charged with an RIB infraction currently is on a mental health caseload. This shall be done simply by checking a box on the appropriate form indicating "currently on a mental health caseload."
e) When an inmate who may be seriously mentally ill is the subject of an RIB proceeding then the RIB chairman shall consult with the inmate's mental health treatment provider on the inmate's mental competency to proceed, and, in addition, must take the inmate's mental condition at the time of the infraction into account in determining the appropriate sanction.
f) The RIB chairman shall note in the inmate's disciplinary record any mental health consultation of the sort described in Section XXle, noting the date, the time, and name of the mental health provider. The mental health provider will enter a summary
- 20 -

of the content of such consultation in the inmate's mental health file, including the date, the time, name of the RIB chairman and the opinion expressed concerning competency to proceed and the relationship, if any, between the inmate's mental condition and the conduct leading to the present charge or charges.
XXII. MEDICAL RECORDS The Defendants agree to undertake a study of the feasibility of a computer system using desktop computers for centralized storage and access to inmates' health records. Any system of medical records, whether computerized or manual, shall move in the direction of standardized forms and a standardized chart order. Said study shall also address the issue of the appropriate content of a medical record file. This study shall be completed by December 31, 1995 and implemented in accordance with stated target dates.
XXIII. CONFIDENTIALITY a) DRC shall develop a policy on confidentiality which promotes the exchange of records and mental health information between persons providing mental health services to inmates encompassed by this Consent Decree. b) Mental health personnel shall be required to report to correctional personnel when an inmate is identified as:
i) suicidal; ii) homicidal;
- 21 -

iii) presenting a reasonably clear danger of injury to self or to others;
iv) presenting a reasonably clear risk of escape or the creation of internal disorder or riot;
v) receiving psychotropic medication; vi) requiring movement to a special unit for observation, evaluation, or treatment of acute episodes; or vii) requiring transfer to a treatment facility outside the prison. Such information when disclosed to correctional personnel shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution or the treatment of the inmate and shall not otherwise be disclosed. c) Mental health professionals who have a treatment/ counseling relationship with the inmate shall disclose the following to that inmate before proceeding: the professional's position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The mental health professional shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the inmate's disclosures.
XXIV. MENTAL HEALTH CLASSIFICATION POLICY The existing DRC classification policy shall be modified to include standardized criteria and nomenclature by which to clarify the treatment and program needs of seriously mentally ill inmates. Such modification shall be made in the form of a modification of
- 22 -

the appropriate regulations or policy and procedure governing this area.
XXV. DISCBARGE FROM CASELOAD No inmate shall be discharged from active caseload status solely because of any failure to comply with treatment. Inmates shall not be punished for non-compliance by removing them from the caseload. Inmates who remain in custody and are discharged from the active caseload shall be reassessed between seventy (70) to one hundred (100) days after discharge in order to determine whether any follow-up care is required. A written reassessment shall be entered into the inmate's mental health record. The Defendants shall develop policy and procedure on discharge and implementation thereof.
XXVI. STAFF TRAINING a) All correctional officers and mental health services personnel shall receive training and continuing education in programs regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. Correctional officers whose assignment includes initial mental health screening or regular interaction with seriously mentally ill inmates, including but not limited to a RTU, shall receive more intensive training than other correctional officers. This training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas:
i) the recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the inmate population;
- 23 -

ii) the recognition of signs of chemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal;
iii) the recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication;
iv) the recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly mental retardation;
v) types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach inmates to intervene in these crises;
vi) identification and referral of medical problems of inmates receiving mental health care;
vii) suicide prevention; and viii) the appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an inmate to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals. b) There shall be a written plan developed by DRC for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff. In-service training shall include regular individual supervision of staff and continuing education for parttime staff. c) Within six (6) months of the entry of this Consent Decree, and in collaboration with the monitor, the Defendants shall develop, then implement, mechanisms by which to assess the effectiveness of staff training. All staff training programs shall include a statement of objectives which, in turn, will serve as the criteria by which to assess the effectiveness of the training for each individual.
- 24 -

- sz -
aqxsxnbaa au.q qonpuoo oq Aiessaoau sx se 'sqaadxa aAxqEjqsxuxuipe pue jvozuziv Buxpnxoux 'squepuagaa atjq 30 x^AoaddE aqq tiqx« '33eqs aqcxadojtdde qons uxeqaa ABUI
30 suoTSTAoad eti^ 30 aoqxuoui ti'easAO SE paquxodd^ sx '3(aoA «©N '^UBqxY 'Aueqiv QB AqxsjsAXun stti 'aox^sni? 50 xo°tIoS 3 ^ 30 ''W'TT ' ' g ' T l 'USHOD psj,a ^osssjoaa (12
DNIHOXINOW ' I I I A Z X
30 AJBAXXSP snonuxquoo pue qduio^d aanssB oq sasqqeui aexpuxs asxiqo Atre puH .'spssu
queuiqeajq 'sxsouBexp i i q x e ^ XB^U3UI quajcano S 30 33Bqs qqx«9ti xs3usul 9^^ U1103UX oq aapao ux os aqeurux gqq AtreduiooDB XX^US uoxqnqxqsux Buxpuas ©qq qe
aqexado^ddB at[q qeqq ajnssc oq pauBxsap aanpaooad ptre Aoxxod pue doxaAap oq aazBe squepuajaa at^i 'aajsue^q Buxpuad
t[ons 30 uoxqnqxqsux BuxAxaoaa au.q Ag-cqou xi^Us 'axcfexxBAB susaui snoxqxpadxs qsoiu axjq Buxsn 'uoxqnqxqsux Buxpuas aqq uaqq oq uosxad auo uioa3 paaaagsueaq aq oq sx saoxAaas
BuxAxaoa^ sx oxi» aq^uiux XXT ^Xisquaui Axsnoxaas
111 ATTViNaw Aisaoisas HO
qoC pue aseq aBpaxwou^ s,aauxBaq au.q ux v S9>[BUI Euxuxeaq paxgxoads qou JO jaqqanw 6uxwou>[ 30 auiooqno paaxsap xi^jaAO au.q 9A9xqoe oq pazxxxqn aq XT3** *em spoqqaui snox^EA
pue Buxuxeaq 30 ssauaAxqoagga aqq ssassB oq tioxq/A Aq poqqaui 'axfiuxs ou sx ajiatiq qsqq 9zxuBoo9a sg^qa^d 9UJ,

monitoring. The Defendants agree to pay for all agreed upon costs associated with said monitoring.
The monitor agrees to submit to counsel for both parties the curriculum vitae of any proposed clinical and administrative experts and to seek their advice and consultation prior to their retention. The names and tasks proposed for the initial team of experts will be distributed prior to the actual entry of this Consent Decree.
Should the Defendants during the life of this Consent Decree deny to the monitor any request of his relating either to the budget or staff required for the monitoring, the Defendants shall notify the Plaintiffs' counsel in writing of such denial and provide a brief explanation of the reason for the denial.
b) The monitor and any experts or other staff, full- or part-time, who are retained hereunder in connection with the monitoring function shall contract for their services directly with DRC and shall in all relevant respects be governed by existing DRC rules and regulations regarding such employment; and especially relating to compensation and expenses.
c) The general principles for such monitoring include: i) the reporting and on-site aspects of the monitoring
shall be more intensive at the outset and likely decrease as compliance is achieved;
ii) monitoring shall consist of a combination of empirical data, written reports from the Defendants,, on-site
- 26 -

inspections, oral and written reports from the monitor, and appropriate consultation in aid of compliance;
iii) themonitor's role shall include thegathering of
appropriate data and statistics and on-site inspections as well as the general duty of assuring that required policy and procedure are prepared in a timely fashion and meet the objectives of this Consent Decree; and where disputes between the parties occur or where there appears to be non-compliance, the monitor shall attempt to resolve such matters in the most expeditious and nonadversarial fashion as possible; and
iv) minimizing interference with the mission of DRC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other relevant documents within the control of the Defendants or subject to access by the Defendants,- having unobstructed access during announced and unannounced on-site tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Consent Decree as well as any administrative offices; having unobstructed access to staff and inmates and other persons having information relevant to the implementation of this Consent Decree; and having the authority to engage in private conversation with any party hereto and their counsel.
d) A review of records by the monitor or his staff, shall not constitute a waiver of DRC's or DMH's quality assurance privilege. Moreover, any such disclosures shall not constitute a waiver or serve as precedent for other legal proceedings with
- 27 -

respect to the aforementioned quality assurance privilege. In addition, the monitor and his staff agree to keep said documentation confidential and not to disclose, publish or use for public consumption any of the records reviewed by the monitor or his staff.
e) In addition to the quality assurance privileges described above, other records or information whose disclosure is objected to by either party based on a claim of privilege, confidentiality, or relevance to the implementation of this Consent Decree shall not be disclosed by the monitor. Such material shall be made available for inspection by the Court, along with a precise statement of the objection or objections to disclosure prepared by the objecting party, and the Court shall render a decision on the matter.
f) Within three (3) months of the adoption of the policy and procedures referenced throughout this Consent Decree, the monitor shall prepare report forms for use by the institutions and central office which shall be submitted to counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants for their prior approval before being put into use. Such report forms will require the submission of specified data relevant to this Consent Decree for evaluation by the monitor. DRC shall prepare the reports quarterly during the first: two years of this Consent Decree, and twice a year thereafter, unless the monitor determines that the interim goals have not been met. The monitor will specify the precise dates for all such submissions on, or before, the approval of the forms described in this specific paragraph.
- 28 -

g) In addition to the quarterly and then biannual summary reports described above, the monitor shall submit an annual comprehensive report on overall compliance to the Court and the parties noted above.
h) In the event that Professor Fred Cohen is unable or unwilling to serve as the monitor, the parties agree to appoint another monitor.
i) The monitor shall not be subject to dismissal except upon good cause and the agreement of both parties or by the Court upon motion of one of the parties and a showing of good cause.
j) Monitoring shall continue for five (5) years following the entry of this Consent Decree unless sooner terminated on motion to the Court by the Defendants, with the concurrence of the monitor, that compliance has been achieved earlier.
XXIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION a) In the event a dispute arises as to whether Defendants have failed to substantially comply with the terms of this Consent Decree, counsel for the parties shall proceed as follows:
i) counsel for the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any difference which may arise between them over matters of compliance utilizing the monitor initially in an effort to resolve such dispute. Prior to the initiation of any proceeding before the Court to enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs' counsel shall notify Defendants' counsel in writing of any claim that Defendants are in violation of any provision of this Consent Decree.
- 29 -

ii) within thirty (30) business days of the receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants shall meet in an
attempt to arrive at an amicable resolution of the claim. Either
party may request the attendance and involvement of the monitor at such meeting. If, after twenty (20) business days following such meeting, the matter has not been resolved, Defendants' counsel and the monitor shall be so informed by Plaintiffs' counsel, in writing, and Plaintiffs may then have due recourse to the Court.
b) Any complaints by inmates objecting to any provisions encompassed by this Consent Decree shall be addressed through institutional grievance procedures under Ohio Administrative Code, Section 5120-9-31. Exhaustion of such institutional grievance procedures through appeal to the chief inspector shall be a condition precedent to any legal action by an inmate. During the pendency of this Consent Decree, copies of any such complaints resulting in decisions by the chief inspector and related documents shall be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel and the monitor on a quarterly basis.
c) No legal action seeking equitable relief relating to the issues resolved herein, including a motion to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree, shall be filed on behalf of the Plaintiff class or by a member of the Plaintiff class without first resorting to the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in this Consent Decree advising the Defendants of the issue and making a good faith effort to resolve said issue extrajudicially.
- 30 -

d) If legal action is pursued, it shall be brought in the form of a motion to enforce any terms of this Consent Decree.
XXX. COMPLIANCE The Defendants shall be deemed to be in compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree when they have substantially complied with it. Individual incidents of non-compliance do not necessarily prevent a finding of substantial compliance. The initial determination of substantial compliance by the monitor shall take into account the extent to which exceptions to substantial compliance are sporadic or isolated in nature, are unintentional, are the temporary result of actions by members of the Plaintiff class, and are addressed by corrective action.
XXXI. EMERGENCIES It may be necessary to temporarily suspend any provision of this Consent Decree in the event of an emergency. An emergency is an event which makes compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree impracticable, impossible or extraordinarily difficult, and is caused by riot, fire, weather events, natural disasters, warfare, strikes, labor disputes, or similar events, not caused intentionally by the Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall be notified of any such emergencies as soon as practicable.
XXXII. MODIFICATION The parties recognize that the change of some conditions or practices may reduce the necessity of change of other conditions or
- 31 -

practices. The parties also recognize that the r^fendants are entitled to substantial deference in their decision on how to improve mental health services. Therefore, the parties agree that it may be appropriate that this Consent Decree be modified from time to time. After six (6) months of operation under this Consent Decree, the Defendants may ask the monitor to review a proposed modification to any portion of this Consent Decree.
The monitor will submit a written opinion on such proposal to both parties which will bind the parties should they agree and the Court is of the view that the modification 'will allow the constitutional rights of the class to remain protected.
Where either party disagrees with the opinion of the monitor and not sooner than thirty (30) days after the written expression of such disagreement to the monitor and the monitor's efforts to have the parties reach an accord, then appropriate relief may be sought from the Court in the form of a motion for modification.
XXXIII CONTINUING COURT JURISDICTION OVER THE CONSENT DECREE
The principal action here is dismissed with prejudice because the underlying claims for declaratory and injunctive relief have been resolved by the parties.
The Court, however, retains jurisdiction over this Consent Decree for the purpose of its enforcement. The period of retention of jurisdiction is five (5) years following the entry of this Consent Decree unless sooner terminated by motion to the Court by the Defendants, with the concurrence of the monitor, that
- 32 -

compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree has been achieved. No action shall be taken on a termination motion until notice and an opportunity to be heard has been extended to the Plaintiffs. If legal action is pursued to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree, it shall be brought in the form of a motion to reopen the case.

SO ORDERED this

day

, 1995.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE ROBERT STEINBERG

ROBERT B. NEWMAN (0023484) Trial Attorney for the Plaintiffs

ANDREW BERGMAIT (0054582) Attorney for Defendant Governor_George Voinovich

0_

ALPHONSE GERHARDSTEIN (0023484) JOSEPH MANCINI (0022419)

Trial Attorney for the

Trial Attorney for Defendant

Plaintiffs

Department of Rehabilitation

Correction

DIANE M. WEAVER (0008165) Trial Attorney For Defendants Hogan and the Ohio Department of Mental Health

- 33 -

 
 SENT BY: I

3- 2-98 ;11:30AM

ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~
,.)Y~" ~~

STATES D!STRICT COURT
IERN D:ISTRl:CT OF OUIO WESTE~ DIVISION

.r ( 614t728t9327;# 1/15 l,..O !

JUAN DUNN'. JEFJ.7REY D. HARTWELL. MARIO HENDERSON, DONALD J. HALL. EUGENE T. LEMMONS. DONALD M. GLENN, , ! LEWIS WILLI1U{S, JR... JOSE H. MACHIN,
~TOf{N TIIOMAS MAYHER, II, and THOMAS RUFFING,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND A CLASS
OF SIMILARLY SITAUT£D JNDIVIDUALS
Plaint-iffs
""s.
GOVERNOR GEORGE V. VOINOVrCH. . ; OlU:O DEPAATMEN'l' OF REHABILI-rATION
AND CORRECTION,
REGINALD A. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABIL!'rATION AND CORRECTION,
. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, and MICHAEL F. HOGAN. DIRECTOR OF
'1'HE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,
Defendants

·. CASE NO. Cl-93-0166
· (J~ldqe spiegel) ~J..ASS ACTION:
··.

2:1 behcilf of t.hemselves und t.he c;lass alleged hp.rein. Pla ir.-.~ i f.fs state the f.ollowing for r.heir: compL.lint_ Clgair..:,;t
ocfe:-:'::::mts:

ICa.cK.... Ka.INSOH.
eoa..... III'E",MA~
II WILC"
~n.OICIO

1.

PRELIMrNAR~. STATEM~NT

'rhis iu a class action brough~ by plaintiffs on be~~:~

at "·e:" psyc:hi<.lLrically impaired inm~;::es who are or will be

conL.::ed in uue of the State of: Ohio's prison sy~?\:em r.~c:iU::':'2s,

• Plaintiffs seck declaratory and injunctive relip.E ~or

dCPL-:;".-ations under color of st.ate lr.lw of the right:s, privi lege!;

S.E'N.T BY:

3- 2-38 ;11:30AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614+728+3327;# 2/15

and immunities secured by the Constjtlltion of the Unit.ed States, and, in particular, those rights secured by the Eighth and
Fourteenth AmendmcnLs. 3 _ Specifically. PlaintiHs seek rclief fro("n the dimini.shed

syst~m, The psychiatrically ililpajxed. j.nmates are denied ader:ual_e ilCC~5S to the pr;ychiatric care they ilecd i.n their ongoing trco.trr.cnt anti ~::a.re,
4 _ 'rhe result of the inadequate or non-existcnt psychiatri.c: coverage is that psychiatrically impaired jnmates arc Gubjected to conditions that fall below standards of human decency, to needless suffering, and to an environment that threatens nut; only the !.!2IlLdl and physical well-being of the psychiat:rically impa.:'!:"ed inmat:e, but all other inmat.e:; \<lithin Ohio's prison
syst~m a.s well_ The S~~te of Ohio's prison system includes three ari~l:
[em5:2 insticutionR and nineteen ari~it mule facilities, The chrcc female institutio~5 ~re= Franklin Prc-RE~dasc
Cent·::~.-, Colu:.:i~us, ohio; Northeast: P!:-~-Release Center, Cleve!..=.;.:·!c, Ol:i:-: .=:nd Ob:'o Reformator.·y fOl- \'iome::, ~::a!'-y3viller Ohio.
The ~ineteen adult male fa~:'li:!~s ure: Allen (>~-~-:.-:·.!.on;J.l Inst.Lt:ution. I.ima. Ohi.::::; C;'ill~.<.=()Lhc COl:-rectio:-..'.:" T::.3:-:.:.:.lte. C:il.1..i.cothc, Ohio; Corrcc::i.s::lJ.l }eccption Center" O:.-i~::':, Ohio: Dayton CUITectional I!:st:i::uLion, LJayt:on. Ohio; (31.-."':. ~'. ~::1 Cor.-r-~ct ional lnut itut ion, G::-il fton, Ohi 0; Hocking Co::.. :-~.:L ional Facility r Nclaonville, Ohio: Lebanon COJ:"rect.io;-.",l

Ktu:lle... RU••l'lSON.

Coo.... N~WMAN ,

I!I WI1.CH

~ :

~ ...n . O m

-2 -

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11:30AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614+728+9327;# 3/15

I
I
I I
Instit.ut.ion, Lebanon, Ohio; Lima Correctional Tnstitution, I.ima, I !
Ohio, IJondon Corn~ctional Inst.itution, London, Ohio: Lorain

correctional In~titution, Grafton, Ohio; Madi~on Correctional

Institution, London, Ohio; Mansfield correct.iona), institution,

~tC!nsfiej,d, Ohjo; Ma .. i,on Corr~ctic.nal InGtil:ution, Mario!l, Ohi.o,

Orient COI:rectional Infltitution, Columbus, Ohio; Pi ckaway

Co);"rect.ional Institut.ion, Orient, Ohio; ROSfj Cor.rectionill

Institution, Chillicothe, Ohio; Sout.heastern C!'"llcrcct.jonal

Instir..ution, Lanca:.ter, Ohio; Southern ohio Corrcct.j.onal

£"acility, Luca!)ville, Ohio; Warren Correct.ional Instit.ut.io[1,

r.ebanon, Ohio.

XI.

JURISDICT10N AND VENUE

8_ This action is filed under 42 U.S.C. § '198J to redre!:;_=;

injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and the class they repr'escnL. for

cJep1-:-'\"ation ur~d.cr color of state law of rights secured by t:.h~

£igh::~: and Fo';:--tecnt.h J\mendments to the United States

cons==-Lution. This {;Ol,n-t hl1s jurisdic;cion pl1r1:;uanL to :.!O U _:::.. _-:_

Vcn\..!e in the UniLed States Distr.ict Cou r.t, -'jout.hcn:

lII.

PA.RTI~~

~O. 8ac~: 01: r_hc lldllled Plaintiff!3 is cUtTent.ly a.n i nmi.li.-2

conL:led by tne State o( Ohto at, or. subject t.o return 1:0, C:~7': :)t

lC.aCIiU. 1l01l11'ol$OIll, COOII. NII....AN tJlWUCH
ClNaNNA1I, Olao

-)

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11:30AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614+728+9327;# 4/15

II
II

I

II
!!
!'1I the state pr-ison facilities listed in paragraphs 6~7 or this

complaint .

. t

11. Each ot the named Plaintiffs io psychiaL"r:ically

" i.mpaired and each are denied adequate psychiatric CClI:e. Each

would benefit from ac:ieqLldt.p. <.l.CCeS5 to psychiiil.!:" i sts who c~""\tl

, a3uist them in th(:!ir ongoing t.r.eatment and C;;ire.

12. Plaintiff Juan Dunn '"192-543) i~ in Lhe psychiatric

unit at Lucas~illc. Plaintiff Dunn haD been variously diagnosed

at different times by prison psychiatriDts as suffering from

.. schizophrenia, paranoid chronic atypical psychosis, int.crnlittent.

eJCplosive disorder and other forms of mental illness. While al

Lebanon and TJucasville, Plaintiff Dunn h.as recei.ved inadequate

c~re tor hi~ psychiatric condition and as a result was involveri

in encounters with corrections staff that have reGultcd in

serious injuries to both plaintiff and the corrections staff. In

addi-:.:'on, Plaint.if[ Dunn's psychiatric; disorders pose a

C;Ol1.L:.::uing danger to hj.msel£. For example, in an attempL t.c

sil~~~e auditory hallucinations. Plaint.iff ~lnn injured himEc~~

~y 6~iving a pencil into his right ear canal. Plaintiff Du~~ ~3S

bt~e:-. :'epeatedly sent. to r.he Oakwood Forcn~ic Cent.er for

.,;:,.: :..:c; cC:3ponsiv(~ to t:r'?atnll'!nr.• upon hi!", return to a pr.i so,;
faC::~Ly, Plilinciff Dunn decompensates because of ~he lack ~~ psyc~~a~ric ca~e in t:hc prison fucility. Plaintiff Dunn is

KI_C;HEII. RO.IN~Otl. (;I)o~ N(WMAN
'" Wn<:tt
~A"I1,o.lIO

-4 -

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11:31AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614t728t9327;# 5/15

presently at Lucasville and 13 presently ouffering a lack of adequate psychiatric care_
13. Plaintiff Jeff.rey U. Hartwell (U206-421) was first institutionali:r.ed Clt LongvlP-w State Hospital at the age of eight_ Pia:lnt.iff Hal't'.",ell \'/.;1.3 most l:'ecently incan:~r.ated in l.9BU and ~ransferred r:o LU'':':i't.svill(~ in J !J91. Continuously tkn·oughout plainr. i. f[ Hartwell' s j.nca~·cerat.i.ol1. he has been in need o[ psychiatric t~catment. l-·or lack of su(;h t.reatment, hio candi::. i.on has wor~ened and as a result, he has inj1,lred himself phy::>ical:y by repeatedly beating his head agai.nst his cell door. Qtht::t" inmates not Lolerating Plaintiff Hartwell's actjons have beaten him and on one occasion, poured bleach on his open wounds. A!.tE'!!:" the prison riot at Lucasville earlier this year, plaintiff lIart\t..ell was t.empor.,qrily trans [erred to Lima_ Prior t.o his transfer, Plaintiff Hartwell was (:I psychiatric pat.ienL at. the SouLh2!:"n Ohio Correctional Facility and was- part. of the ap~roximately JOO inmates thaL make up the Office of P5y(;hia~~~= Services to corrections' (opse) coseload_ - Tll(~re was availCl.b~-::: ~........... tho~a ]00 inmates only sixteen hours per week during which a 9syc~~alrist or psychiatrists wcr~ available to provide CClr~ . .

\)~>yc·:'.~~tric care. pl('Jintiffs, in<.:luriiny ~lilintift Hartwell.
:1Dt ::_,-.'e t.hcil St?l.-iOllS medicill/p:;ychi<.lu.-ic ne(~ds .'lddr:·esscd
~;nm·:: ~sychiatr:'i c pat ient!:> r.ece ive essentially no can~ or. L !.-e ... :-.:aent_ In March of 1993 ~s d direct re3ult of the lack
st~fting, over seventy-five p5ychiatric~11y impaired inmates.

iCaaCIU1-., R'UINSOM,
COOl(" NEWMAN
tf WILe"
~n.OI\1O

-s -

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11 :31AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES-I

614+728+9327;# 6/15

including Plaintiff: Hartwell, were in lockdown status due to the.i.r inubility 1:0 funct ion in general popu Lation_ In addition, two imitate psychia.tric patients committed suicide immediately prior to I,he Lucasville riot.
14 _ Plf.tint i ff Mario Hendp-rsc.n (1;160 - 380) ,lE: a psyc.hiatric pati.ent p:rescntl y at Lim.;! having been er.ansferrcd fr."Qm Lueasvi 11 (~ :)ft::.e;~ the ('iot. Pl.."lintiff Hendenmn is thiTty-fiv~ years old Clr.d has been in prison for sixteen year~~. Priot· t.o his impri.suIlment, PlaiIll:ift Henderson was in three mental institutions_ Plaintiff Henderson has been denied necessary psychiatric care and as a r;esult psychiatric attendants hd\fe, on occasion, hud t.o usc force
"
;)qai:'l.~-;t. him <ind, on occusion, plaintiff Henderson has had all tour limbs shackled t.o a bed. Upon his transfer to Lima, Plai~~iEf Henderson and other psychiatric inmates were put. In lockcown in poorly ventilated cells where temperatures remained if:: ;:.:__ ~ 90 I S i:tround the clock. The danger in this type at cc~::~~~ent is apparent; i t was in one of: these cells thiiL .::l~li..!~~
A\:::::-_:~::)!,l died on August )0, l~~J _ On informat.ioll and beliQ::.

-

Pla~~ti[E Donald J. Hull (#165-725) 1~ both sev~~e.~

i::',~::::::::"::lmcnt.:.. ~l.J.intifE H.:'t11 spent fievcr;:d year~3 a.t. Longv':',::::·,

.'l:-:,i :::-_-= lar:k ::Jr effective trc;;ll.:ment, Plaintif( I·tall i s La~:2::
a,-;-.-",:. :..'ige of ~y other inmates" In ilddit 1.on, r P 1..:'1 i.llti r HiL ~ :..:.; u~a~:~ to ueL appropriat.ely and corrections staff. on a n~~~~~ at

leI'CUE" ROI'N$OIl_ Coo.. NIIWNAti I!I WneN
c-........T1. ()Ioo

-6

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11:31AM ODRC LEGAl SERVICES~

614t728t9327;# 7/15
I

occasioIls. have had to. use f.orce_ plaint iff Hall had been an inmate at [lucas" i lle until t.he t"iot. and is now at Lima.
16 _ Plaintiff I::uy~nc 1'. Lemmons (jtlU90 -B 13) spent: his

childhood at: t.he Longview State Hospital. He was t.here for 12

.1. / /. yp:'d. n'l -
to manage even s.imple p('~rsonal necdH _ Plaintiff r..emrnOllS is .1.1": a

~-;tate o[ neal" total incoherence _ Plaintj. ff Lemmons has not bee!"!

pl:.-ovided neCCSGary p~jy·chiatric care.

17. Plaintiff Donald M. Glenn (ff.l87-673) was t.ransferred in

April of 1993 after the riots to Lima [rom Lucasville where he

ha£) been in. lockdown [or the entire t.ime_ Plaintiff Glenn has

requested psychiatric Lreatment on a number of occasions and none:

has been avail~ble. Plaintiff Glenn has been diagnosed by at

le~~e five evaluators as a paranoid schizophrenic. I?laintif:'

Glenn has been trLlnsferred three tilUe~ to orient Clnd to IJima and

Ooh:ood For.ensic Center. At the later institution, he has

recdivcd trcatmenL but when transferred back to Lucasville, ~~ ~~

noe ~)!~oV ided appropriaec treatment_ Plaintiff Glenn has hac

sev~~al severe psychiatric episodes as a result o[ inadequa'-2

. .

.

psv~~~atr.1.c

care.

Pl<"'~:-_: ~ [f \rJi.lliamf> is housed It/ieh other' psychi.atl').c inmaL-7.!'> -.'::::-:0

K,..clU;~ KO.'I'I'f)N,

Cooo(" NSWMAr'

tI Wnctl
~11.0HI0

I I I

,I

:!,

-7 M

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11:31AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614+728+9327;# 8/15

\' : 1

~9. Plainti1:f Jose [I. Machin Utl80-4(2) is .'i psychiacri.c

inmate froll\ Luca!;vi 11e who has been temporarily transferred to

" Lima _ As a resu 1. t of the lack o[ care and l:..reat.ment I cOJ:'r-ections ~

" st.aff: have had La u::.c force on Plaintiff Machin which has

J:p-suJted in i.njuric:s to Plaintiff r-li:ichin ilIld the loss ot tcet:h_

Plaj,ntitt Machin continuollsly !.)uEfer:::; from rhc l~ck of nec;essary

psychiatric car~_

20_ Plainliff John Thomas Mayher 11 (ft.17S-J4l) has been

im;orcerated in t.he prison system sinc;E'! 1903 and is a psychiatric

patient, Plaintiff Mayher has been in lockdown because of the

lack of adequate psychiatric care,

21_ Plaintiff Thomas Ruffing Otl98-',86) is in the

psychiatric unit at. Lucasville and is present.ly at. Lima on a

t.emporary baois. Because of,plaint.iff Rufting's psychiatric

condition and lack of ~reatmen~. he has repeatedly been put in

22, Defendant George v _ Voinovich is the Governor ot L.:-::: St.at:::: of Ohio_ As Chief Executive Officer of ~he St.ate or: C:'!lG, he h~~ ultimate responsibility (or the policies. practices. p~oc~~ure5. acts and omissions of the Department oE

Hci.~,! :::. Dc tendant Voinovich appo i, n;:5 i,mel ,has Lhe .:1ul:hor l_ c_':'
l.-c:::~;-.--,; r.hc 01 ~eClor- of Oh io Rehabil iLaLion uncI Cor-:r.-ect i on
pU~·~-;·_:~11r. to R-C_ § 121_03 (8) _ Defendant voinovich appoi.nt!:; ;":1G.
hli.::: ::.:~e authority t,o rcmov~ ~he Direct.or. of Ull~ lJep.'ll-tmenc. ,-;:

lCJkCHi" KOal1llSON"
CoOl(,. NEwr.U.~
"C" (IIW..
~ ... n.OIlJC)

-8 -

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11:32AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614+728+9327;# 9/15

Mental Health pursuant. t.o R. C. §121. 03 (0). Defendant. Voinovich iu nued in both his individual and official capacit.ies.
7.3. Defendant Ohio Department ot Rehabilitati(~m Clml Correction, pur5uant to R.C. § 5120.05, is responsible for Ill" int:aininq, cont.rolling I Lraining, ::md rehClhili tating pp.r~l)nS (!onvictc.~d of crime and :-;entenc.;ed to an Ohio penal inse:i tulion. Individuals senr.enced to an Ohio penal inl')titution are commltt.l:!d to the control, care and ~ust.ody ot the LJepart.ment oi Rehabi.litat.ion and CorrectioIl pursuant t.o R.C. ~ S120 .16. 'fhe Department. of Rehabilit.at.ion and Correct.ion is authorized to make rules to properly execute it.s powers pursuuot. to R.C. § 5120.~2. Additiorao'llly, the LJepartment of Rehabilitation and Correction :!os givp-n .311 the power and authority necessary for Lhe full and etficient exercise o( the ex:ecut.ivp., administrat.ive, and fisc;:l supervision over the state instit.utions under its jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. § 5~20.36. finally. mentally i l l pri~()ncrs r~qci~ing hospitali~ation are subject to the exclusive means provi.d2d by R.C. § S120.1·', i.e., r.he trallsfer determination prOC::C5;j must be begun by t:hp. mana.ging officer of. the institu::':::'::l une.::::· ;:he con:.:·ol ot the l)~pat"tmen.: of Rehabilit.ation and
en!·!:·.' .::-:: iOIl.
Ot'!f~:!d.:uu::. Reginald A. ~'1i~~·:in~:iOi\ LS th<'! Di:r:'p-ctor· 0:' Obi;·: :"·.:part!lle,~:-. o( Rp-hClbili.tat.ion ']':"ld Correction.
Will\: ~ :"!son i.s :':le p.xecut j.ve hei.ld of ::.he Department and all d\~::. .>=:.:;
(;ont·~ :-red on t.he varioUf: div i::; i OIl::; ,'lnd inst". i tUl ions of the Uepa!·tment. by ord(!I:' of t:he lJirec:t:or .;lre to be performed unde!.·

1C...ClU:", Ro ••NSOII,
0,0,," NnntAN ' , ~ Wlu:tI
~"II,.Otoo

-9

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11:32AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614+728+9327;#10/15

I
I
I
I such rules as he prescribes, and ,lJ:e under his cont.ro1. pursuant l

to R.C. § 5120.01. Detendant Wilkinson supervises the work of
i ~. each division and is responsible [01.' the determination of general

;: policies pursuant to R.C. § 5120.07. Furthermore, Defendant

wilki~son, pursuant to R.C. ~ ~120.lU is responsibl~ [or

et,;t:.ablishing the minimum standard:; for jails j p Ohio. Defenda!"li:

Wilkjnson is sued in both his individual and official capacities.

25. Defendant Department of f'\ental Heall~h is renponsible

fo ... provjding and designating facilities for t.he custody, care

and special treatment of inrnat:.es in Ohio's prison system pur:suant;

to R. C. § 5119.02 (E) (1). Defendant Depart.ment of Mental Health

provlC=s mental health services to Ohio's prison facilities.

26. DefendallL Michael F. Hogan is the Oirector of. the

OepP..!-:.:nent of Mental Healt.h. Pursuant to R.C. § 5119.01,

Defendant Hogan is the chief executive and administra~ive office

of tr::;: depa.r:tment. As such, he hilS authority to establish

proc~=~res Eor the governance of the department arld appoint

em~l=~~es, including the medical director. Defendant Hogan __

SHea. ~:~ both his indivj.dual an.d of f icial capacities.

IV .

~!4\SS ACTION.. ALLEGATIOl'JQ

This i.!"; a cla!3t; action under i{ul e!:: 23 (tll and ;.·n (b'

(l!-,~: ~'. of t:.hG [.'ederal Rules of Civil Pr·ocp..dun~.

'=3. Plajnt.iEfs arE'! rcpresent.ative [)al-tics of il class '-- :::.~

P!:Y'-::··:'~'tl'~ic<J.lly .i.mpaired inrnat.es who arc or wi 1.1 be confine:: ::-

one ~::: the Stat.e oE Ohio's prison system facilit j p.s. Plain: '. ::: ~

Kaacua.. l1.0••N5btf.
Coo,," N.",M"... II Wn(;H
~'I"'" OIClO '

- 10 -

SENT BY:
.. ' .- .

3- 2-98 ;11:32AM ODRC LEGM.. SERV ICES-I

614+728+9327;#11/15

I
I
I
I
I Juan Dunn, Jeffrey D_ Hartwell, Mario Hender.son, Donald J. Hall,
Egucne T_ Lemmon~, Donald M. Glenn. [,ewis williams, Jr., Jose H_ ,i

Machin, John Thomas Mayher, IT. and Thomas Ruffing bring thi.s

I act.ion on behalt of t.hemselvc!:> and on .hp-half of a class of

S~.!YIj la~ly situated i.ndividual5_

29- Plainti.ffs LlI:C meulbers of t.he clas~ aI!d their cLJ.ims

;:1 ("p. typical ot all class members- Plaintiffs are repre~ented by

competent counscl and will tairly and adequatcly protecL t:hc

interests of the class_

30. The class is sO [lUmerOUS that jOinder. of the numbers is;

impracticable. On information and believe, current members of

the class number approximately 1.2,000 inmates or roughly 30% of

the current prison population. At the Southern Ohio correctional

Facil i::y alo[l(~ approximately ]01 of the 1820 maximum security

prisoners are currently on·the QfficG of Psychiatric Services to

COLTections' active c.:aseload with the numbers conL"i.lluing to

increase. Joinder of the Ilunlben.: is made particu l.arly

irnpr-ac:::..:..cable because the class also includ.el:> Eut.ure inmiltes L<.'·.•

becaus~ thcr~ 15 a rapid turnover of inmates in the current

The l.H·n-;uit challenges v.:u-!.ous concii.t ions ot
coat':"::~~·~nt .;It c:he Stul.e of Ohio'~.. p!:"ison sy!Jtem tuc.;i.lit.ic;"; i.ncL:.-:'':''::g Llle t':Idl':!quacy of psychiatr.ic cU.re provided t.o PGYC~li3=ricillly impaired p~isoners. Questions of law and t~c= are co~~on to the class.

K,aCHU. Ra.IN'ON.
CoO,," NeWMAN
t!l WILCH
~"n.Otao

.. 11 ...

SENT BY:
, .'

3- 2-98 ;11:32AM ODRC LEGAL SERVlCES4

614+728+9327;#12/15

. ,, 32 - The defendants have acted and n"!tused to act. on 9round~;
g(~nerally applicable to the class. thereby making appropriate
final injunctive and declaratory relict with respect to the
class.

V.

.FACtUAL ALLEGb..TIONS

:n. PsychiCltricully impair-ed inmates in the care and
. . custody of the Ohio pri::;on !;:v!':tem are unable to . seek t.heir own

pgychii.~tric care. The st.ate, therefore, i ~ llnder il duty to

provide these inmates with adequate psychiatric care. Defendant!':'

Voinovich, the Ohio Department of RehabilitCltion and Correction,

Wilkinson. the Department of Mental Health, and Hogan are

responsible for providing psychiatric care to the psychidLI:ically

impail-ed inmat:es in their care ;,md custody.

34- In the gener.al population. psychiatrically impaired

.i.ndi,-:.cuals number ;;lpp.r.oximat.ely 15%. In the prison populat.ion,

psyc~~a~rically impaired inmates account: [or approximately twic~

the c~::rilluIli[.y r-ate of the general populacion during ..1Ily six (i~~::.r:::.:"!

peric~:' _

.....

~sychiatrically impaired ir'l((lat:~s vlho do not receive

aa~~~~:e psyc~iatric cure po~e ser10US probl~ms (or· prison ~~~~:,

o::~~,;!~- :.:;:naL.-~s, and I:.hemselves,

."

!:-. ~:.~y t.:()lIIpol1ent in the Lreatm~nt ot psychi.:Jt: rica 1.:" y

impa~~~d l~mate~ is adequate access to ongoing psychiatric ca~~

.::mn :: ::..::atm"2nt, Ohio' f.l prison syst.:em ~mf fers frorn systelll i.e

pt·ob:::"ems in staffing, (aei 1 it. i p.r.. and medical procedures that

ICI.en.a. RO_IN5QN. CoO~ N••,.."..
III WUCH
~AlI.()taQ

- 12 -

SENT BY,.:.

3- 2-98 ;11:33AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614T728t9327;#13/15

.. make adequate Clcces:) to ongoing psychiat.ric care and treatment

imposuible.

::

)7. The psychiatric care and treat.ment received by

.,

.. psyciliat.rically impaiJ:"etl inlnates in t:he State ()f Ohio· S priso[\

i. system f~cilitieG is grusGly inadequ~le and constitutes

deliberate indiff'=!rence LO these prisoners' serious medical

needs.

VI.

CLAIMS FOR RELIE~

J8. Plaintiffs realleqe and incorporate by reference

paragraphs 1-3"1.

39. Defendant!.:. acting under color of state law, £Clil Lo

provide Plaintiffs with basic psychiatric medical care. The

rC!:iulr:.ing conditions in the Ohio pricon sy:~tem arc incompati::;l<:!

wi.th contemporary standards of decency and cause u~necessary Cl[1Cj

wanto~ infliction of pain as well as gCIluine privation, and ~~2

not ~easonably rela~~d to any legitimate governmen~al objecc~~~5.

psychiatrically impaired inmates are thereby subjected to Cr:.:2:"

and l;:-:usual pt!ni$hment in v).olacion (}.f the Eighth and Four'te=::::::

Amen.:i::-:-2!:1t.s to :.he United States Conscitution,

VII.
,
• e' •

NO AJ;lEOUATE REMEDY AT LAW As c; ;>roximatc: r'i~s\11 \". of the D~Eendant.s· policies.

PJ'.::lC:' :(:~S, !Jl;·oca~Urc!;. acts and omi 53 ions. Plaint if£s have

!3ufi;e:·~d. do suffer, and will continue to sutrcn' immediate

irrepa~dble iniury, including phyuical. psychological and

KIICHti_. RCnllfSON.
(DOlt" N'WMAN C'I WltCI(
ONoNNAlI. Otao

- 1] -

SENT BY:

.. w'.

'I."

i" . 'I
11

3- 2-98 ;11:33AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614+728+9327;#14/15

emotional injury. Plaintiffs' phYflical and psychological health
and well-being will continue t.o deteriorate during t:he course of
I.:;heir confinement under the conditionu desc}::i,hed in this complaint. pl<'lintif.fs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy
Plaintii:£5 ""ill
contj;mc to be i.rreparable injur~d by the policies. practi.ces. proceduI'es, acts and omit.s inns of t:he Def~ndantr.l unle:;;s th is court grants the injunctive relief that Plaintiffs seek.

VIII.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs and the class they represent pray this.

court;
A.

Determine by order pursuant to Rule 23. Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, that this action may be ma.in.~ained as a cJ iir.f;

action;

:3. Issue a declaratory judgment stat:.ing the Defendants'

polici~s, prtlcLices, acts and omior.ions de£:crib,!d in t.his

complaint violate P)ainti[fs' rights gUtlranteed to ~hem by L~a

Eig=~::!: tlnd Fourteen~h Amendments Lv ~hc lInir.ed States

?:=xmdnent 1Y enj oj n Ocfcnd.3nt:s, t.heir of f i.cc r.'S. aSe'~:·;.
~m~_:y~e~ and cuccessors in office, as well as those accinq ...
co::":::':!.-:': and PiH.-ticipllting wiLh them, [rom engagi.ng in the un 1?~·:::ul pra<.:L .i.ces de~jcribcd HI Lhis cC;lIl1plaint;
Retain iurisdiction of this matter until this court's
ordc~ has been ca~ried out;

fC,.eH_'" llO..NSO,,-
CoO"" NIWMAN ,. WILCK
~"n.OHID

- 14 -

SENT BY:

3- 2-98 ;11:33AM ODRC LEGAL SERVICES~

614+728+9327;#15/15

', iI

E:. Award Plaintiffs t:heir reasollable costs and attorneys'

·l fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C_· § 1988; and
,, :,

ii
::. l

F _ Grant such other relief as 1llay be just and equitable .

,I

.:

; ,

ROBERT B-- NEWMI\N (00234-84)·· - - - - - - -

,

Attorney for. Plaintiffs

KIRCHER, ROBINSON, COOK,

NEWMAN & \'lEJ..CH

125 E_ Court Street, Suite 1000

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-1299

Phone: (513) ]tH-352S

CERTIFI.CAT~ ..OF SERVlCE

I hereby ccrU.fy that a true and correct:. copy of the foregoing has hp.en served upon Donald A. Cataldi, J\ssistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, 30 E. Bro~d Street,
26th rioor, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0410 by regular u.s_ mail this
.:,~-.~ci':iY of October r 1.993.

ROBERT B. NEWMAN

ICr.C1I~ RO.....501f.

Coo.... NIIWM-'N

tI Wa.c.,

-i

CINoNNAn, ()Iaa

~ ;

. 15 -

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 1 of 16

CLOSED, CONMAG, SuppressAnsRpt
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:93-cv-00166-TSH

Dunn, et al v. Dallman, et al Assigned to: Timothy S Hogan Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff Juan Dunn
Plaintiff Jeffrey D Hartwell On behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals Plaintiff Mario Henderson

Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Juan Dunn PRO SE
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein Gerhardstein Branch & Laufman Co. LPA 617 Vine Street # 1409 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-621-9100 Email: agerhardstein@GBLfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Brand Newman Newman & Meeks Co LPA 617 Vine Street Suite 1401 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513/639-7000 Email: robertnewman@newmanmeeks.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 2 of 16

Plaintiff Donald J Hall
Plaintiff Eugene T Lemmons
Plaintiff Donald M Glenn
Plaintiff Lewis Williams, Jr
Plaintiff Jose H Machin
Plaintiff John Thomas Mayher, II
Plaintiff Thomas Ruffing
V. Defendant William H Dallman Defendant

represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Brand Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 3 of 16

Richard Korwzalzs Corrections counselor officer, Lebanon Corr Inst. Defendant Deputy Warden Campbell Defendant C O Land Defendant C O Lawson Defendant George V Voinovich Governor State of Ohio
Defendant Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

represented by Andrew S Bergman Ohio Attorney General - 2 Environmental Enforcement Section 30 E Broad Street 25th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-3428 614-466-2766 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffery William Clark Ohio Attorney General - 2 Child and Elder Protection 30 East Broad Street 14th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614-644-7233 Email: jclark@ag.state.oh.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph M. Mancini Ohio Attorney General - 2 Corrections Litigation 150 East Gay Street 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6001 614-644-7233 Fax: 614-728-9327 Email: jmancini@ag.state.oh.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Anne Reese Attorney General of Ohio

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 4 of 16

Defendant Reginald A Wilkinson Director of the Ohio Dept of Rehab & Correction
Defendant Department of Mental Health
Defendant Director Michael F Hogan Director of the Department of Mental Health

441 Vine Street Suite 1600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-852-3497 Fax: 513-852-3484 Email: mreese@ag.state.oh.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph M. Mancini (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Anne Reese (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diane Marie Weaver Assistant Attorney General Health and Human Services Section 30 East Broad Street 26th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-0410 614-466-8600 Email: dweaver@ag.state.oh.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Thomas Williams Ohio Attorney General - 2 Health & Human Services Section 30 E Broad Street 26th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-3428 614-466-8600 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diane Marie Weaver (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Thomas Williams (See above for address)

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 5 of 16

Date Filed 03/12/1993 03/12/1993
03/12/1993 03/12/1993 04/19/1993 04/20/1993 04/29/1993
04/29/1993
05/07/1993 05/14/1993
05/21/1993 05/21/1993
06/07/1993 06/07/1993

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 MOTION by plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 03/17/1993)

2 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 03/17/1993)

3 COMPLAINT (Summons issued) (referred to Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg ) ( no. pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 03/17/1993)

4 NOTICE to pro se litigants on applicable court procedures ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 03/17/1993)

5 MOTION by defendants to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction ( no pgs: 10) (wy) (Entered: 04/19/1993)

6 NOTICE to plaintiff upon filing by defts of mot. to dismiss and/or mot. for summ. J. ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 04/20/1993)

7 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert Steinberg ; Deadline for amending complaint to add party: June 21, 1993; Discovery ddl set for 9/20/93 ; Mtn filing ddl is set for: 10/20/93 (cc: ptnr via cert mail/counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) Modified on 05/14/1993 (Entered: 04/29/1993)

8 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert Steinberg that parties to file narrative written statement of facts. (cc: Ptnr via cert. mail/ counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) Modified on 05/14/1993 (Entered: 04/29/1993)

9 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time for 20 days to respond to motion to dismiss/summ.J. ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 05/07/1993)

NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to extend time for 20 days to respond to motion to dismiss/summ.J. [9-1] (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 05/14/1993)

10 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to dismiss/Summ. J. [5-1] ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 05/21/1993)

11 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant William H Dallman, defendant Richard Korwzalzs, defendant C O Land on 3/31/93; RETURNED UNEXECUTED as to defts Lawson and Campbell. ( no pgs: 24) (wy) (Entered: 05/24/1993)

12 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [51] ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 06/07/1993)

NARRATIVE STATEMENT by plaintiff ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 06/07/1993)

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 6 of 16

06/22/1993 06/22/1993 06/30/1993 07/15/1993 08/26/1993 09/08/1993 09/09/1993 09/21/1993
10/06/1993
10/06/1993 10/25/1993 10/29/1993
10/29/1993 11/01/1993 11/01/1993

14 NARRATIVE STATEMENT by plaintiff for trial re order [8-1] ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 06/22/1993)
15 RESPONSE by plaintiff Juan Dunn to motion to dismiss [5-1] ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 06/22/1993)
16 MOTION by plaintiff for preliminary injunction relief against defts herein ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 06/30/1993)
17 RESPONSE by defendants to motion for preliminary injunction relief [16-1] ( no pgs: 7) (wy) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
18 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by Robert B Newman ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 08/27/1993)
19 NOTICE of phone conference before MJ Steinberg in order to schedule calendar dates (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 09/08/1993)
20 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by defendants to dismiss pltf's claim ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 09/09/1993)
21 ORDER by Honorable Robert A. Steinberg Pltf. is given until 10/15/93 to file an amended complaint. Defs. may then renew their motion to dismiss, if appropriate, without refiling. All pending motions are MOOT. 12/21/93 DDL; 1/24/94 Motions Deadline; 4/94 FPTC; 5/94 trial. Pretrial packet sent (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 09/21/1993)
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Juan Dunn adding Jeffrey D Hartwell, Mario Henderson, Donald J Hall, Eugene T Lemmons, Donald M Glenn, Lewis Williams Jr, Jose H Machin, John Thomas Mayher II, Thomas Ruffing, George V Voinovich, Ohio Dept of Rehab, Reginald A Wilkinson, Dept of Mental Health, Michael F Hogan ( no pgs: 15) (wy) (Entered: 10/06/1993)
23 MOTION by plaintiffs to certify class action ( no pgs: 16) (wy) (Entered: 10/06/1993)
24 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by Alphonse A Gerhardstein ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 10/25/1993)
25 MOTION by defts: Jeffrey D Hartwell, Donald J Hall, Eugene T Lemmons, Donald M Glenn, Jose H Machin, Thomas Ruffing for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 10/29/1993)
26 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction [25-1] ( no pgs: 8) (wy) (Entered: 10/29/1993)
27 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Dept of Mental Health, defendant Michael F Hogan by Diane Marie Weaver ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 11/01/1993)
28 STIPULATION for extension of time until 11/19/93 to respond to Amended Complaint by Ohio Dept of Mental Health ( no pgs: 3) (wy)

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 7 of 16

11/03/1993 11/03/1993 11/03/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/12/1993 11/19/1993 11/19/1993 11/19/1993 11/19/1993 11/19/1993 11/29/1993 11/30/1993 12/06/1993 12/09/1993 12/29/1993

(Entered: 11/01/1993)
29 NOTICE by plaintiff of taking depositions of Dr. Sylvester Briggs & Jessica Byrd on 11/12/93 at 10:00 a.m. ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
30 NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of Nate Sidharta, M.D. on 11/15/93 at 10:00 a.m. ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
31 MOTION by plaintiffs to view Lima Correctional Inst. and for a hearing to be held at Lima Correctional Inst. ( no pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 11/15/1993)
32 NOTICE of Phone Conf. set for 11/29/93 at 9:30 a.m., before MJ Steinberg (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 11/15/1993)
33 NOTICE of hearing on pltfs' motion for TRO (Doc. 25) set for 12/10/93 at 9:30 a.m. before MJ Steinberg (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 11/15/1993)
34 MOTION by plaintiffs to produce medical records ( no pgs: 6) (mb) (Entered: 11/15/1993)
35 ANSWER by defendant Dept of Mental Health; and, defendant Michael F Hogan ( no pgs: 13) (wy) (Entered: 11/19/1993)
36 MOTION by defendant Dept of Mental Health to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 11/19/1993)
37 ANSWER by defendant George V Voinovich, Governor of the State of Ohio ( no pgs: 9) (wy) (Entered: 11/19/1993)
38 RESPONSE by defendant Ohio Dept of Rehabilitation & Correction (DRC); and, defendant Reginald A Wilkinson to motion to certify class action [23-1] ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 11/22/1993)
39 ANSWER by defendant Ohio Dept of Rehabilitation & Correction; and, defendant Reginald Wilkinson; with jury demand ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 11/22/1993)
40 ORDER OF USCA 6th: that petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as frivolous. ( no pgs: 2) (wy) Modified on 12/03/1993 (Entered: 12/01/1993)
41 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to produce psychological, psychiatric & medical records [34-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) Modified on 12/03/1993 (Entered: 11/30/1993)
42 MOTION by plaintiffs for order of app't of Court expert witnesses ( no pgs: 4 + attachment) (wy) (Entered: 12/07/1993)
43 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [36-1] ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 12/09/1993)
44 RESPONSE by defts: Ohio Dept of Mental Health; and, Michael F

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 8 of 16

01/03/1994 01/25/1994
02/10/1994 04/18/1994 06/08/1994 06/20/1994 09/08/1994
09/22/1994 09/30/1994 10/06/1994 10/12/1994 10/17/1994
12/07/1994

Hogan to motion to certify class action [23-1] ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 12/29/1993)
45 RESPONSE by defendant George V Voinovich to motion to certify class action [23-1] ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 01/05/1994)
46 INTERIM ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg ; Removed from the Trial docket until 7/15/94 in order that parties may attempt to resolve litigation (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3 + exhibit) (wy) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
47 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg withdrawing motion for preliminary injunction [16-1], withdrawing motion to dismiss [5-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
48 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by William M. Saks, on behalf of pltfs, Juan Dunn, et al. ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 04/18/1994)
49 JOINT MOTION to extend time to 8/29/94 by which experts to render their report ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to extend time to Aug 29, 1994 [49-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 06/20/1994)
50 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg: Upon advice of the moving parties, and with the consent of the court, the following motions are moot: the motion for order of app't of Court expert witnesses [42-1] moot., the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [36-1] moot., the motion to view Lima Correctional Inst. and for a hearing to be held at Lima Correctional Inst. [31-1] moot., the motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction [25-1] moot., the motion to dismiss pltf's claim [20-1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
51 Stipulation and ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg : the Answer date of deft, ODMH is hereby stayed. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
52 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg ; Status report to the Court; ddl no later than 10/12/94 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
53 NOTICE of ; Status conference in Rm 706 3:00 10/13/94 (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 10/06/1994)
54 JOINT STATUS REPORT ( no pgs: 2 faxed) (wy) (Entered: 10/13/1994)
55 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg ; Trial is STAYED due to parties' active settlement negotiations Parties will report status of settlement negotiations by December 7, 1994. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 10/17/1994)
56 JOINT STATUS REPORT ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 12/08/1994)

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 9 of 16

12/16/1994 02/24/1995 03/16/1995 04/17/1995
04/19/1995 05/18/1995 05/18/1995
05/30/1995 06/02/1995 06/05/1995 06/07/1995 06/07/1995 07/07/1995

57 NOTICE of ; Status conference in Rm 706 set for 4:00 p.m. on 1/13/95 (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
58 MOTION by plaintiff to certify class action ( no pgs: 8+) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/1995)
59 RESPONSE by defendants to motion to certify class action [58-1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
60 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg the parties shall distribute the attached notice to the class by insuring that the notice is posted no later than 4/20/95 in all of the cellblocks, living areas and law libraries in all of the institutionshousing adult prisoners and operated by the defts in the State of Ohio (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
61 NOTICE of hearing by MJ Steinberg setting hrg on motion to class certification [58-1] at 10:00 on 6/7/95 and fairness hearing set for 7/10/95 at 10:00 (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 04/19/1995)
62 JOINT MOTION to approve notice to class of proposed settlement AND JOINT MOTION to approve consent decree (Notice of court hearing seeking approval of proposed consent decree attached) (no pgs: 10) (mb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
63 AGREED ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to approve notice to class of proposed settlement AND JOINT MOTION to approve consent decree (Notice of court hearing seeking approval of proposed consent decree attached) [62-1] (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
64 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel upon consent of parties, this case referred to Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg for final disposition any appeal will be to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 05/30/1995)
65 Summary of RESPONSE by plaintiffs to [63-1] order by MJ Steinberg with notice attached ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
66 Addendum/Supplement by plaintiff re response [65-1] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 06/06/1995)
67 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg on the motion to certify class action [58-1] on 6/7/95. No objections. Class will be certified. iAngie Portune (Merit), Ct. Reporter (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 06/07/1995)
68 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to certify class action [58-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (mb) (Entered: 06/07/1995)
69 MOTION by plaintiff Juan Dunn to extend time to file objection to settlement decree ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 07/07/1995)

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 10 of 16

07/07/1995 07/11/1995
07/11/1995
07/14/1995 07/21/1995 07/26/1995 02/09/1996 03/27/1996 10/18/1996 06/13/1997 06/25/1997

70 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES by plaintiffs to [63-1] order by MJ Steinberg with proposed consent decree attached ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 07/07/1995)
71 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg; case called before MJ Steinberg; counsel present; Mr Cohen summarizes what steps were taken in order to reach the consent decree; future cases where inmates are complaining of mental health and whether class counsel will also be notified; Mr Newman & Mr Gehardstein to notify the court of their decision at a later date; consent decree to be signed by Court today; Lee Ann Williams Court Reporter (Merit) (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 07/11/1995)
72 CONSENT DECREE by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg parties are to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in consent decree hereby dismissing case with prejudice since claims for declaratory and injunctive relieve have been resolved; court retains jurisdiction over decree for enforcement; if legal action is pursued to enforce the terms of this consent it shall be brought in the form of a motion to reopen the case (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 33) (vp) (Entered: 07/11/1995)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg denying motion to extend time to file objection to settlement decree [69-1] (cc: all counsel) (ph) (Entered: 07/17/1995)
73 AGREED ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg that pltfs have 30 days from this date to file an application for attys fees if the matter is not resolved by settlement (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 07/21/1995)
74 STIPULATED JUDGMENT as to attorneys' fees signed by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 07/26/1995)
75 STIPULATED JUDGMENT ENTRY by Mag Judge Lynn V. Hooe; Defts to pay attys fees as listed to Pltfs counsel for atty fee claim through 12/31/95 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (dm) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
76 Stipulation and ORDER by Mag Judge Lynn V. Hooe : vacating [75-1] judgment for judgment ; parties stipulate and Court orders defts to pay the atty fees to pltfs counsel for respect atty fee claims through 12/31/95 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/27/1996)
77 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan party stipulation that the defts shall pay atty fees to pltfs counsel for claims from 1/1/96 through 9/11/96 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/18/1996)
78 Stipulation and Judgment ENTRY/ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan and parties; Defts to pay attorney fees to pltfs counsel for claims from 9/12/96 through 4/30/97 as set forth in this entry (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (tt) (Entered: 06/13/1997)
79 MOTION by movants James R Eubank and Coy R Troutman for order to

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 11 of 16

06/25/1997 07/21/1997 07/28/1997 08/15/1997 10/27/1997 11/13/1997
11/13/1997
11/19/1997 11/21/1997 11/26/1997 12/04/1997 12/11/1997

show cause why defts should not be held in contempt ( no pgs: ) (ph) (Entered: 06/26/1997)
80 MOTION by movants James R Eubank and Coy R Troutman for temporary restraining order , and for preliminary injunction ( no pgs: ) (ph) (Entered: 06/26/1997)
81 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to pltfs Eubanks and Troutmans motions for TRO; prel inj and to show cause why defts should not be held in contempt [80-1] [80-2], [79-1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 07/22/1997)
82 MOTION by James R Eubank and Coy R Troutman for enjoin and to reopen the case ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
83 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motions to enjoin and reopen case [82-1] [82-2] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 08/15/1997)
84 MOTION by movant Bo Guess to enforce consent decree ( no pgs: 8) (km) (Entered: 10/27/1997)
85 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan on pltfs Bo Guess motion to enforce [84-1]; clerk to refer copy of order and motion to Class counsel to determine whether inmate is member of class; class counsel to inform court status of Mr Guess; copy of order and motion sent to Professor Fred Cohen monitor appointed in case (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
86 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan regarding motions by Eubank and Troutman [79-1][80-1][80-2][82-1][82-2]; clerk to forward copy of order and motion to class counsel whether pro se pltfs are w/in parameters of class; class counsel to notify court of status of Messrs Troutman and Eubank; copy of order and motion sent to Monitor Professor Fred Cohen (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
87 RESPONSE/STATUS REPORT by class counsel pursuant to orders [861][85-1] regarding status of Eubanks and Troutman ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
Mail Returned [86-1], [85-1] addressed to James R Eubank for movant James R Eubank (vp) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
88 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess for protective order , and to compel defendants to comply with court order ( no pgs: 5+) (km) (Entered: 11/26/1997)
89 RESPONSE by defendants to courts order by MJ Hogan [85-1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
90 EMERGENCY NOTICE by plaintiff Bo Guess of intent to kill, maim, blind and capture SOCF prison staff by self-law to protect and stop crimes ( no pgs: 15) (km) (Entered: 12/11/1997)

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 12 of 16

12/18/1997
12/19/1997 12/29/1997 01/07/1998 01/14/1998 01/15/1998
01/21/1998 01/28/1998 02/06/1998 02/10/1998
02/18/1998 02/27/1998 03/02/1998 03/13/1998 03/18/1998

91 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan denying motion for enjoin [82-1], denying motion to reopen the case [82-2], denying motion for temporary restraining order [80-1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [80-2], denying motion for order to show cause why defts should not be held in contempt [79-1]; parties Eubank and Troutman sent instructions for filing pro se complaint and application to proceed IFP (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
92 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess to enforce order , for order directing counsel to serve pltf with docs filed with court , and for order placing pltf in RTU ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
93 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess to sanction compel or replace class counsel Robert Newman and judicial notice ( no pgs: 3) (km) Modified on 12/29/1997 (Entered: 12/29/1997)
94 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess for protective order ( no pgs: 8) (km) (Entered: 01/07/1998)
95 MOTION by movant William Ivory for permissive joinder in action as plaintiff ( no pgs: 2) (km) Modified on 01/16/1998 (Entered: 01/16/1998)
96 MOTION by movants Orsino Iacovone, John J Santine, Montax Pagan Juan Carlos, Don L McDonald, David King and Shaun A McBrown for temporary restraining order ( no pgs: 2+) (km) Modified on 01/16/1998 (Entered: 01/15/1998)
97 MOTION by defendants to dismiss petitioners motion for temporary restraining order [96-1] ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
98 NOTICE of hearing ; Status conference SET FOR 9:30 2/9/98 before MJ Hogan (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 01/28/1998)
Mail Returned, [98-2] addressed to James R Eubank for movant James R Eubank (vp) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
99 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan ;telephone conf on status report to be held at 4:30 3/9/98 ; Status report ddl 3/6/98 ; copies of motions sent to class counsel and counsel for defts (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/10/1998)
100 NOTICE by plaintiffs counsel of change of address ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/19/1998)
101 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess for order declaring pltf a separate party to class and to authorize pltf to file a separate mental health lawsuit ( no pgs: 6) (km) (Entered: 02/27/1998)
102 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Ohio Dept of Rehab by Jeffery William Clark ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/03/1998)
103 STATEMENT by Bo Guess in pursuant to MJ order [99-2] ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/1998)
104 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess for appointment of counsel , for order

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 13 of 16

03/18/1998 03/19/1998 03/19/1998 03/20/1998
03/23/1998 03/25/1998 04/01/1998
04/02/1998 04/08/1998

directing placement in RTU and free mental health care , and for sanctions; expedited ruling requested ( no pgs: 7) (km) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
104 JUDICIAL NOTICE by plaintiff Bo Guess to court of new Ohio Admin Code 5120-5-13 and RC 5120.56 of 3/10/98 making prisoners pay for mental health services (no. pgs: 7) (km) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
105 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess for hearing to present new evaluation , to recuse judges assigned to case , for an order appointing new class counsel, placing pltf Guess in RTU and preventing trf to OSP Youngstown , to reopen the case to enforce consent decree ( no pgs: 19+) (km) (Entered: 03/19/1998)
105 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Bo Guess to replies and reports fm class counsel and defendants (replies/reports not yet filed with court) ( no pgs: 19+) (km) (Entered: 03/19/1998)
106 Addendum/Supplement by plaintiff Bo Guess re objection [105-1], re motion for hearing to present new evaluation [105-1], re motion to recuse judges assigned to case [105-2], re motion for an order appointing new class counsel, placing pltf Guess in RTU and preventing trf to OSP Youngstown [105-3], re motion to reopen the case to enforce consent decree [105-4], re notice [104-1], re motion for appointment of counsel [104-1], re motion for order directing placement in RTU and free mental health care [104-2], and motion for sanctions [104-3] ( no pgs: 15) (km) (Entered: 03/20/1998)
107 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess for preliminary injunction , and for temporary restraining order; expedited ruling requested ( no pgs: 6) (km) (Entered: 03/23/1998)
108 NOTICE of hearing ;phone/Status conference set 11:00 3/25/98 with MJ Hogan (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 03/25/1998)
109 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan denying motion for order declaring pltf a separate party to class and to authorize pltf to file a separate mental health lawsuit [101-1], denying motion for protective order [94-1], denying motion to sanction compel or replace class counsel Robert Newman [93-1], denying motion for order placing pltf in RTU [92-3], denying motion for order directing counsel to serve pltf with docs filed with court [92-2], denying motion to enforce order [92-1] denying motion to compel defendants to comply with court order [88-2], denying motion to enforce consent decree [84-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
110 EMERGENCY JUDICIAL NOTICE by plaintiff Bo Guess of class counsel Newmans refusal to accept service copies of pro se filings from pltf and possible obstructed visit by class counsel Gerhardstein ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 04/02/1998)
Mail Returned [109-1] addressed to James R Eubank for movant James R Eubank - returned "not here" (km) (Entered: 04/08/1998)

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 14 of 16

05/22/1998 07/13/1998 08/31/1998 09/02/1998 09/02/1998 09/09/1998 09/09/1998 09/10/1998 10/26/1998 12/16/1998 02/11/1999
02/11/1999

111 MOTION by plaintiff Raymond Pratt for order directing removal of pltf fm maximum security status pursuant to Consent Decree ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
112 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT FILED () (ss) (Entered: 07/13/1998)
113 Stipulation and ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan that defts shall pay $5,772.45 to Newman & Meeks and $6,390.70 to Laufman, Rauh & Gerhardstein for pltfs atty fees from 5/12/97 through 4/17/98 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 09/01/1998)
114 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan denying motion for permissive joinder in action as plaintiff [95-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
115 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan granting motion to dismiss petitioners motion [96-1] [97-1], denying motion for temporary restraining order [96-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
Mail Returned [115-1] address to David King - returned serial number needed (km) (Entered: 09/09/1998)
Mail Returned [113-1] addressed to Coy R Troutman for movant Coy R Troutman, James R Eubank for movant James R Eubank (vp) (Entered: 09/09/1998)
Mail Returned [115-1] addressed to James R Eubank for movant James R Eubank (vp) (Entered: 09/11/1998)
116 MOTION by plaintiff Henry Jackson Jr to reopen the case due to violations of consent decree ( no pgs: 4+) (km) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
117 MOTION by plaintiff Bo Guess for an order granting courts protection assistance and relief due to violations of consent decree ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
118 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan denying motion for appointment of counsel [104-1], denying motion for order directing placement in RTU and free mental health care [104-2], denying motion for sanctions; expedited ruling requested [104-3] denying motion for hearing to present new evaluation [105-1], denying motion to recuse judges assigned to case [105-2], denying motion for an order appointing new class counsel, placing pltf Guess in RTU and preventing trf to OSP Youngstown [105-3], denying motion to reopen the case to enforce consent decree [105-4] denying motion for preliminary injunction [1071], denying motion for temporary restraining order; expedited ruling requested [107-2] denying motion for an order granting courts protection assistance and relief due to violations of consent decree [117-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/11/1999)
119 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan denying motion for order directing removal of pltf fm maximum security status pursuant to Consent Decree [111-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered:

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 15 of 16

02/11/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/18/1999 04/23/1999
06/14/1999 06/30/1999 07/06/1999 08/10/1999
05/19/2000
05/19/2000 07/05/2000 09/19/2000 09/19/2000

02/11/1999)
120 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan denying motion to reopen the case due to violations of consent decree [116-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/11/1999)
Mail Returned [119-1] addressed to plaintiff Raymond Pratt - returned "attempted not known" (km) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
121 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Bo Guess to order denying courts protection assistance and relief due to violations of consent decree [118-1] ( no pgs: 1) (km) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
122 MOTION by plaintiff John Perotti for temporary restraining order , and for preliminary injunction ( no pgs: 5+) (km) (Entered: 02/18/1999)
123 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan denying motion for temporary restraining order [122-1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [122-2]; clerk is to send pltf Perotti instructions for fling pro se complaint and application for ifp (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
124 MOTION by plaintiff Kavin Lee Peeples for an order directing the State of Ohio to cease and desist certain unlawful practices ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
125 MOTION by defendants to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment ( no pgs: 4+) (vp) (Entered: 06/30/1999)
126 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Juan Dunn in opposition to [125-1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/07/1999)
127 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan denying motion for an order directing the State of Ohio to cease and desist certain unlawful practices [124-1], granting defendants motion to dismiss [125-1], or in the alternative for summary judgment [125-2] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
128 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan directing clerk to file pltf Laguta motion and to send pltf instructions of filing pro se complaint and afdt to proceed ifp (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 05/19/2000)
129 Stipulation and ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan that defts to pay atty fees of $5885.70 and $5377.50 to pltfs counsel (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 05/19/2000)
130 JOINT MOTION by parties for order to terminate consent decree ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/06/2000)
131 BRIEF/FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT FILED by Fred Cohen, Monitor () (vp) (Entered: 09/19/2000)
132 ORDER by Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan granting motion for order to terminate consent decree [130-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp)

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD - Docket Report

Page 16 of 16

09/29/2000 11/15/2000

(Entered: 09/19/2000)
Mail Returned [132-1] addressed to James R Eubank for movant James R Eubank (vp) (Entered: 10/02/2000)
133 LETTER to court from Richard Siggers re status of inmate () (vp) (Entered: 11/15/2000)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

02/28/2006 17:30:39

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:93-cv-00166-TSH

Billable Pages: 9

Cost:

0.72

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107198514233127-L_923_0-1

2/28/2006