IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM LEE,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

LAWRENCE W. BLACKWELL,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

JAMES J. QUIGLEY,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

TCA 93-40176-MMP TCA 93-40227-WS TCA 93-40315-WS

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION

1. This Consolidated Amended Complaint is brought as a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief of behalf of

all inmates in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections alleging that the defendants, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the United States Constitution persist in using a handcuff cover, commonly known as the black box, despite the fact that the device causes excessive and unnecessary pain and discomfort.
JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) in that this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. 4. The plaintiffs' claims for relief are predicated on upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States 5. Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and costs is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorney's fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 6. Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

07022484;1

2

PARTIES 7. Plaintiff, WILLIAM LEE, is a prisoner in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. He is a close custody inmate currently incarcerated at Apalachee Correctional Institution. 8. Plaintiff, LAWRENCE W. BLACKWELL, is a prisoner in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. He is a close custody inmate currently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. 9. Plaintiff, JAMES J. QUIGLEY, is a prisoner in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. He is a close custody inmate currently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. 10. Defendant, HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. As such he is responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of policies and procedures generally applicable to all prisons and all prisoners. He is sued in his official capacity. 11. Defendant, MICHAEL RATHMANN, is the Statewide Security Administrator for the Florida Department of Corrections. As such he is responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of policies and procedures generally applicable to all prisons and all prisoners as they relate to security and, in particular, responsible for the security aspects of the transport of prisoners from facility to facility. He is sued in his official capacity.

07022484;1

3

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 12. This action is brought as a class action, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated. 13. The class of plaintiffs consists of all persons, other than death-sentenced persons, who are currently in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, or who will come into the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, and who will be restrained with the black box security device while being transported between one secure facility and another secure facility in a transport van operated by employees of the Florida Department of Corrections. 14. The plaintiffs' class consists of an unknown but extremely large number of inmates, certainly in excess of 50,000 individuals, so that joinder of all members is impracticable. 15. Controlling issues of law and fact are common to all members of the plaintiff class in that the imposition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment by way of the black box security device, as alleged in this Consolidated Amended Complaint, is common to all inmates in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections and is imposed as a matter of policy, pattern, practice and custom. 16. The claims of the individual plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the plaintiff class. The named plaintiffs' right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment

07022484;1

4

has been abridged and will be abridged in the future, contrary to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
17. The defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the plaintiff class as a whole thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
18. The policy, pattern, practice and custom with respect to Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class present common questions of law and fact which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
19. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the plaintiffs' class.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 20. On February 20, 1992, Plaintiff Quigley was moved from the East Unit to the West Unit of Apalachee Correctional Institution in a Department of Corrections’ van. 21. During the approximately five minute trip, which was made entirely on prison grounds, plaintiff Quigley was restrained with waist chains, handcuffs with a handcuff cover (the black box) and leg irons. 22. During the trip from the East Unit to the West Unit, plaintiff Quigley was accompanied by two armed Correctional Officers.

07022484;1

5

23. The use of restraints, as described in Paragraph 21, above, caused plaintiff Quigley to suffer severe pain and discomfort as a result of the black box.
24. During the course of the move from the East Unit to the West Unit, plaintiff Quigley was required to carry all his personal property, weighing approximately 50 pounds. A prisoner required to carry his personal property while wearing the black box security device is forced to endure even more severe pain and discomfort.
25. In January, 1993, plaintiff Quigley was scheduled to be transported by van from Baker Correctional Institution to the North Florida Reception Center for a medical evaluation. Prior to boarding the van, he was strip searched. When plaintiff Quigley learned that he would be restrained with a waist chain, handcuffs with a the black box and leg irons, he refused his medical appointment because of the extreme pain and discomfort caused by the black box.
26. On August 17, 1993, plaintiff Quigley was moved from Baker Correctional Institution to Hardee Correctional Institution in the same type of van used by Baker Correctional Institution to take prisoners to medical appointments at the North Florida Reception Center. During the approximately 8 hour trip, the black box was not used on plaintiff Quigley or on the other inmate transported in the van.

07022484;1

6

27. In an effort to be relieved of the pain and discomfort caused by the black box, plaintiff Quigley used the established grievance procedure. His grievance was denied at all levels.
28. Plaintiff Lee, during the time he was confined at Baker Correctional Institution, suffered from a serious respiratory ailment requiring a number of trips to the North Florida Reception Center for medical evaluation and/or treatment. Except for the first trip, each time plaintiff Lee was taken to the North Florida Reception Center he was restrained with a waist chain, handcuffs with a the black box and leg irons.
29. When restrained with a waist chain, handcuffs with a handcuff cover (the black box) and leg irons, plaintiff Lee was forced to endure great pain and suffering on account of the black box.
30. While at Baker Correctional Institution, because of the pain and discomfort caused by the black box, plaintiff Lee was forced to refuse several scheduled medical appointments at the North Florida Reception Center.
31. In an effort to be relieved of the pain and discomfort caused by the black box, plaintiff Lee used the established grievance procedure. His grievance was denied at all levels.
32. Plaintiff Blackwell, during the time he was confined at Baker Correctional Institution, was transported on several occasions to the North Florida Reception Center. Initially, in the mid-eighty’s, he was transported restrained only with handcuffs. Subsequently, on trips from Baker Correctional Institu-

07022484;1

7

tion to the North Florida Reception Center he was restrained with a waist chain, handcuffs with a the black box and leg irons.
33. When restrained with a waist chain, handcuffs with a handcuff cover (the black box) and leg irons, plaintiff Blackwell was forced to endure great pain and suffering on account of the black box.
34. While at Baker Correctional Institution, because of the pain and discomfort caused by the black box, plaintiff Blackwell refused a scheduled dental appointment at Columbia Correctional Institution.
35. Each of the named plaintiffs has been transferred numerous times during the course of his incarceration from one secure facility to another secure facility by way of a Florida Department of Corrections’ van, and each of the named plaintiffs, as a result of his lengthy sentence, can expect to again be transferred from one secure facility to another secure facility at some future time during the course of his incarceration.
36. The black box fits over the chain which joins the handcuffs, and is secured by the waist chain, thereby creating a ridged unit which causes severe pain and discomfort when worn for more than a very short period of time. This pain and discomfort is especially severe:
A. When the trip between prisons takes several hours, which is frequently the case.
B. When the transport van is driven at a high rate of speed of bumpy secondary roads, which is frequently the case.

07022484;1

8

C. When the transport van rounds a corner at a high

rate of speed, which is frequently the case.

D. When the inmate being transported is forced to

carry his personal belongings while in restraints, which is

frequently the case.

E. When the inmate being transported is forced to

attempt to eat while in restraints, which is frequently the case

on longer trips.

37. The rules regulating the security procedures to be

followed when inmates are transferred from one prison to another,

or to some other, non-prison location, are found in Section 33-

7.009 of the Florida Administrative Code.

38. Section 33-7.009(6) requires that the transport “vehi-

cle shall be thoroughly searched and all security features

inspected prior to boarding any inmates.”

39. Section 33-7.009(7) requires that “all inmates [be]

searched prior to boarding the transfer vehicle.”

40. Section 33-7.007(14) sets out the method of restraint

and provides:

Standard restraint equipment for the normal situation will be handcuffs and a restraint chain. Additional restraints, such as leg irons, shall be necessary when transferring inmates who are extreme escape risks or inmates with serious assaultive tendencies. Being legally responsible for the custody of inmates, the transfer officer in charge is unrestricted in the necessary application of restraints.

(a) Use of restraint equipment, except for death row and high security inmates, will not be necessary when inmates are transferred

07022484;1

9

within the state from institution to institution provided a physically secure transfer vehicle is used.
41. For inmates not being transported between prisons,
Section 33-7.007(14)(b) & (c) provide that:
(b) Each close custody inmate who is not being transferred from institution to institution shall be restrained with at least handcuffs prior to leaving the institution. The restraints shall not be removed until the inmate is returned to an institution unless circumstances require their removal, that is, federal court appearances or medical visits.
(c) When mixed custody inmates are being transferred together, they shall all be restrained as though they are close custody inmates.
42. Section 33-7.009(10) distinguishes the ordinary close
custody inmate from death row inmates and from inmates determined
by the Correctional Officer Chief to be a high security risk, and
provides as to those inmates:
(a) The inmate shall be handcuffed with waist chains and leg irons and transferred in a secure caged vehicle. The driver shall be unarmed in order to handle inmates en route if necessary.
(b) The transfer vehicle shall be accompanied by a trailing escort vehicle driven by a well-armed officer. "Well-armed" shall mean possession of a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun.
(c) If several inmates are being transferred, the transfer vehicle shall have a second armed officer in attendance.
(d) Communication between the two vehicles is essential and is recommended between both vehicles and the home station.

07022484;1

10

43. Section 33-7.009 does not distinguish transfers from prison to prison based on whether a bus or a van is used as the means of transport.
44. During the course of the transport described in the above paragraphs, inmates may travel in vans or in buses belonging to the Department of Corrections. Typically, the vans:
A. Have some type of screen to separate the driver’s compartment from the passengers’ compartment.
B. Have expanded metal or some other type of screening over the windows in the passengers’ compartment.
C. Have a padlock or other secure type of lock on the outside of the rear doors.
D. Are staffed with two Correctional Officers, one who drives and one who carries a weapon, usually a pistol.
E. Are equipped with radios (or in some cases, portable telephones).
45. Prior to transporting an inmate, the policies, practices and procedures of the Florida Department of Corrections, as set forth in the Department’s Security Operations Manual, require that the van be searched.
46. Prior to transporting an inmate, the policies, practices and procedures of the Florida Department of Corrections, as set forth in the Department’s Security Operations Manual, require that the inmate be searched. If the inmate is a close custody inmate, the inmate must be stripped searched.

07022484;1

11

47. Prior to transporting an inmate, the policies, practices and procedures of the Florida Department of Corrections, as set forth in the Department’s Security Operations Manual, require that any property which will accompany the inmate be searched.
48. The vans are used to transport inmates in a variety of situations, including but not limited to:
A. Routine trips between two secure facilities, such as a trip from Baker Correctional Institution to the North Florida Reception Center for purposes of medical evaluation and treatment, as happened to the named plaintiffs.
B. Routine transfers, such as the transfer of an inmate between Baker Correctional Institution and Hardee Correctional Institution, as happened to plaintiff Quigley.
C. Transport from, and return to, a secure facility for a court appearance, such as a trip between Apalachee Correctional Institution and Tallahassee for appearance in the Northern District of Florida, as happened to the named plaintiffs.
D. Transport from, and return to, an outside doctor’s appointment, such as a trip from Apalachee Correctional Institution to a doctor’s office, as happened to plaintiff Lee.
49. The buses owned and operated by the Florida Department of Corrections:
A. Have some type of screen to separate the driver’s compartment from the passengers’ compartment.
B. Have expanded metal or some other type of screening over the windows in the passengers’ compartment.

07022484;1

12

C. May have a cage in the back used for inmates requiring

protection from other inmates.

D. Are staffed with two Correctional Officers, one who

drives and one who carries a weapon, usually a shotgun.

E. Are equipped with radios (or in some cases, portable

telephones).

50. The buses owned and operated by the Florida Department

of Corrections are used to transport as many as 50 inmates at a

time on regular routes connecting the three reception centers

with the more than 50 prison facilities throughout the State.

51. Inmates transferred from prison to prison on a van are

typically restrained with a waist chain, handcuffs with black box

and leg irons.

52. Inmates transferred from prison to prison on the buses

are not restrained in any way.

53. Section IV of the Security Operations Manual of the

Department of Corrections addresses the use of restraints during

the process of moving inmates from place to place. Paragraph F.

provides that:

Each close custody inmate who is not being transferred from institution to institution shall be restrained in one of two acceptable ways:

Option #1 - Shall be restrained with waist chains, handcuffs with the C & S handcuff cover (or equivalent handcuff cover), and leg irons prior to leaving the institution.

or

Option #2 - Shall be restrained with waist chains equipped with side cuffs (Smith &

07022484;1

13

Wesson #1800 or equivalent) and leg irons prior to leaving the institution.
Normally, the restraints shall not be removed until the inmate is returned to an institution unless circumstances require their removal; for example, during federal court appearances or when required by outside medical staff for medically-related reasons. If the officer is at all reluctant to remove the restraints, additional staff should be sent to assist in providing supervision.
54. The restraints described in Paragraph F. of Section IV
of the Security Operations Manual are used at some prisons
whenever the vans are used, whether the inmate is being trans-
ported to another secure facility or to an outside appointment.
55. The restraints described in Paragraph F. of Section IV
of the Security Operations Manual are not used at some prisons
when the vans are used, whether the inmate is being transported
to another secure facility or to an outside appointment.
CAUSE OF ACTION
56. The use of the black box results in extreme pain and
discomfort to those inmates forced to wear it. The longer the
trip, the more pain and discomfort the black box causes.
57. For those inmates where restraints are necessary, the
use of a waist chain with side cuffs and leg irons provides as
much security as the use of a waist chain, handcuffs and black
box and leg irons, but without inflicting the extreme pain and
discomfort caused by the black box.
58. The routine use of a waist chain, handcuffs and black
box and leg irons when vans are used as the means of transport

07022484;1

14

between prisons is an unnecessary and exaggerated response to the security needs of the Florida Department of Corrections.
59. There is no valid, rational connection between the practice of routinely using a waist chain, handcuffs and black box and leg irons and the penological interest put forward to justify the routine use of the black box, given the explicit provisions of the applicable regulations, including Chapter 33-7 and the Security Operations Manual.
60. There are no alternative means whereby an inmate can escape the pain and discomfort of the black box.
61. Given the express terms of Chapter 33-7 and the Security Operations Manual, there is no impact on correctional staff, prison resources or other inmates if the waist chains with side cuffs alternative is used, when necessary, for prison to prison transfers.
62. Following the applicable regulations, including using waist chains with side cuffs, constitutes a ready alternative to the black box that fully accommodates the prisoners’ right to be free of unnecessary pain and discomfort at de minimis costs to valid penological interests.
63. Forcing all inmates being transported in a van to wear the black box constitutes the unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering contrary to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court:

07022484;1

15

A. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
B. Declare that the routine use of the black box, without
any consideration being given to security concerns posed by a
specific inmate, violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishments
Clause of the Eight Amendment, made applicable to the States by
the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States;
C. Enter permanent injunctive relief enjoining the defen-
dants and their servants, agents and employees, and those acting
in concert with them, from routinely using the black box without
any consideration being given to the security concerns posed by a
specific inmate;
D. Award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988; and
E. Grant such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 720 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2309 305-358-2081 305-358-0910 (FAX)
Attorneys for Plaintiff

07022484;1

______________________________ By: Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Florida Bar No. 227862
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing document has been furnished to Donna La Plante, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, The Capitol, Suite PL-01, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050, by United States Mail on March 22, 2010.
______________________________ By: Peter M. Siegel

07022484;1

17

 
 Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 1 of 16
U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:93−cv−40176−RH

CLERK_1

LEE, et al v. SINGLETARY, et al Assigned to: JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE
Plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL

Date Filed: 06/02/1993 Date Terminated: 04/16/1997 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 550 Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by WILLIAM L LEE 122930 APALACHEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PO BOX 699 SNEADS, FL 32460 PRO SE
PETER M SIEGEL FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC− MIAMI FL 100 SE 2ND ST 3750 BANK OF AMERICA TWR MIAMI, FL 33131 305−358−2081 Fax: 305−358−0910 Email: pmsiegel@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL 1202205 APALACHEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PO BOX 699 SNEADS, FL 32460 PRO SE

V. Consol Plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY

represented by JAMES J QUIGLEY 073511 HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 12551 WAINWRIGHT DR IMMOKALEE, FL 33834 PRO SE
PETER M SIEGEL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 2 of 16

HARRY K SINGLETARY Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

represented by CARYL SUE KILINSKI ATTORNEY GENERAL − PL−01 − TALLAHASSEE FL STATE OF FLORIDA PL 01 THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FL 32311 850/414−3300 Fax: 488−4872 Email: caryl_kilinski@oag.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA MARIE LAPLANTE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF FL − TALLAHASSEE FL STATE OF FLORIDA PL 01 THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3816 Fax: 850−488−4872 Email: donna.laplante@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH HOLLIS WISER JOSEPH H WISER PA − ORLANDO FL 904 CANTON ST ORLANDO, FL 32803−3207 407/666−2381 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SCOTT EDWARD CLODFELTER SCOTT E CLODFELTER PA − TALLAHASSEE FL 1341 ALSHIRE CT S TALLAHASSEE, FL 32317−8458 850/487−5192 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
RICHARD E WARD Superintendent Baker Correctional Inst. TERMINATED: 05/16/1996

represented by DONNA MARIE LAPLANTE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/16/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH HOLLIS WISER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/16/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SCOTT EDWARD CLODFELTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/16/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ALTON P CHRISTIE Chief Security Officer Baker Correctional Inst.

represented by DONNA MARIE LAPLANTE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/16/1996

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 3 of 16

TERMINATED: 05/16/1996

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH HOLLIS WISER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/16/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SCOTT EDWARD CLODFELTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/16/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant MICHAEL RATHMANN

represented by CARYL SUE KILINSKI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DONNA MARIE LAPLANTE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/02/1993 06/02/1993 06/02/1993 06/08/1993 06/18/1993 07/14/1993
07/15/1993
07/15/1993 07/22/1993
07/30/1993 07/30/1993 09/21/1993

# Docket Text
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (tdg,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
1 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE to Proceed in Forma Pauperis . (tdg,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
2 COMPLAINT. 3 service copies. (tdg,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
NOTICE to Pro Se of Case Filing and Pleading Format. File ref. to PSLC. (tdg,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
LETTER and party summary form sent (former employee) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
3 ORDER granting [1−1] motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Clk. to issue summons and forwd to USM for service. Clk. to forwd. pla consent form to Return File to Court by 9/27/93 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
SUMMONS issued for defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE and forwarded to USM. (former employee) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
consent form sent to pla. (former employee) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
4 Return of Service Executed as to defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY 7/22/93 Answer due on 8/11/93 for HARRY K SINGLETARY (former employee) (Entered: 07/26/1993)
5 Return of Service Executed as to defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE 7/26/93 Answer due on 9/24/93 for ALTON P CHRISTIE (former employee) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
6 Return of Service Executed as to defendant RICHARD E WARD 7/26/93 Answer due on 9/24/93 for RICHARD E WARD (former employee) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
7 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE (Attorney Joseph H. Wiser),; jury demand (former employee) (Entered: 09/23/1993)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 4 of 16

09/23/1993 09/28/1993
01/03/1994 01/10/1994
01/21/1994 01/21/1994 01/25/1994 01/26/1994
01/26/1994
01/31/1994 02/02/1994 02/03/1994 02/07/1994 03/14/1994 03/14/1994 03/16/1994 03/16/1994 03/16/1994
03/21/1994
03/23/1994 04/11/1994

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (former employee) (Entered: 09/23/1993)
8 ORDER−discovery to be completed in 90 days, to Return File to Court by <date not set> ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 09/30/1993)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (former employee) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
9 ORDER parties have 15 days to advise court of status of discovery. ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
10 RESPONSE by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE re: [9−1] order . (former employee) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
10 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE to Extend Time to particpate in discovery . (former employee) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (former employee) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
11 ORDER granting [10−1] motion to Extend Time to particpate in discovery, reset Discovery deadline to 3/21/94 , to Return File to Court by 3/22/94 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
12 STATUS REPORT by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY (former employee) (Entered: 01/27/1994)
13 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE to allow plaintiff to receive discovery material . (former employee) (Entered: 02/02/1994)
Deadline updated; Response to Motion reset to 2/22/94 for [13−1] motion to allow plaintiff to receive discovery material (former employee) (Entered: 02/02/1994)
14 RESPONSE by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE re: [11−1] order reset Discovery deadline to 3/21/94 . (former employee) (Entered: 02/07/1994)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (former employee) (Entered: 02/07/1994)
15 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE to Extend Time of discovery attorney . (former employee) (Entered: 03/16/1994)
16 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE to Compel production of documents . (former employee) (Entered: 03/16/1994)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (former employee) (Entered: 03/16/1994)
Deadline updated; Response to Motion reset to 4/4/94 for [16−1] motion to Compel production of documents (former employee) (Entered: 03/16/1994)
17 RESPONSE by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY re: [16−1] motion to Compel production of documents by WILLIAM L LEE . Response referred to WCS. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
18 NOTICE of withdrawal of atty. Wiser by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD WARD, defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY (former employee) (Entered: 03/24/1994)
19 REQUEST for Admissions by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE (former employee) (Entered: 03/25/1994)
20 ORDER, clk. to file any case dispositive motions on or before May 13, 1994. pla. may await further court order before filing a response or motion for partial

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 5 of 16

04/11/1994 04/11/1994 04/11/1994 04/11/1994 05/26/1994 06/02/1994
07/06/1994 07/08/1994 07/18/1994
07/29/1994 09/01/1994 09/02/1994
09/15/1994 09/15/1994 10/07/1994 10/14/1994 10/21/1994

summary judgment. to Return File to Court by 5/16/94 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
21 ORDER [18−1] notice of withdrawal as counsel under advisement until notice of appearance of counsel is filed ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
22 ORDER denying as moot [13−1] motion to allow plaintiff to receive discovery material ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
23 ORDER denying as moot [16−1] motion to Compel production of documents ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
24 ORDER granting [15−1] motion to Extend Time of discovery attorney, reset Discovery deadline to 5/2/94 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (former employee) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
25 ORDER, to file a memorandum of law in support of their demand for a jury trail, set Motion Filing deadline to 7/15/94 , to Return File to Court by 7/18/94 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
26 MOTION by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to Extend Time − added attorney Scott Edward Clodfelter . (former employee) (Entered: 07/08/1994)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (former employee) (Entered: 07/08/1994)
27 ORDER granting [26−1] motion to Extend Time − added attorney Scott Edward Clodfelter, set Motion Filing deadline to Respond to Request for Admission 8/5/94 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 07/18/1994)
28 RESPONSE by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD E WARD, HARRY K SINGLETARY re: [19−1] admission requested by WILLIAM L LEE (former employee) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus TD Testificandum issued and forwarded to USM. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 09/02/1994)
29 ORDER, directing the clerk's office to mail consent trial forms to parties and set Evidentiary Hearing for 9:30 10/20/94 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 09/02/1994)
30 ORDER, reset Evidentiary Hearing for 9:30 10/26/94 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificadum issued and forwarded to USM. (former employee) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
31 NOTICE TO CHANGE ADDRESS of plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE; Apalachee Correctional Institution, P. O. Box 699−W, Bunk #0−19, Sneads, Florida 32460. (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
32 EMERGENCY MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE to relocate plaintiff to an area where he has better access to a Library . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/17/1994)
33 RESPONSE by defendants ALTON P CHRISTIE, RICHARD E WARD, HARRY K SINGLETARY to [32−1] motion to relocate plaintiff to an area where he has

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 6 of 16

10/26/1994 10/26/1994 10/27/1994
10/27/1994
10/31/1994 11/01/1994 11/01/1994 11/03/1994 11/07/1994 11/08/1994 11/15/1994
11/15/1994
11/15/1994 11/23/1994 11/30/1994 01/30/1995 01/30/1995

better access to a Library by WILLIAM L LEE . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
34 WRIT of habeas corpus ad testicandum returned executed (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
Evidentiary Hearing held; order to follow [ Court Reporter: Bordenave ] (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
35 ORDER, Setting deadline for pla.; to file memorandum of factual and legal argument for 12/1/94 . , Setting deadling for dft. to file memorandum for 1/10/94 . , ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/31/1994)
36 ORDER denying (without prejudice) [32−1] motion to relocate plaintiff to an area where he has better access to a Library ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/31/1994)
37 REPLY to response to [32−1] motion to relocate plaintiff to an area where he has better access to a Library by WILLIAM L LEE . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
38 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE transcripts of evidentiary hearing of 10/26/94 . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
39 AFFIDAVIT by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE − supplementing info in addition to facts discussed at evidentiary hearing (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
Motion(s) &FILE referred: [38−1] motion transcripts of evidentiary hearing of 10/26/94 referred to Magistrate Judge William Sherrill Jr. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
40 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE for Appointment of Counsel . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
Motion(s) referred: [40−1] motion for Appointment of Counsel referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
41 ORDER granting [40−1] motion for Appointment of Counsel. The court attempt to find counsel for the three plaintiffs ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
42 ORDER deferring [38−1] motion transcripts of evidentiary hearing of 10/26/94 − pending on attempt to find counsel for the three plaintiffs. ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
43 ORDER, Staying proceeding while the court seeks counsel for the three plaintiffs. ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
44 Order, (doc. 43) returned undeliverable to William Lee (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
45 ORDER directing the Clerk's office to file letter by Peter Seigel with this order. ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 12/02/1994)
File Returned to Court to WCS − regarding doc. 45. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 01/30/1995)
47 ORDER directing the Clerk's office to make copy of doc. 45 and mail to attorney Siegel. Setting deadline to file report the status of case for 3/1/95 . , to Return File to Court by 3/3/95 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) Modified on 03/17/1995 (Entered: 01/31/1995)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 7 of 16

03/13/1995 03/15/1995 03/16/1995
03/16/1995 03/20/1995 03/27/1995 04/10/1995 04/10/1995 04/12/1995
04/19/1995 04/19/1995 04/19/1995 04/19/1995 04/19/1995 04/21/1995 05/15/1995 07/20/1995 08/03/1995
09/21/1995 09/25/1995

47 NOTICE by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE to accept status report out of time − with attachment (status report). (bkp,Gainesville) Modified on 03/14/1995 (Entered: 03/14/1995)
File Returned to Court to WCS − regarding doc. 47. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 03/15/1995)
48 ORDER granting [47−1] notice to accept status report out of time, Setting deadline for Mr. Siegel to either a notice of appearance or another status report set for 4/17/95 , to Return File to by 4/18/95 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
49 Status report by plaintiff. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
50 NOTICE by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE of appearance of attorney Peter M. Siegel (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 03/20/1995)
File Returned to Court to WCS. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
51 MOTION by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to Extend Time − to file response to discovery . (former employee) (Entered: 04/10/1995)
Motion(s) referred: [51−1] motion to Extend Time − to file response to discovery referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (former employee) (Entered: 04/10/1995)
52 ORDER − Clerk to return document (Response to Pla First Request for Production of Documents) pursuant to Local Rule 26.2 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 04/14/1995)
53 ORDER, Consolidating Cases 93−40227 WS &93−40315 WS. Lead case is 93−40176 MMP. ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
54 ORDER granting [51−1] motion to Extend Time − to file response to discovery ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
55 ORDER denying [38−1] motion transcripts of evidentiary hearing of 10/26/94 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
56 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 8/21/95 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
Consolidated Lead Case (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
Deadline updated; to Return File to Court by 8/21/95 per doc. 56. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
57 NOTICE TO CHANGE ADDRESS of ProSe LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL (former employee) (Entered: 05/16/1995)
58 MOTION by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to Extend Time − added attorney . (former employee) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
59 ORDER granting [58−1] motion to Extend Time reset Discovery deadline to 9/20/95 , to Return File to Court by 9/21/95 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 08/07/1995)
File Returned to Court − re: oreder, doc. 59. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
60 ORDER, Setting deadline for informing the court of the status of discovery for 10/10/95 . , to Return File to Court by 10/10/95 ( signed by Magistrate Judge

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 8 of 16

10/05/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/11/1995 10/30/1995
11/03/1995 12/29/1995 01/02/1996 01/25/1996
01/25/1996 01/25/1996 01/29/1996 01/31/1996 01/31/1996
01/31/1996 02/01/1996 02/02/1996 02/02/1996

William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 09/26/1995)
61 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE to extend Discovery until 1/31/96 . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/06/1995)
Motion(s) referred: [61−1] motion to extend Discovery until 1/31/96 referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
62 RESPONSE by defendants ALTON P CHRISTIE, RICHARD E WARD, HARRY K SINGLETARY to [61−1] motion to extend Discovery until 1/31/96 by WILLIAM L LEE . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
Document 62 fwd to WCS. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/11/1995)
63 ORDER granting [61−1] motion to extend Discovery, reset Discovery deadline to 1/31/96 , to Return File to Court by 2/1/96 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 10/31/1995)
64 NOTICE by defendants ALTON P CHRISTIE, RICHARD WARD, HARRY K SINGLETARY of appearance of counsel Donna La Plante for the defendants. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 11/03/1995)
65 objection to supboena duces tecum to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
66 RESPONSE by defendants ALTON P CHRISTIE, RICHARD E WARD, HARRY K SINGLETARY to plaintiff's request for admission. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 01/05/1996)
67 MOTION by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to Dismiss − added attorney , for Summary Judgment − added attorney . (knr,Gainesville) Modified on 01/25/1996 (Entered: 01/25/1996)
Deadline updated; Response to Motion reset to 2/12/96 for [67−1] motion to Dismiss − added attorney, reset to 2/12/96 for [67−2] motion for Summary Judgment − added attorney (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
68 MOTION by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY accept motion to dismm as timely filed . (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
69 JOINT MOTION by defendants ALTON P CHRISTIE, RICHARD E WARD, HARRY K SINGLETARY to Extend discovery . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
Motion(s) referred: [69−1] motion to Extend discovery referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
70 ORDER granting [69−1] motion to Extend discovery, reset Discovery deadline to 4/1/96 , to Return File to Court by 4/8/96 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
71 NOTICE by defendants HARRY K SINGLETARY, Kerley, Hernandez, McRae, and Thatcher of providing original affidavits of Dr. Luis Astasio, Dr. Leonor Bonnet. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
Deadline updated; Response to Motion reset to 2/12/96 for [68−1] motion accept motion to dismm as timely filed (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
72 MOTION by plaintiffs WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY to Extend Time, (until 3/4/96) to respond to dft. motion for summar judgment . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/02/1996)
73 AFFIDAVIT of Peter M. Siegel. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/02/1996)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 9 of 16

02/06/1996
02/15/1996 02/15/1996 02/23/1996 02/23/1996
02/26/1996 03/07/1996 05/15/1996
05/16/1996 06/07/1996 06/07/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/18/1996

74 ORDER granting [72−1] motion to Extend Time, (until 3/4/96) to respond to dft. motion for summar judgment, Response to Motion reset to 3/5/96 for [67−1] motion to Dismiss − added attorney, reset to 3/5/96 for [67−2] motion for Summary Judgment − added attorney , to Return File to WCS by 3/12/96 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/07/1996)
75 ORDER granting [68−1] motion accept motion to dismm as timely filed. ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
Deadline updated; to Return File to WCS by 3/13/96 re: motion for summary judgment. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
76 MOTION by plaintiffs WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Leave to File consolidated amended complaint with memorandum and certifcation of counsel. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
77 RESPONSE by consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY to [67−1] motion to Dismiss − added attorney by HARRY K SINGLETARY, RICHARD E WARD, ALTON P CHRISTIE, [67−2] motion for Summary Judgment − added attorney by HARRY K SINGLETARY, RICHARD E WARD, ALTON P CHRISTIE . (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
Motion(s) referred: [76−1] motion for Leave to File consolidated amended complaint referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
78 RESPONSE by defendant ALTON P CHRISTIE, defendant RICHARD E WARD, defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to [76−1] motion for Leave to File consolidated amended complaint by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE . (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 03/08/1996)
79 ORDER granting [76−1] motion for Leave to File consolidated amended complaint, mooting [67−1] motion to Dismiss, mooting [67−2] motion for Summary Judgment set pla. Motion for class certification Filing deadline to 6/10/96 , set Answer to amended complaint deadline to 6/10/96 for HARRY K SINGLETARY, for RICHARD E WARD, for ALTON P CHRISTIE , to Return File to Court by 6/18/96, for RICHARD E WARD, for ALTON P CHRISTIE ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
80 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY amending [2−1] complaint against defendant MICHAEL RATHMANN and Harry K. Singletary (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
81 MOTION by plaintiffs WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for class certification (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
82 MEMORANDUM in support of [81−1] motion for class certification by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
83 MOTION by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to Extend Time to file answer to pla. amended complaint (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
Deadline updated; to Return File to WCS, re: doc. 83, by 6/26/96 (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
File Returned to Court. Per request WCS (former employee) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
84 ORDER granting [83−1] motion to Extend Time to file answer to pla. amended complaint, reset Answer deadline to 7/12/96 for MICHAEL RATHMANN, for HARRY K SINGLETARY, for RICHARD E WARD, for ALTON P CHRISTIE ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 06/18/1996)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 10 of 16

06/18/1996 06/18/1996 07/03/1996 07/08/1996 07/10/1996 07/29/1996 08/01/1996
08/01/1996
08/12/1996 09/12/1996 09/16/1996 09/18/1996 09/25/1996 09/26/1996 09/30/1996

Deadline updated; to Return File to Court by 7/19/96 per order 84 (former employee) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
SUMMONS(ES)issued for defendant MICHAEL RATHMANN and forwarded to plaintiff counsel. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
85 ANSWER to Complaint by defendants HARRY K SINGLETARY, MICHAEL RATHMANN (Attorney Donna M. LaPlante),; jury demand with affirmative defenses (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 07/05/1996)
File Returned to WCS − re: answer filed (bkp,Gainesville) (Entered: 07/08/1996)
86 NOTICE of by plaintiffs WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY of filing return of service of amended complaint on Michael Rathmann (deb,Gainesville) (Entered: 07/16/1996)
87 NOTICE of Hearing: set Telephone Status Conference for 3:00 8/1/96 (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (former employee) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
88 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS −It is recommended that moiton for class certification be granted; case be set for pretrial conference and a non−jury trial, and order that discovery be conducted no later than two weeks before the pretrial stipulation is due. Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. Objections to R and R due by 8/21/96 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. ). (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 08/05/1996)
Motion(s) no longer referred: [83−1] motion to Extend Time to file answer to pla. amended complaint, [81−1] motion for class certification, [76−1] motion for Leave to File consolidated amended complaint, [72−1] motion to Extend Time, (until 3/4/96) to respond to dft. motion for summar judgment, [69−1] motion to Extend discovery, [68−1] motion accept motion to dismm as timely filed, [67−1] motion to Dismiss − added attorney, [67−2] motion for Summary Judgment − added attorney, [61−1] motion to extend Discovery until 1/31/96, [58−1] motion to Extend Time − added attorney, [51−1] motion to Extend Time − to file response to discovery, [40−1] motion for Appointment of Counsel, [38−1] motion transcripts of evidentiary hearing of 10/26/94, [32−1] motion to relocate plaintiff to an area where he has better access to a Library, [26−1] motion to Extend Time − added attorney Scott Edward Clodfelter, [16−1] motion to Compel production of documents, [15−1] motion to Extend Time of discovery attorney, [13−1] motion to allow plaintiff to receive discovery material, [10−1] motion to Extend Time to particpate in discovery, [1−1] motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (knr,Gainesville) (Entered: 08/05/1996)
CASE reassigned to Judge Robert L. Hinkle (tdg,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
91 NOTICE TO CHANGE ADDRESS of consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY (pll,Tallahassee) (Entered: 09/20/1996)
89 ORDER granting [88−1] report and recommendations, granting [81−1] motion for class certification. Case will be scheduled for pretrial conference and non−jury trial by separate notice. ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 09/16/1996)
90 PRETRIAL ORDER filed Pretrial Conference for 9:00 10/23/96 Pretrial Stipulation deadline on 10/11/96 ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
92 MOTION (joint) by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to Extend Time − of pretrial procedures for 90−days . (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 09/26/1996)
Motion submission: [92−1] motion to Extend Time − of pretrial procedures for 90−days submitted to Judge Robert L. Hinkle (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 09/26/1996)
93 ORDER denying [92−1] motion to Extend Time − of pretrial procedures for 90−days ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 09/30/1996)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 11 of 16

10/10/1996 10/10/1996 10/11/1996
10/15/1996 10/15/1996 10/15/1996 10/15/1996
10/16/1996
10/16/1996 10/17/1996 10/17/1996 10/18/1996
10/24/1996 10/24/1996 10/25/1996 10/28/1996 11/12/1996 11/21/1996 11/27/1996

94 NOTICE by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to take deposition of Gene Miller on 10/15/96 at 2:00 at Miami, FL. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
95 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL to Continue pretrial conference . (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
96 PRETRIAL STIPULATION by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY, plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY, defendant MICHAEL RATHMANN (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/15/1996)
FILE RETURNED TO − Judge Robert L. Hinkle Re: motion to continue (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/15/1996)
Motion submission: [95−1] motion to Continue pretrial conference submitted to Judge Robert L. Hinkle (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/15/1996)
97 TRIAL BRIEF by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY (filed in G'ville) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
98 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY for leave to file proposed F/F and conclusions of law w/i 20−days after completion of trial . (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
99 ORDER granting [95−1] motion to Continue pretrial conference, set Motion Filing deadline to 10/16/96 for filing estimated length of trial.... ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
100 Pre−Trial Conference set at 12:15 12/6/96 (Copies mailed as indicated on document.) (vjr,Tallahassee) Modified on 10/18/1996 (Entered: 10/16/1996)
101 MOTION by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY to accept trial memorandum of law as timely filed . (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/21/1996)
102 TRIAL BRIEF/MEMORANDUM OF LAW by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/21/1996)
103 ORDER denying [98−1] motion for leave to file proposed F/F and conclusions of law w/i 20−days after completion of trial ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (pll,Tallahassee) Modified on 10/23/1996 (Entered: 10/18/1996)
104 ORDER granting [101−1] motion to accept trial memorandum of law as timely filed ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
106 NOTICE of by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY of Unilateral Scheduling report. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
105 NOTICE of Defendants's scheduling report by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY re: dates of unavailability.... (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
FILE RETURNED TO − Judge Robert L. Hinkle Re: Doc. #105 (defts scheduling report/unavailability) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
107 LETTER by JAMES J QUIGLEY re: trial date....(copies of all orders have been mailed to Mr. Quigley and counsel at Immokalee, FL address) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 11/13/1996)
108 NOTICE of UPDATED SCHEDULING REPORT by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY (counsel Donna LaPlante) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
109 PROPOSED FINDINGS/STATEMENT OF FACTS by HARRY K SINGLETARY (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 12 of 16

12/06/1996
12/06/1996 12/06/1996 12/06/1996
12/06/1996 12/06/1996 12/06/1996 12/06/1996
12/06/1996 12/06/1996 12/06/1996
12/08/1996 12/08/1996 12/09/1996
12/19/1996 01/02/1997 01/09/1997

112 NOTICE of filing PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY (filed in Gainesville office) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
113 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Monte Bixler to appear as witness for plaintiffs (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
114 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for William Lee, now housed in Polk correctional institution (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
115 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for James Quigley to appear for testimony; now housed at hendry Correctional Inst. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
117 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Terry Vaughn (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
118 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Phillip Ennis; now housed Hardee Correctional Inst. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
119 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Henry Mitchell to appear....now housed Martin Corr. Inst. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
120 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for WILLIAM LEE to appear on own behalf to testify...now housed Apalachee East Corr. Inst. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
121 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for John Messer to appear to testify; now housed Sumpter corr. Inst. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
122 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Sanford Hill to testify; now housed Hamilton Corr Inst. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
123 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Andreas Obojes to testify...now housed Columbia Correct. Inst. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
110 Minute entry: held, Trial estimated at 2 days [ Court Reporter: Judy Ellan ], set Bench Trial for 9:00 1/30/97 . [ Court Reporter: Judy Ellan] (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 12/08/1996)
111 NOTICE of Hearing:, set Bench Trial for 9:00 1/30/97 (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 12/08/1996)
124 PRETRIAL ORDER filed Trial Date on 1/30/97 ;....By 12/31/96 plaintiffs shall withdraw their pending applications for WHCAT for any incarcerated witnesses they do not plan to call at trial. ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
Deadline updated; to Return File to Court by 12/31/97 (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 12/19/1996)
125 NOTICE of by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY concerning inmate witnesses (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
116 PETITION by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Gerald Keevis

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 13 of 16

01/13/1997 01/21/1997 01/24/1997 01/29/1997 01/29/1997
01/31/1997 02/05/1997 02/10/1997 02/10/1997 02/10/1997 02/11/1997
02/11/1997 02/11/1997 02/12/1997 02/24/1997 02/26/1997

(als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
Writs issued and delivered to USM (1/10/97) with new dates of 1/30/97 for: Terry Vaughn; Sanford Hill; James Quigley; William Lee; Lawrence Blackwell; Andreas Obojes; (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/13/1997)
126 ATTORNEY TIME RECORD by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY for December 1996 (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/23/1997)
127 NOTICE of Hearing:, RESET Bench Trial for 9:00 3/13/97 (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/24/1997)
128 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY to Dismiss cause with prejudice . (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
129 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Show Cause Response due by 2/21/97....plaintiffs counsel and defendants shall show cause if they have any why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice as requested in motion to dismiss. ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
130 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY to Continue trial . (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 01/31/1997)
131 WRIT of Ad Testificandum returned unexcuted−trial continued Writs as to Terry Vaughn; James Quigley; Andreas Obojes; William Lee; Sanford Hill; Lawrence Blackwell (by USM) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/05/1997)
132 MOTION by consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY to Withdraw [128−1] motion to Dismiss cause with prejudice by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE . (letter signed only by James Quigley) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
133 Minute entry: Telephonic hearing held, Status conference, RESET Bench Trial for 9:00 4/15/97 granting [130−1] motion to Continue trial . [ Court Reporter: none] (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
134 NOTICE of Hearing:, RESET Bench Trial for 9:00 4/15/97 (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
135 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY to Withdraw [128−1] motion to Dismiss cause with prejudice by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE . (document signed by all plaintiffs) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/11/1997)
136 ORDER granting [130−1] motion to Continue trial, reset Jury Trial for 4/15/97 ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
137 ORDER granting [135−1] motion to Withdraw [128−1] motion to Dismiss cause with prejudice by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
138 ORDER granting [132−1] motion to Withdraw [128−1] motion to Dismiss cause with prejudice by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
FILE RETURNED TO − Judge Robert L. Hinkle Re: order of 1/29/97 (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
139 NOTICE TO CHANGE ADDRESS for plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL. Relocated to ACI, Sneads, Fl. (former employee) (Entered: 02/27/1997)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 14 of 16

04/01/1997
04/10/1997 04/16/1997 04/16/1997 04/16/1997
04/16/1997 04/16/1997
04/16/1997
04/16/1997 04/21/1997
05/14/1997 05/14/1997
05/30/1997 05/30/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997

WRIT(S) of Ad Testificandum issued and forwarded to USM. for Wm. Lee; Lawrence Blackwell; James Quigley; Andreas Obojes; Terry Vaughn; Sanford Hill...Writs previously issued and fwd'd to USM (and verified as same) for appearance at trial set for 4/7/97. NO NEW writs issued.... (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
140 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY, defendant MICHAEL RATHMANN by CARYL SUE KILINSKI (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 04/10/1997)
141 Exhibit list of Bench Trial held on 4/15/97 by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
142 Exhibit list of Bench Trial held on 4/15/97 by defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY, defendant MICHAEL RATHMANN (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
143 Non−Jury Trial held on 4/15/97, the clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the Defendants. Depositions of Frank A. Lampone, Samuel Culpepper, Alton Price Christie, Charles Padgett, submitted for courts review (not read in record) [ Court Reporter: Judy Ellan ] (vjr,Tallahassee) Modified on 04/16/1997 (Entered: 04/16/1997)
Case closed (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
144 FINAL ORDER by Judge Robert L. Hinkle, Dismissing claims of the plaintiff class with prejudice Clerk to enter judgment for defendants. (Copies mailed as noted on document) (als,Tallahassee) Modified on 04/16/1997 (Entered: 04/16/1997)
145 JUDGMENT for defendant HARRY K SINGLETARY, defendant MICHAEL RATHMANN, dismissing claims of plaintiff class with prejudice ( signed by Judge Robert L. Hinkle ) (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) COB: 1997 (als,Tallahassee) Modified on 04/16/1997 (Entered: 04/16/1997)
Case closed (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
146 Return of Service Executed as to plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY 4/15/97 for witnesses: Terry Vaughn; Sanford Hill; Andreas Obojes; and plaintiffs to appear at trial. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 04/21/1997)
147 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY to Extend Time for filing motion for IFP on appeal− . (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 05/15/1997)
157 NOTICE OF APPEAL by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY of [145−1] judgment order, [144−1] order Dismissing claims of the plaintiff class with prejudice, [144−2] relief (APPEAL FILED THIS DATE (5/14/97) − NOT PREVIOUSLY DOCKETED OR TRANSMITTED) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
148 NOTICE of withdrawal of appeal by plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
150 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY to appeal IFP . (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
149 MOTION by plaintiff WILLIAM L LEE, consolidated plaintiff JAMES J QUIGLEY requiring USA to bear cost of preparing a transcript for use on Appeal . r (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
Motion(s) referred: [149−1] motion requiring USA to bear cost of preparing a transcript for use on Appeal referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr., [150−1] motion to appeal IFP referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill Jr. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/02/1997)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 15 of 16

06/16/1997 06/16/1997
06/16/1997 06/20/1997 06/20/1997 08/13/1997 11/19/1997
11/19/1997 12/01/1997
05/20/1998 06/01/1998 06/01/1998 06/26/1998 07/22/1998 08/06/1998
10/28/1998 10/28/1998 11/09/1998

151 ORDER by Judge Robert L. Hinkle granting [147−1] motion to Extend Time for filing motion for IFP on appeal− (Copies mailed as noted on document) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
152 ORDER by Judge Robert L. Hinkle granting [149−1] motion requiring USA to bear cost of preparing a transcript for use on Appeal....While it is unlikely that plaintiffs will prevail on appeal, the issues are 'substantial' w/i the meaning of the applicable statutes and case law construing it. (Copies mailed as noted on document) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
153 ORDER by Judge Robert L. Hinkle granting [150−1] motion to appeal IFP (Copies mailed as noted on document) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
154 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/24/1997)
155 NOTICE of filing of affidavit in support of IFP by plaintiff LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/24/1997)
156 TRANSCRIPT filed RE: NON JURY TRIAL for dates of 4/15/97 (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
157 NOTICE OF APPEAL by WILLIAM L LEE, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, JAMES J QUIGLEY of [145−1] judgment order, [144−1] order Dismissing claims of the plaintiff class with prejudice, [144−2] relief (ORIGINAL FILING ON 5/14/97) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
158 Notice of Appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
159 USCA Case Number Re: [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE, [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE USCA NUMBER: 97−3428 (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
USCA appeal fees received FILING FEE $ 35.00 RECEIPT # 092172 (partial) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 05/21/1998)
160 ECCA Consent form for Plaintiff Quigley (amm,Tallahassee) Modified on 06/01/1998 (Entered: 06/01/1998)
161 ECCA Consent form for Plaintiff Blackwell (amm,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
162 REQUEST by ECCA for Certificate of Readiness (amm,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/29/1998)
163 CERTIFICATE OF READINESS as to WILLIAM L LEE USCA# 97−3482 Re: [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE (mailed to USCA) (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 07/22/1998)
164 NOTICE of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE, [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE USCA Number: 97−3428 (former employee) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
165 REQUEST/DEMAND as to WILLIAM L LEE for record on appeal (former employee) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
166 Certified and transmitted Record on Appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals: [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE (former employee) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
167 NOTICE of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE USCA Number: 97−3428 (former employee) (Entered: 11/09/1998)

Case: 4:93-cv-40176-RH As of: 03/18/2011 10:18 PM CDT 16 of 16

02/11/1999 03/18/1999 03/19/1999 03/25/1999

168 Letter to counsel or parties from ECCA instructing option to file response. (former employee) (Entered: 02/11/1999)
169 NOTICE from ECCA of order denying motion to publish the opinion in this case . (former employee) (Entered: 03/18/1999)
Record on Appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals: [157−1] appeal, [157−1] appeal (former employee) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
170 MANDATE OF USCA Re: [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE, [157−1] appeal by JAMES J QUIGLEY, LAWRENCE W BLACKWELL, WILLIAM L LEE (former employee) Modified on 03/25/1999 (Entered: 03/25/1999)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NO. 97-3428

WILLIAM L. LEE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

)

)

vs.

)

)

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, et al., )

)

Defendants - Appellees.

)

_______________________________)

INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Florida Case No. 93-40176-RH

PETER M. SIEGEL, ESQ. RANDALL C. BERG, JR., ESQ.
Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2870 Miami, Florida 33131-2310 (305) 358-2081 (305) 358-0910 (FAX)
Counsel for Appellants

07022481;1

William L. Lee, et al. v. Harry K. Singletary, et al.

Case No. 97-3428

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq., Counsel for Plaintiffs - Appellants Lawrence W. Blackwell, Plaintiff - Appellant Alton P. Christie, Defendant - Appellee Scott Edward Clodfelter, Esq., Counsel for Defendants - Appellees Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, Judge Caryl Sue Kilinski, Esq., Counsel for Defendants - Appellees Donna Marie Laplante, Esq., Counsel for Defendants - Appellees William L. Lee, Plaintiff - Appellant Honorable Maurice N. Paul, Judge James J. Quigley, Plaintiff - Appellant Michael Rathmann, Defendant - Appellee Honorable William Stafford, Judge Honorable William C. Sherrill, Jr., Magistrate Judge Peter M. Siegel, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiffs - Appellants Harry K. Singletary, Defendant - Appellee James Upchurch, Defendant - Appellee

07022481;1

C-1 of 2

William L. Lee, et al. v. Harry K. Singletary, et al.

Case No. 97-3428

Richard E. Ward, Defendant - Appellee Joseph Hollis Wiser, Esq., Counsel for Defendants - Appellees

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Florida Justice Institute, Inc., Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants

07022481;1

C-2 of 2

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellants request oral argument. They believe oral argument will assist the Court to obtain a better understanding of the factual and legal basis of the claim Appellants seek to present to the Court.

07022481;1

i

STATEMENT REGARDING TYPE SIZE AND STYLE This brief is printed in 14 point CG Times type.

07022481;1

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item

Page

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

STATEMENT REGARDING TYPE SIZE AND STYLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Course of Proceedings and Disposition in the Court Below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Statement of the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Statement of the Standard or Scope of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ARGUMENT

THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT WHEN PRISONERS ARE TRANS-

FERRED FROM PRISON TO PRISON ON A VAN AS COMPARED TO

WHEN PRISONERS ARE TRANSFERRED FROM PRISON TO PRISON ON

A BUS SERVES NO LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVE AND

SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN AS VIOLATIVE OF THE CRUEL AND

UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS CLAUSE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

BECAUSE OF THE UNNECESSARY PAIN AND SUFFERING IT CAUSES

07022481;1

iii

TO THOSE RESTRAINED WITH LEG IRONS, WAIST CHAINS, HANDCUFFS AND BLACK BOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 A. There Is No Valid, Rational Connection Which Supports
Punishing Those Transferred from Prison to Prison on a Van . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 B. Availability of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 C. Impact on Correctional Staff, Other Inmates and the Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 D. There are Simple Alternatives Available With No Cost
to Valid Penological Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

07022481;1

iv

TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page(s)

Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 84 L.Ed.2d 518,

105 S.Ct. 1504 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Bruscino v. Carlson, 654 F.Supp. 609 (S.D. Ill. 1987),

aff’d, 854 F.2d 162 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,

491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3193, 105 L.Ed.2d 701 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1985),

cert. denied, 479 U.S. 817 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Fulford v. King, 692 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 33

Gomm v. DeLand, 729 F.Supp. 767 (D. Utah 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Griffin v. Lombardi, 946 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Hall v. Holder, 955 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Harris v. Coweta County, 21 F.3d 388 (11th Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46 (7th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Ismail v. Cohen, 712 F.Supp. 416 (S.D. N.Y. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621 (E.D.Va. 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Moody v. Proctor, 986 F.2d 239 (8th Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 27, 29

Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63 (3d Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Picariello v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 1020 (M.D.Pa. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Putman v. Gerloff, 639 F.2d 415 (8th Cir. 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

07022481;1

v

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Salaam v. Lockhart, 905 F.2d 1168 (8th Cir. 1990),

cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 677 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Simpson v. Saroff, 741 F.Supp. 1073 (S.D. N.Y. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Tate v. Kassulke, 409 F.Supp. 651 (W.D.Ky. 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 25, 29, 35

Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2448 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382 (9th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 35

Whitney v. Brown, 882 F.2d 1068 (6th Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections v.

District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D. D.C. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Other Authorities

28 U.S.C. § 1291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section 33-7.009 (14) F.A.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 23, 26, 31

07022481;1

vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The district court entered final judgment in Appellees’ favor after a bench trial. This appeal is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

07022481;1

1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Whether the use of a handcuff cover (the “black box”) when an inmate is transported in a secure prison van from one prison to another prison is so arbitrary, capacious and unreasonable as to amount to Cruel and Unusual Punishment when the same trip, if made in a prison bus, is made without the use of the black box or any other form of restraint?

07022481;1

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Course of Proceedings and Disposition in the Court Below This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief in which the plaintiffs seek to stop the routine use of a handcuff cover, generally known as the “black box,” as part of the restraints placed on inmates when they are transported from one prison to another prison in a secure prison van. This action began with the filing of a pro se case by William L. Lee on June 2, 1996. R12. Thereafter, two other inmates filed similar actions, the first captioned Lawrence W. Blackwell v. Harry K. Singletary, et al., Case No. TCA 93-40176-MMP, filed June 21, 1993, and the second captioned James J. Quigley v. Harry K. Singletary, et al., Case No. TCA 93-40176MMP, filed August 13, 1993. The Magistrate Judge held a consolidated evidentiary hearing on October 26, 1994. Upon trying on the black box, the Magistrate Judge found that it “caused the handcuffs to press sharply against the upper inside of the wrists, causing moderate but significant pain, particularly while seated.” R1-43-2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel was, therefore, granted. R1-41. After appearance of counsel, R1-50, the Court consolidated the three cases, designating the Lee case as the lead case. R1-53. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on May 16, 1996 seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief to bar the defendants “from routinely using the black box without any consideration being given to the security concerns posed by a specific inmate.” R2-80-16. The Amended Complaint alleged a class consisting of “all persons, other than death-sentenced persons, who are currently in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, or who will

07022481;1

3

come into the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, and who will be restrained with the black box security device while being transported between one secure facility and another secure facility in a transport van operated by employees of the Florida Department of Corrections.” R2-80-4. After Class Certification, R2-89, a bench trial was held on April 16, 1997. Judgment was entered for the defendants, R3-145, with the Court rendering an opinion from the bench, R4-284 to 293, and a written Final Order. R3-144.
This appeal followed. R3-157. 2. Statement of the Facts The Department of Corrections uses three kinds of vehicles to transport inmates, 36 passenger buses, 50 passenger buses, and 15 passenger vans. R4-78. The typical van (R4-28, 29) and typical bus are shown in Plaintiffs’ Composite Exhibit 18. Both vans and buses are radioequipped. R3-143, Deposition of Alton Christie, p. 27, read by the Court in lieu of live testimony. R4-142. Both carry two correctional officers, one being the driver. On both buses and vans, at least one of the correctional officers is armed; in a van, the driver has a stun gun and the other officer a pistol. R4-220. It is not apparent, and there is nothing to in the record to indicate that an inmate can do something to escape from a van that he can not do to escape from a bus. R4-82. No inmate has ever successfully escaped from a bus. R4-248. Likewise, absent outside assistance,1 no inmate

1. There have been two van-related escapes. One involved a van which was met at its

destination by an outside party with a weapon. The other involved an inmate in a wheelchair

who, when removed from the van and placed on the sidewalk, jumped out of his wheelchair and (continued...)

07022481;1

4

has ever escaped from a van.2 R4-82; R4-249. There has never been a situation where an inmate, in either a van or a bus, has been able to kick out a window and escape. R4-84; R4-98. There has never been an incident where an inmate has tried to breach the integrity of either a van or a bus, R4-100, or a situation where inmates were able to take over a bus, R4-103, or a van. R4-104.
Defendants’ witnesses disagree among themselves about whether there is a significant difference in security between vans and buses. According to Colonel Christie, a bus is not necessarily a more secure means of transport than a van. R3-143, Christie Deposition, p. 13. However, according to Stan Czerniak, the buses are significantly more secure. R4-212 - 215.3 Plaintiffs’ expert testified that while the buses “are probably more secure,” the “vans are also secure.” R4-162-164.
Inmates transported by bus wear no restraints. R4-82; R4-222. On the other hand, inmates transported by van usually are restrained with leg irons, waist chain, handcuffs and the

1. (...continued) ran off. R4-99.

2. The Department of Corrections requires that prior to a trip from prison to prison or to

any other location, an inmate be strip-searched. R4-79. However, at least at some prisons, the

rule is only applied to van trips, and not to bus trips, where inmates may only be pat-searched.

R3-143, Christie Deposition, p. 22. The vans and buses, as well as any inmate property, are also

searched before embarking on a trip. Christie Deposition, p. 24-25.

3. One of the reasons advanced by Mr. Czerniak in support of his testimony that the vans

were less secure than the buses was the greater number of van accidents. However, no inmate

has ever escaped as the result of a van accident. R4-249. Moreover, if the security of the van was

breached in an accident, the black box would not prevent an inmate from walking away. R4-250.

07022481;1

5

black box. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15, Request for Admissions 1. Any prison which transported close custody inmates in a van without restraints would be in violation of the Department’s Security Operation Manual. R4-200.
There are two authorized methods of restraint to be used when transporting inmates by van. One is leg irons, waist chain, handcuffs and black box and the other is leg irons, and a waist chain with side cuffs. R4-74; R4-197. Which method to use is a local decision left to the discretion of the Chief Correctional Officer at each prison. R4-75, 77.4 Things to consider include the inmate, the inmate’s record, the destination and the type of transport vehicle, R4-81, as well as the actual equipment available at each prison. R4-92. And the decision as to what type of equipment to have is left to the discretion of the Superintendent of each prison. R4-94.
The black box, properly known as a handcuff cover, is a device which fits over the chain which joins the handcuffs, and is secured in place by having the waist chain pass through it. It creates a rigid unit, which holds the prisoner’s wrists in a fixed position adjacent to the waist chain and prevents access to the handcuff key hole. R4-153. Its purpose is security. By covering the keyhole, it prevents the prisoner from either picking the lock or using a stolen handcuff key.

4. As written, these alternatives only apply when an inmate is being transported to a non-

secure area, such as an outside medical appointment or a court appearance. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12.

For prison to prison transfers, the rules of the Department of Corrections do not mandate, or for

that matter, even mention the use of the black box. Section 33-7.009(14), F.A.C. However, as a

matter of practice, the Department of Corrections deems these rules to apply whenever a van, as

opposed to a bus, is used to transport an inmate.

07022481;1

6

There is also disagreement over whether the two methods of restraint are equally effective. No prisoner wearing a black box has ever been able to remove his handcuffs. R4-80. Likewise, no inmate restrained with a waist chain and side cuffs has ever been able to remove his restraints. R4-80; R4-251. There are no studies to indicate that security is actually enhanced by use of the black box. R4-79. Correctional Officer Chief Charles Padgett testified by way of deposition that he had noticed no difference in terms of security issues or concerns before or after the use of the black box. R3-143, Padgett Deposition, p. 16, read by the Court in lieu of live testimony. R4-142. During his twenty years of experience (Deposition, p. 4), he never experienced a situation where an inmate was able to get out of his cuffs or an experience where an inmate, or a group of inmates, was able to take over a van. Deposition, p. 21. Colonel Christie, with nearly 18 years of experience, testified he was unaware of any inmate who managed to escape his handcuffs, when either the black box or the waist chain with side cuffs was used. R3143, Christie Deposition, p. 26. Likewise, Richard Kirkland, a former security coordinator for the Florida Department of Corrections, and a Regional Director at the time of his testimony, R485, testified that both methods were equally effective. R4-96. Eugene Miller, plaintiffs’ expert, described the methods as comparably effective. R4-165.
On the other hand, Stan Czerniak, the current security administrator for the Department of Corrections, testified that the use of a waist chain with side cuffs is “clearly not as secure.” R4-209. He testified at length about the need for the black box. As part of his testimony, he relied on a publication of the America Correctional Association entitled Guidelines for the Development of a Security Program, R4-227, also known as “The Security Bible.” R4-228. But

07022481;1

7

on cross he conceded that the publication suggests selective use of the black box, but only for high risk prisoners. R4-236.
Each plaintiff alleged that the use of the black box caused him unnecessary pain and discomfort. Plaintiff Lee is a close custody inmate. R4-16. He is 60 years of age and suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute asthmatic bronchitis. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15. He came into the prison system at the North Florida Reception Center and was then transferred to Baker Correctional Institution. R4-13. That trip took place on a “Blue Bird” bus, packed with two inmates to a seat, R4-13, and staffed with a driver and one other correctional officer, both sitting in front of a screen. R4-14.
On the bus trip no restraints of any type were placed on Mr. Lee or on any other inmate on the bus. R4-13, 14. Some of the inmates’ personal property was placed behind the last seat, where inmates had access to it, and could place it on their laps. R4-14. Also at the back of the bus is a urinal which inmates could and did use during the trip. R4-15.
While at Baker Correctional Institution, Mr. Lee was transferred a number of times to the North Florida Reception Center for medical evaluation and/or treatment. R4-15. Each trip would start and end inside the prison fences. R4-19. The trips would take place in a van, with one correctional officer driving and one correctional officer riding. The number of inmates ranged anywhere from 5 to 13, with the average load being 8 inmates. Mr. Lee, as well as all the other inmates, would be restrained with a waist chain, handcuffs covered by the black box, and leg irons. Unlike the buses, the inmates could not move around and did not have their personal property with them. R4-16, 17. On several occasions, because of the pain caused by the black

07022481;1

8

box, Mr. Lee refused, or attempted to refuse, scheduled medical appointments at the North Florida Reception Center.5 R4-26.
According to Mr. Lee, “every time they run off the road, stop, start and move you, the way it got you down here, you’re trying to hold yourself, and it’s cutting into your wrist — the handcuff cuts into your wrist.” R4-17. However, wearing handcuffs, but not the black box, allows an inmate to hang on to the seat and avoid sliding about. R4-57. Mr. Lee would go to medical after each trip because of the pain and swelling, pain and swelling which would last three or four days. R4-18. On one trip, Mr. Lee suffered an asthma attack and, because he was restrained, could not reach his medicine. R4-18. On the return trip, unlike all the other inmates, Mr. Lee was not restrained. R4-19.
In July of 1994, Mr. Lee was transferred from Baker Correctional Institution to Apalachee Correctional Institution. He road the Blue Bird bus to Quincy where he got on a van to finish to trip to Apalachee. R4-20. There were no restraints used on any of the inmates on the bus. R4-20. Thirteen got off at Quincy to complete the trip in the van. No restraints were used. R4-21. While at Apalachee Correctional Institution, he was sent to the North Florida Reception Center by ambulance. He returned by bus with no restraints, R4-21. Subsequently, he was transferred in a van from the West Unit to the East Unit at Apalachee Correctional Institution being restrained only with leg irons. R4-22.
On one occasion, Mr. Lee was sent by van from the East Unit to the West Unit at Apalachee Correctional Institution for the purposes of an eye exam — approximately a five

5. Other inmates also refused or attempted to refuse medical trips to avoid the black box.

R4-117; R4-137.

07022481;1

9

minute drive. He was restrained with leg irons, waist chain, handcuffs and the black box, both going and returning. R4-25, 26.
On December 4, 1996, Mr. Lee was transferred by van from Apalachee Correctional Institution to Gulf Correctional Institution. No restraints of any kind were used. R4-23. He returned in January, 1997, part of the trip utilizing a van and part of the trip utilizing a bus. No restraints were used on either vehicle. R4-24 & 25.
On the day of trial, Mr. Lee was again transported from Apalachee Correctional Institution to Tallahassee wearing the black box, which left marks on his wrists and arms. R4-11. He described it as being grooves and bruises across his wrists, just above the bone. R4-12. He also testified that his hands were cold as a result of the circulation being cut off. R4-12. However, on occasions when Mr. Lee has only been restrained by handcuffs, and no black box, there have been no marks on his wrist. R4-33.
Plaintiff James Quigley is also a close custody inmate. R4-36. After initial processing in 1979, Mr. Quigley was transferred from the North Florida Reception Center to Union Correctional Institution by Blue Bird bus. No restraints of any kind were used. R4-37. Between his initial incarceration date and February, 1992, he was transferred a number of times, usually by bus, but sometimes by van. No restraints were ever used on the buses. R4-37, 38. Occasionally, handcuffs and a waist chain were used on the vans. R4-39.
Mr. Quigley first encountered the black box in February, 1992, while being transported in a van from the East Unit to the West Unit at Apalachee Correctional Institution, a trip of a mile and a half. R4-37, 39. The trip was “extremely painful” because he was required to carry his property. R4-39.

07022481;1

10

In July, 1992, Mr. Quigley was transferred from Apalachee Correctional Institution to Baker Correctional Institution, taking a van to Quincy Correctional Institution6 and then a bus to Baker. No restraints were used on the trip. One correctional officer, the driver, was on board. R4-41 to 43.
At Baker Correctional Institution, Mr. Quigley was scheduled to be transported to the North Florida Reception Center for a medical evaluation. Because of the black box, he refused to go. R4-43. He was successful in obtaining a medical pass exempting himself from the black box because it deterred him from using medical services. R4-44. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8. Another time he unsuccessfully grieved the use of the black box for transport between units of the Central Florida Reception Center. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7; R4-49. The trip caused pain but no permanent injury. R4-50.
In August, 1993, Mr. Quigley was moved from Baker Correctional Institution to Hardee Correctional Institution in a van, accompanied by one other inmate, and restrained by a waist chain with side cuffs and leg irons. R4-50. Thereafter, he went to Polk Correctional Institution on a bus, with no restraints, R4-51, and then to Hendry Correctional Institution, again on a bus with no restraints. R4-51. Eventually, he was sent by bus, without restraints, from Hendry Correctional Institution to Apalachee Correctional Institution for purposes of trial in this case. R4-52.
On the day of trial, Mr. Quigley, like Mr. Lee, was also transported from Apalachee Correctional Institution to Tallahassee wearing a waist chain, handcuffs, the black box, and leg

6. The van to bus transfer at Quincy Correctional Institution took place outside the fence.

R4-41.

07022481;1

11

irons. The black box was painful and left marks on his wrist. However, on occasions when Mr. Quigley was only restrained with handcuffs, there were no marks. R4-36.
Plaintiff Lawrence Blackwell, age 66, is also close custody inmate. R4-54. He came into the system at the North Florida Reception Center and then went to Baker Correctional Institution by bus, without any restraints. R4-54 & 55. In the summer of 1987 he made as many as eight trips to the North Florida Reception Center in a van, restrained only with handcuffs. R4-56.
Later, after the black box came into use, Mr. Blackwell was sent several times from Baker Correctional Institution to the North Florida Reception Center for medical treatment, a trip of about an hour. R4-58. According to Mr. Blackwell:
It [the black box] wa s painful. It made it difficult to m aintain your position on the seat; because, again, those wer e the parallel bench seats, and it was impossible to stay steady when they start fast or hit the brakes and slow down. Some of those back roads are pretty wild, too. R4-58. Each trip went from inside one prison to inside another prison. R4-59. Each time, two correctional officers were present. R4-59. Each van had an expanded mental screen over the windows and a screen, usually laced with Plexiglass, to separate the front compartment from the back. The back doors were locked and secured with a bar. R4-60. On one occasion plaintiff Blackwell refused a dental appointment because of the pain and discomfort associated with the black box. R4-58. After Mr. Blackwell left Baker Correctional Institution, he was transferred to several prisons by bus, each time without any restraints. R4-60 & 61. In 1991, he returned to Baker Correctional Institution by bus, again without restraints, R4-62, remaining there until he was transferred to Apalachee Correctional Institution in October, 1994, for purposes of a hearing in

07022481;1

12

this case. R4-62. The trip involved a bus from Baker Correctional Institution to the North Florida Reception Center, then a bus from the North Florida Reception Center to Quincy Correctional Institution, and then a van from Quincy Correctional Institution to Apalachee Correctional Institution. No restraints were used during any part of the trip. R4-63. After the court appearance, the same trip took place in reverse, again without any restraints. R4-64. Leg irons, waist chain, handcuffs and the black box were used on the trip from Apalachee Correctional Institution to the Court and back. R4-64. Plaintiffs do not contest the use of the black box for trips which end outside of a secure facility.
In April of 1995, Mr. Blackwell left Baker Correctional Institution on a bus for Polk Correctional Institution. No restraints were used. R4-64. For purposes of the trial in this case, he went by bus from Polk Correctional Institution to the Central Florida Reception Center, then to the North Florida Reception Center, and finally to Apalachee Correctional Institution. No restraints were used on any part of the trip. R4-66.
At Apalachee, Mr. Blackwell was originally placed in the East Unit and then transferred to the West Unit. The transfer took place in a van with Mr. Blackwell being placed in leg irons, waist chain, handcuffs and the black box. R4-66. The same means of transport and restraint was used when Mr. Blackwell was brought from the West Unit to the East Unit to meet with his attorney and then returned to the West Unit. R4-67. The van contained two correctional officers, one of whom was armed, and one inmate. R4-67.
Like Mr. Lee and Mr. Quigley, on the day of trial Mr. Blackwell was also transported from Apalachee Correctional Institution to Tallahassee wearing a waist chain, handcuffs, the

07022481;1

13

black box, and leg irons. R4-55. Although the van has seat belts, they were not used.7 R4-57. He
described the difficulties caused by the black box:
Well, they have a tendency to bite into the wrist. It’s very difficulty to — well, it restricts the movement of my hands to essentially zero, and that causes problems that way. And from that, also, I might add, it also makes it impossible to get your m edication or to, be cause I wear glasses, to push my glasses up, if they slide down my nose, or anything like that.
R4-55. When asked whether the trip to court left any injuries or marks, Mr. Blackwell re-
sponded, “A little bit.” R4-56.
Other prisoners agreed that the black box caused pain, in some cases extreme. R4-109;
R4-120; R4-123. As described by one inmate, when you are trying to brace yourself while
sliding around in the back of the van, the black box cuts into your wrists and causes “severe
pain.” R4-125. Another inmate testified that:
Well, it causes swelling, br uising, sometimes cuts. Depends if the handcuffs have a sharp edge; but , due to the stiffening, you are forced, I mean, your body and physicalforced your arms at an angle, which put pressure to the cuffs, because the cuffs don’t m ove. The cuffs were stiff by the box, and that’swhat caused the pain, great pain and discomfort for the whole period of time, even afterwards when you took them off, there was discomfort.
R4-135. This inmate suffered bruises and swelling which would sometimes last for days and
cuts, including one where a scar created from a 1994 trip which was still visible at the time of
trial. R4-136. On the other hand, when restrained with a waist chain and side cuffs, the pain and
discomfort is absent. R4-127.

7. Although some of the vans have seat belts, an inmate restrained with the black box has

no ability to fasten the seat belts. R4-109; R4-119.

07022481;1

14

Another inmate transferred from Apalachee Correctional Institution to testify in this case, a trip of a half hour to 45 minutes (R4-109), left Apalachee at about 7:30 a.m. and testified at 12:10 p.m. He still had a “few marks” and still could feel exactly where the black box had been located. R4-125 & 126.
The district court found that the Florida Department of Corrections uses the handcuff cover to prevent escapes during transports. R3-144-3. The court further found that side cuffs are not as effective as the black box and that no other device is equally practicable and effective. R3144-3. In the written Final Order, the district court found that the black box is “mildly uncomfortable,” but that in “ordinary and proper use” it “does not inflict significant pain, even during transportation.” R3-144-3. Although the Final Order did not address the van versus bus issue, in the ruling from the bench, the district court found “that the buses and vans are at least somewhat different in terms of security concerns. The difference may not be as great as the defense tried to suggest; but, again, that’s an issue to be addressed by the correctional officers or the correctional officials in the state.” R4-290.
3. Statement of the Standard or Scope of Review The factual findings of the district court are subject to review under the “clearly erroneous” rule. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 84 L.Ed.2d 518, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (1985). The legal standard utilized by the district court, and its application to the facts of the case, is subject to de novo or plenary review. Hall v. Holder, 955 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir. 1992). In particular, the standard of review for whether use of the black box itself amounts to cruel and unusual punishment is de novo. Moody v. Proctor, 986 F.2d 239, 241 (8th Cir. 1993).

07022481;1

15

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The black box is a security device which fits over the handcuffs and the chain joining the handcuffs, resulting in the formation of a hard, rigid unit separating a prisoner’s wrists. It causes significant, and in some cases extreme pain, especially when worn for a prolonged period of time, as is frequently the case when inmates are transported from one prison to another prison. The Department of Corrections uses two type of vehicles to transport inmates from prison to prison, buses and vans. Both are secure vehicles. Despite the essentially equivalent security provided by the buses and vans, inmates travelling by van are restrained by leg irons, waist chain, handcuffs and the black box while inmates travelling by bus are not restrained in any way. There is no record of any inmate ever escaping from a bus. Likewise, there is no record, either before or after the use of the black box, of any inmate ever escaping from a van. There is simply no valid rational connection between the differentiation the Department of Corrections draws between buses and vans and the legitimate penological interest of security. Rather, the difference in treatment is so arbitrary, capricious and irrational as to amount to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.

07022481;1

16

ARGUMENT THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT WHEN PRISONERS ARE TRANSFERRED FROM PRISON TO PRISON ON A VAN AS COMPARED TO WHEN PRISONERS ARE TRANSFERRED FROM PRISON TO PRISON ON A BUS SERVES NO LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVE AND SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN AS VIOLATIVE OF THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS CLAUSE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF THE UNNECESSARY PAIN AND SUFFERING IT CAUSES TO THOSE RESTRAINED WITH LEG IRONS, WAIST CHAINS,
HANDCUFFS AND BLACK BOX This case is about the use of unnecessary and very painful restraints when inmates are transported from one secure prison facility to another secure prison facility. On such trips, the Department’s own rule provides that: “Use of restraint equipment, except for death row and high security inmates, will not be necessary when inmates are transferred within the state from institution to institution provided a physically secure transfer vehicle is used.” Section 33-7.009 (14)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Despite the clear directive of Section 33-7.009 (14)(a), the Department uses the most severe form of restraints when inmates go from prison to prison in a physically secure van.

07022481;1

17

The use of the black box for prison to prison transfers is arbitrary and capricious. While the black box probably does add some slight additional security, it simply makes no sense, and there is no legitimate penological interest in inflicting the pain and suffering the black box causes in the circumstances herein presented. It is not rational to use leg irons, waist chains, handcuffs and a black box when a prison to prison transfer takes place on a secure prison van while using no restraints when the identical trip takes place in a secure prison bus. Those fortunate enough to ride in a bus enjoy a relatively comfortable ride. Those sent on an equally secure van suffer unnecessary pain and distress.
To violate the Eighth Amendment, the actions of the defendants must amount to the "wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2398 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed2d 271 (1991). That aptly describes the use of the black box for prison to prison transfers in a van.
It is not necessary to prove a serious or significant injury to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. The infliction of injuries such as bruises and abrasions is unconstitutional if there was no need to use force at all. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 1000, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (bruises, swelling, loosened teeth). See Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1443 (5th Cir.) (scratches, cuts and bruises not requiring medical attention), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2448 (1993).
Whenever a prison regulation or practice impinges on an inmate’s constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). Here, the established practice of the Florida Department of Corrections inflicts severe pain and discomfort on inmates as part of

07022481;1

18

routine prison transfers. In determining whether the punitive conditions imposed on inmates as
part of the transportation process violates the Eighth Amendment, the court must examine the
following four factors:
(1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitim ate governmental interest put forward to justify it, (2) whether there are a lternative means of exercising t he right that remains open to prisoninmates, (3) the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards, other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources, and (4) the presence or absence of ready alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoner's rights at de minimis costs to valid penological interests.
Turner v. Safley, supra, 107 S.Ct. at 2262.
In applying these factors, it is clear that the punitive conditions imposed on inmates
during the transfer process cannot pass constitutional muster.
A. There Is No Valid, Rational Connection Which Supports
Punishing Those Transferred from Prison to Prison on a Van
Security is, indeed, a primary function of prison officials. One could imagine many
things that a prison system could do to increase security. Some would easily pass constitutional
muster, others would not. For example, nobody could seriously contend that a prison system
could eliminate medical care for all inmates because an inmate managed to escape while visiting
a doctor. R4-206. Likewise, nobody could seriously contend that, to prevent escapes or prison
disruption, inmates should remain in restraints at all times. French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250,
1253-54 (7th Cir. 1985) (chaining prisoners to beds for 12 hours and longer with hard shackles
violated the Eighth Amendment), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Putman v. Gerloff, 639 F.2d
415, 419-20 (8th Cir. 1981) (jury could find overnight chaining and handcuffing of prisoners
locked in cells unconstitutional); Picariello v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 1020, 1024 (M.D.Pa. 1980)

07022481;1

19

(jury could find that three to five days in restraints in cell was unconstitutional); Tate v. Kassulke, 409 F.Supp. 651, 654 (W.D.Ky. 1976) (“protracted” chaining to bed would violate the Eighth Amendment); Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621, 647-48 (E.D.Va. 1971) (shackling of inmates in cells, interfering with eating, sleeping, and using the toilet, was unconstitutional).
Of course, restraints, including the black box, may be used on segregation or other highsecurity inmates. That, in fact, is exactly what Section 33-7.009(14)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides, as does the Department’s Security Operations Manual. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2.
It must be conceded that the decided cases to date are not favorable to the plaintiffs’ position, although there is no reported precedent in this Circuit. Apparently, the first reported case to consider the use of the black box was Fulford v. King, 692 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1982). In that case, high risk prisoners confined in an extended lockdown unit challenged the requirement that they wear a black box on trips outside the prison because the device holds the wrists and arms in a rigid, unnatural position and causes the prisoners’ arms to become numb and leaves a temporary, albeit noticeable, mark when removed. The Court held that use of the black box was “justified by the greater risk of escape when prisoners are outside the institution and the reduced number of guards available to oversee the prisoners during those journeys.” 692 F.2d at 14. Under these circumstances, the Court held that the use of the black box was not without penological justification.
Fulford was followed in Moody v. Proctor, 986 F.2d 239 (8th Cir. 1993). In that case, the court held that the defendants were not liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of use of the black box, citing Fulford’s statement of justification. In Bruscino v. Carlson, 654 F.Supp. 609 (S.D. Ill. 1987), aff’d, 854 F.2d 162 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109

07022481;1

20

S.Ct. 3193, 105 L.Ed.2d 701 (1989), the court upheld the use of handcuffs, leg irons and black box during legal visits for federal prisoners at the most maximum of federal facilities.
Despite the holdings in Fulford, Moody and Bruscino, there is case law suggesting that the use of the black box can be harmful. See Gomm v. DeLand, 729 F.Supp. 767 (D. Utah 1990). In fact, even in the absence of the black box, there are cases where the evidence demonstrated that handcuffs alone can be harmful. Harris v. Coweta County, 21 F.3d 388 (11th Cir. 1994) (hand injury caused by over-tight handcuffs); Simpson v. Saroff, 741 F.Supp. 1073 (S.D. N.Y. 1990) (allegations of swollen and bleeding wrists from tight handcuffs, and a faintly detectable scar on her wrist were sufficient to allege a § 1983 claim under the Fourth Amendment); Ismail v. Cohen, 712 F.Supp. 416 (S.D. N.Y. 1989) (damage award for a police arrest and beating resulting in various continuing painful consequences of excessively tightened handcuffs plus a broken rib).
Only one reported case has limited the use of the black box. In Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D. D.C. 1994), the court held that defendants' manner of shackling women in their third trimester (leg shackles, handcuffs, belly chain and black box) was unconstitutional; leg shackles provide sufficient security. Additionally, in Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63 (3d Cir. 1996), the court reversed the dismissal of Eighth Amendment claims which included allegations that the black box is “so uncomfortable that they deter inmates from seeking medical and dental help.” 82 F.3d at 68.
Fulford, Moody and Bruscino are all distinguishable in two very important ways. First, each involves either high risk prisoners or prisoners travelling outside the prison system. Second, and more importantly, none of them involve the truly irrational distinction made by the Florida

07022481;1

21

Department of Corrections between secure vans and secure buses. As the dissenting Judge in Moody stated: “Here the evidence of deliberate indifference is plain, given the complaints by plaintiff and the fact of his previous injury, of which defendants, as the magistrate found, were specifically made aware.” Moody v. Proctor, supra, 986 F.2d at 242. Like Mr. Moody, the plaintiffs in the case before this Court have complained about the severe pain caused by the black box. Like Mr. Moody, each of the plaintiffs suffered some injuries as a result of the black box. Unlike Mr. Moody, however, the plaintiffs’ complaints involve prison to prison trips, not trips to free-world hospitals. And, unlike Mr. Moody, the use of the black box depends solely on whether the trip takes place in a van or a bus.
Under the Turner standard, when prison rules and practices are challenged, officials must justify their policies and provide factual support for their arguments. Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46, 48 (7th Cir. 1990) (whether a regulation has a rational basis is a factual question); Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 386-87 (9th Cir. 1990) (prison officials may not obtain summary judgment based on conclusory assertions without explanation or factual support); Salaam v. Lockhart, 905 F.2d 1168, 1174 (8th Cir. 1990) (officials may not “pil[e] conjecture upon conjecture” to justify their policies), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 677 (1991).
On the record in this case, there is no justification for the harsh treatment afforded van passengers. The routine use of the black box for prison-to-prison transfers in a secure van cannot be justified by legitimate security concerns. Its use on secure vans simply makes no sense in light of the total absence of any restraints on the similarly secure busses. See Griffin v. Lombardi, 946 F.2d 604, 607-08 (8th Cir. 1991) (evidence that a rule officials claimed was necessary was not followed in dealing with other prisoners or at other prisons raised a factual

07022481;1

22

issue whether the rule met the Turner standard); Whitney v. Brown, 882 F.2d 1068, 1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1989) (“glaring” inconsistencies between security arguments for restricting religious services and other practices of defendants rendered restrictions irrational; “flurry of disconnected and self-conflicting points” cannot justify serious restrictions).
B. Availability of Alternatives Under the second Turner factor, the court must consider whether there are alternatives available to the inmates. On the prisoners’ side there are none. Prisoners cannot refuse transfers and when being transferred, cannot pick their vehicles. To force prisoners to choose between the black box and medical treatment is not a realistic alternative. On the other hand, and consistent with the prison system’s own regulations, there is an alternative readily available to the prison system if restraints are deemed necessary, the use of waist chains with side cuffs. C. Impact on Correctional Staff, Other Inmates and the Prison Under this Turner factor, the court must consider the impact of the requested accommodation on staff, other inmates and the prison. It is clear that removing the punitive aspects of a transfer will have no real impact on staff, other inmates, or the prisons. No harm befalls staff if they must give individualized consideration to the security threats posed by individual inmates. No harm befalls other inmates if those being transferred are transferred in a way that does not punish them. No harm befalls the prison system if transfers are done in a humane way. The defendants may say that giving individualized consideration to the security threat posed by inmates is too difficult. There are several ready answers to that contention. First, the Rules of the Department of Corrections already require staff to give individualized consideration. Section 33-7.009(14), F.A.C. Second, the Security Operations Manual already requires a

07022481;1

23

different method of transport for high security inmates. See Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 2 & 3. Third, the Rules require that all inmates leaving prison property be strip searched and that the vehicle be searched prior to any inmate boarding it. That is deemed adequate for inmates fortunate enough to go by bus. It should be just as adequate for inmates placed on a van.
D. There are Simple Alternatives Available With No Cost to Valid Penological Interests
The final Turner factor for the court to consider is whether there are ready alternatives to satisfy Plaintiffs' requirements at de minimis cost to valid penological interests. In fact, the implementation of a non-punitive transport system is encompassed within the Department of Corrections’ existing rules, which provide the alternative of waist chains with side cuffs where restraints are deemed to be necessary. Moreover, that is the less expensive alternative. R4-230.
There is simply no meaningful difference between the buses and the vans. Both are secure vehicles. Both carry two correctional officers. In both, the staff are separated from the prisoners by a wire mesh screen. In both, the windows and doors are secured to prevent inmates from escaping. Both are in radio contact with the prison system. For both, there is no history of escape. But, the inmates on the buses travel without restraints while the inmates on the van travel with the most severe restraints available to the prison system. There is simply no rational relationship which supports this difference in treatment.
Based on the record before the Court, the justification which sustained the use of the black box in Fulford is absent. There is no difference in escape risk between van and bus passengers. The correctional staff available for each type of transport is the same. Because of that, the ratio of staff to prisoners is far higher on the vans than the buses. For both vans and

07022481;1

24

buses, prisoners board and disembark inside a secure prison facility. Under these circumstances, there is no penological justification for the inflection of severe and unnecessary pain and discomfort on inmates being transferred from prison to prison dependent on whether a van or a bus is used.
Finally, to the extent that the deliberate indifference standard applies in this case, the defendants were on notice of the harm caused by the black box as a result of the grievance process,8 of the filing of this lawsuit, and of the finding of the Magistrate Judge’s Order that the black box causes “moderate but significant pain, particularly while seated.” R1-43-2. Despite this knowledge, the defendants have refused to take any corrective action. Thus, both the objective and subjection components of the deliberate indifference test have been satisfied.
Each of the named plaintiffs has been transferred numerous times during the course of his incarceration. Each of the named plaintiffs, as a result of his lengthy sentence, and in the case of Mr. Lee and Mr. Blackwell, because of their health status, can expect to again be transferred from one secure facility to another secure facility at some future time during the course of his incarceration.9 As their testimony indicates, the pain and discomfort caused by the black box is especially severe when bouncing about on bumpy secondary roads or when the inmate is forced to brace himself as the van rounds a corner.

8. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 9 and 13. See also Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15, Requests for

Admissions 8-11.

9. And, since this is a class action, it cannot be disputed that literally thousands of

members of the class will take either van or bus trips every year.

07022481;1

25

In contrast to van trips, when prisoners are transported on a bus, no restraints are used. Although the buses may be a bit more secure than vans, the difference is more theoretical than real. In each, there are two correctional officers, at least one of whom is armed, separated from the inmates by a wire screen. In the vans, the windows are protected by an interior cage. In the buses, the windows are covered by screening on the inside and expanded mental strips on the outside. Doors lock from the outside. The buses hold up to 50 unrestrained inmates. The vans hold up to 13 fully restrained inmates. Literally tens of thousands of inmates ride the buses, as well as the vans, each year. No inmate has escaped from either form of transportation. There is no reason, grounded in a legitimate penological objective, to treat prisoners so differently depending on whether they ride in a bus or a van.
The task of the court is determine, while giving appropriate deference to the judgment of prison officials, whether a challenged practice is, in fact, reasonable or whether it is an “exaggerated response” to the “legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.” Turner v. Safley, supra, 482 U.S. at 89-90. Here, there is simply no valid rational connection between the differentiation the Department of Corrections draws between buses and vans and the legitimate penological interest of security. Rather, the “logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goad is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Id.
As the Court held in Walker v. Sumner, supra: “Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies. Rather, they must first identify the specific penological interests involved and then demonstrate both that those specific interests are the actual basis for their policies and that the policies are reasonably related to the furtherance of the identified interests.” 917 F.2d at 386. Certainly, the defendants have a legitimate identified

07022481;1

26

interest in preventing escapes. Just as certainly, on the state of the record in this case, subjecting
inmates on vans to the black box while exempting inmates on buses from all restraints, is not
reasonably related to that identified interest.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should be reversed and
remanded for entry of judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq.
Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2310 305-358-2081 305-358-0910 (FAX)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
______________________________ By: Peter M. Siegel, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 227862

07022481;1

27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that two true and correct copies of the foregoing and one copy of the Record Excerpts have been furnished to furnished to Donna La Plante, Esq. and Caryl Sue Kilinski, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General, Department of Legal Affairs, The Capitol, Suite PL01, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050, by First Class United States Mail on this ____ day of September, 1998.
______________________________ By: Peter M. Siegel, Esq.

C:\Documents and Settings\dheberle\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.Outlook\W1E69KH8\Lee v Singletary (black box) Appellants Brief

(0077002222448811;1).WPD

28