Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Page 1 of 50

NATHEAULEEN MASON, RENEE WILLIAMS, YOLANDA LIMMTTT, HELISHA BAILEY, TAMMY LaCROSS, VELVET FARLEYJOHNSON, EBONY BATES, KANDICE HALL, DAVONE WILSON, CHRISTINA SCHUSTER, DYANNA McDADE and JILL FLANDERS, on behalf of the themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v

Case No. Hon.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND MONETARY DAMAGES

PATRlClA CARUSO, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, NANCY ZANG, CLARICE STOVALL, SUSAN DAVIS, JOAN YUKINS, SALLY LANGLEY, THOMAS DeSANTIS, WILLIS CHAPMAN, JERRY HOWELL, FIRAS AWAD, JODY NUNN, CARLTON CARTER, ART LANCASTER, CROSBY TALLEY, KlRK TOLLZEIN, WTLLlAM MERROW, RODNEY MADDEN, jointly and severally,
Defendants.
--------~----------------~/
DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 734.996.5620
PATRTClA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 A.tm Arbor, MT 48104 734.222.0088
RALPH J. STRLIN (P24635) RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368) DENNIS D. JAMES (P15427) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 248.691.4200

MOLLY RENO (P28997) Catmsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main SL, Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, Ml48104 734.769.0077
MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 248.398.9800

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 2 of 50

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR IN.JUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND MONETARY DAMAGES

NOW COME Plaintiffs by and through their counsel and for their Complaint against

the Defendants and each of them state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

I.

Plaintiffs, Natheauleen Mason, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha

Bailey, Tammy Lacross, Velvet Fnrley-Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson,

Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade and Jill Flanders, are all former or cunentprisoners who

have been subjected to discrimination, sexual abuse and degrading treatment by male prison

staff, while under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Conections (hereinafter

"MDOC"). Plaintiffs bring this action on behalfof themselves and all other former, current

and future female prisoners under MDOC jurisdiction since March 10, 2000, whose rights

have been similarly violated. Plaintiffs are currently members of a certified class action in the case of Neal, eta/.
v. MDOC. eta/.. File No. 96-6986-CZ, pending in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court.
Plaintiffs, in the stnte action, allege violations of their state constitutional and civil rights protected by the state's Civil Rights Act. On February 10, 2005, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the Neal Plaintiffs' claims, which arose after the effective date of an amendment to the state's Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101, et seq., were no longer viable as the amendment deleted prisoners from the Act's protection. M.C.L. 37.230 l(b). (Exhibit 1).
Plnintiffs in this case are those Neal class members whose claims of discrimination, sexual abuse and degrading treatment arose after the March 10, 2000 amendment of the

-2~

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 3 of 50

state's Civil Rights Act Plaintiffs' claims were tolled by the filing ofNeal, eta!. v. MDOC.
et al., File No. 96-6986-CZ, on March 26, 1996, and now seek relief for violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Constitution of the United

State ln this complaint, Plaintiffs seek: I) Injunctive relief to prevent the Defendants'
continuing deprivation of Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights; 2) Certification of Plaintiffs as a class; 3) A declaratory ruling that the policies, procedures and practices ofthe Michigan Department of Corrections and Defendants have and continue to deprive female prisoners of equal privileges and opportunities; and subject Plaintiffs to a pervasive risk of custodial sexual misconduct, including sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment and unnecessary viewing and touching by male employees of the MDOC;
intimidate, punish and retaliate against Plainti fts who report discrimination, custodial sexual
misconduct and degrading treatment; and constitute a violation ofPlaintiffs' rights as secured by the Constitution, treaties and law of the United States; 4) A declaratory ruling that the March 10, 2000 amendment to Michigan's Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. 37.2301, violates Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the law and deprives Plaintiffs of a remedy for actual wrongs; and 5) A monetary award to Plaintiffs to compensate for their injuries together with punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for themselves and all similarly-

situated female prisoners.

JURISDICTION

2.

This is a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981 et seq., seeking

declaratory, injunctive relief and monetary damages against Defendants for purposeful

-3-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 4 of 50

discrimination and violation of the United States Constitution including the First, Fourth,

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and violations of the laws, conventions, treaties and

customary international law norms. 3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and

1343(a)(4). Jurisdiction for declaratory relief is also premised on 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202

and42 U.S.C. §1983. 4. The amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-five Thousand ($75,000.00)

Dollars, excluding interest and costs.
VENUE

5.

Venue lies in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §l391(d).

The majority of the events in controversy occurred in the counties of Wayne, Washtenaw,

and Livingston, which are located within the jurisdiction ofUttited States District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

6. Plaintiff Representatives are citizens of the United States and, at all relevant

times, were under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Plaintiffs

bring this action on behalf ofthemselves and all fomter, current and future female prisoners

who from March 10, 2000, were subjected to sexual misconduct, sexual assaults, sexual

harassment, degrading treatment, gender discrimination and violation oftheirprivacyrights by male employees of the MDOC and who suffered economic and non-economic injury as

a result of the deprivation of their rights including intimidation and retaliation for reporting
-4-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 5 of 50

same.

7. PlaintiffRcpresentative Natheauleen Mason was repeatedly sexually assaulted

by a male correctional officer and subjected to sexually degrading and harassing treatment

beginning in 2002 while incarcerated at the Westem Wayne Correctional Facility located in

Wayne County, Michigan. Beginning in 2003, PlaintiffMason was again sexually assaulted,

sexually harassed and subjected to violations of her privacy, and retaliated against by

correctional officers and staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan.

PlaintiffMason is currently on parole under the jurisdiction ofthe MDOC. The specific facts

of her claims are set fotih below.

8. Plaintiff Representative Yolanda Limmitt was repeatedly sexually assaulted,

sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment by male correctional

officers beginning in September 2002 and continuing through 2003 while she was

incarcerated at the Westem Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan.

In 2003, Plaintiff Limmitt was sexually harassed, subjected to privacy violations and

retaliated against by corrections ofticers and staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston

County, Michigan. PlaintiffLimmitt is currently on parole under the MDOC. The specific

facts of her claims are set fortlt below.

9. Plaintiff Representative Davone Wilson was sexually assaulted in 2005 by a

male correctional officer while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex, located

in Washtenaw County, Michigan. In 2005, Plaintiff Wilson was subjected to SCX\Jal

' i .r' '',

':

harassment and privacy violations at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan.

Plaintiff Wilson is currently on parole under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. The specific
-5-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 6 of 50

facts of her claims are set forth below. 10. Plaintiff Representative Helisha Bailey was sexually assaulted, sexually
harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment by two male correctional officers beginning in 2003 while incarcerated at the Western Wayne C01Tectional Facility. Plaintiff Bailey was also subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations at Western Wayne Correctional Facility. PlaintiffBailey is currently incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex located in Washtcnaw County, Michigan, where she continues to be subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations. The specific facts of her claims are set forth

below. 11.

Plaintiff Representative Kandice Hall was sexually assaulted, sexually

harassed, retaliated against and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male correctional officers while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's

Complex in 2005. Plaintiff Halt is incarcerated in the Huron Valley Women's Complex where she continues to be subjected to privacy violations, sexual harassment and retaliatory

actions. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below. 12. Plainti ffRepresentative Ebony Bates was sexually assaulted, sexually harassed

and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male correctional officers while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex from April 2005 to present. PlaintiffBates continues to be incarcerated in the Huron ValleyWomen's Complex

where she is subjected to ongoing sexual harassment, privacy violations and retaliation. The

specific facts of her claims are set forth below. 13. Plaintiff Representative Renee Williams was repeatedly sexually assaulted,

-6-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 7 of 50
sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male correctional officers beginning in September or October of 2002 and continuing through February 2003. Plaintiff Williams was subjected to ongoing retaliation by staff while incarcerated at the Wcstem Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. Plaintiff Williams is currently on parole under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
14. PlaintiffRcpresentative Christina Schuster was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed, battered and subjected to privacy violations by male correctional officers beginning in 2003 and retaliated against by staff while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. PlaintiffSchuster is currently incarcerated at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan, where she is subjected to ongoing privacy violations, sexual harassment and retaliatory acts. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
15. Plaintiff Representative Tammy LaCross was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by a male assistant deputy warden and male correctional ot1'icers and staff beginning in 2000 and continuing until 2003 and retaliated against by staff while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. Plaintiff LaCross was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male correctional officers and staff and retaliated against by staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. Plaintiff LaCross is no longer
-7-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 8 of 50
under the jurisdiction ofthe MDOC and resides in the State ofMichigan. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
16. Plaintiff Representative Velvet Farley-Johnson was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by a male assistant deputy warden and male staff and correctional officers while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility from 2001 until2002 and subjected to retaliation by staff and correctional officers. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male correctional officers and staff and retaliated against by staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. PlaintiffFarley-Johnson is on parole under the jurisdiction ofthe MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
17. Plaintiff Representative Jill Flanders was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and su~jected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male employees of the MDOC from April through the Fall of 2000 while incarcerated at Camp Branch located in Branch County, Michigan. Plaintiff Flanders is currently incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex located in Washtenaw County, Michigan, where she continues to be subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male employees. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
18. Plaintiff Representative Dyanna McDade was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to privacy violations by male employees ofthe MDOC and subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees while incarcerated at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, located in Wayne County, Michigan. Plaintiff McDade is currently
-8-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 9 of 50

incarcerated at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, where she continues to be subjected to sexual harassment, privacy violations and retaliatory acts. The specific facts ofhcr claims

are set forth below.

DEFENDANTS

19. Defendant Patricia Caruso, as the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, is charged with the responsibility ofdeveloping and implementing policies and procedures for the management of the Michigan Department of Corrections and its

employees, and is responsible for the care, custody and protection of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Michig~m Department of Corrections. Defendant Caruso is being sued

individually and in her official capacity. 20. Defendant Nancy Zang was, at all times relevant to this action, employed as

an administrator for women prisoners' affairs and responsible for developing, implementing

and overseeing any policies or procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating custodial sexual misconduct and/or disciplining staff for sexual misconduct against female prisoners in Michigan. Defendant Zang was also responsible tbr the training ofmale staffworking at female prisons, responding to complaints of custodial sexual misconduct and degrading treatment of female prisoners and for ensuring the promulgation and/or implementation of any MDOC rules, policies and procedures fbr preventing custodial sexual abuse of female

prisoners. She is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
21. Defendant Clarice Stovall was, from the time it began to house women female
prisoners until its closure, the Warden of the Wcstem Wayne Correctional Facility, and responsible for overseeing its operations. Defendant Stovall is currently the Warden of the
-9-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 10 of 50
Robert Scott Correctional Facility. In her capacity as a Warden for female facilities, Defendant Stovall was responsible for the training, assi£,'llment, supervision, discipline and investigation ofcorrectional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at those facilities. Defendant Stovall, in her warden capacity, was at all relevant times, responsible for the custody, safety, protection, tair treatment a11d rehabilitation of female prisoners at facilities housing female prisoners. Defendant Stovall was also, at all relevant times, responsible for ensuring that the facilities housing female prisoners were operated according to proper correctional standards, _developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff misconduct and treatment ofvictims of custodial sexual abuse. Defendant Stovall is being sued individually
and in her official capacity. 22. Defendant Susan Davis is currently the Warden ofthe Huron Valley Complex
for Women and Camp Brighton, and responsible for overseeing their operation for female prisoners. In her capacity as Warden, Defendant Davis has at all times been responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation ofcorrectional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at the Huron Valley Women's Complex. Defendant Davis, during the time she was the warden, was responsible for the custody, safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation of female plisoners at these facilities housing female prisoners. Defendant Davis was also, during the time she was the warde11 of .Huron Valley Women's Complex and Camp Brighton, responsible for ensuring that the facilities were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe
-10-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 11 of 50
reportittg of staff misconduct and treatment ofvictims ofcustodial sexual abuse. Defendant Davis is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
23. Defendant Joan Yukins was the prior Warden ofthe Robe.rt Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton, and responsible for overseeing its operation for female prisoners. Defendrutt Yukins, during the time she was the Warden of the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton, was responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation of correctional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton. Defendant Yukins was, at all relevant times, responsible for the custody, ensuring the safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation of female prisoners at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton. Defendant Yukins was also, at all relevant times, responsible for ensuring that the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff misconduct and treatment of victims of custodial sexual abuse. Defendant Yukins is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
24. Defendant Sally Langley was at all relevant times the Warden of the Florence Crane Correctional Facility and Camp Branch, located in Coldwater, Michigan, and responsible for overseeing its operatioi\ (or female prisoners. Defendant Langley, during the time she was the Warden ofthe Florence Crane Correctional Facility and Camp Branch, was responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation of correctional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at the Florence Crane
-11-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 12 of 50

Correctional Facility and Camp Branch. Defendant Langley was, at all relevant times, responsible for the custody, ensuring the safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation offemale prisoners at the Florence Crane Correctional Facility and Camp Branch. Defendant Langley was also, at all relevant times, responsible for ensuring that the Florence Crm1e Correctional Facility and Camp Branch were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff misconduct and treatment of victims of custodial sexual abuse. Defendant Langley is being sued individually and in her official

capacity.

25. Defendant Thomas DeSantis was, at all times relevant to this action, the Site

Supervisor of Camp Brighton, and in that capacity, responsible for the onsite training,

assignment and supervision of correctional officers and staff at Camp Brighton. Defendant

DeSantis was responsible for the safety, custody and protection of female prisoners at Camp

Brighton and for ensuring the implementation of all rules, policies and procedures.

Defendant DeSantis is being sued individually and in his official capacity.

26.

Defendant Willis Chapman was, until August of 2004 and at all times relevant

to this action, an Assistant Deputy Warden at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility,

responsible for the custody and security in the housing units, assignment and supervision of

staffand investigations ofstaffmisconduct. He is being sued individually and in his official

capacity. 27. Defendant Jerry Howell was, at all times relevant to this action, the Supervisor
of the SAT Boot Camp, and in that capacity, responsible for the onsitc training, assignment
-12~

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 13 of 50
and supervision of correctional officers and staffat the SAl Boot Camp. Defendant Howell was responsible for the safety, custody and protection of female prisoners at the SAI Boot Camp and for ensuring the implementation of all rules, policies and procedures. Defendant Howell is being sued individually and in his official capacity.
28. Defendants Firas Awad, Jody Nunn, Carlton Carter, Rodney Madden, William Merrow, Crosby Talley m1d Kirk Tollzein were, at all times relevant to this action, employed as correctional officers by the Michigan Department ofCorrections and assigned to supervise female prisoners.
29. Defendant Art Lancaster, was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections and assigned to work with female prisoners.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
30. Defendant supervisors and wardens assigned male officers and staff to supervise female prisoners at all facilities housing female prisoners without providing adequate training, oversight or mechattisms to ensure the safety and protection of female prisoners including Plaintiffs.
31. Defendants, without adequate procedures, training or supervision, assigned male officers and staff to supervise women prisoners, including Plaintiffs while in states of undress and perfomting basic bodily functions and required male staff to perform random and specific body searches offemale prisoners including Plaintiffs which searches included male staff touching female breasts and genital areas.
32. Defendants assigned male officers to transport women prisoners including
-13-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 14 of 50

Plaintiffs to facilities, clinics and hospitals without ensuring the privacy and safety offemale

prisoners in states of undress and during intimate medical procedures. 33. Female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, were and are routinely subjected to
offensive sex·based language, sexual harassment, offensive touching and requests for sexual acts and degrading treatme11t by male staff at all facilities housing women prisoners.
34. There is a pattern and practice of male officers and male staff sexually assaulting women prisoners, including Plaintiffs, under the jurisdiction of the Michigan

Department of Corrections, in contravention oflaw and policy. 35. There is a pattern and practice of male officers requesting sexual acts from

women prisoners, including Plaintiffs, under the jurisdiction ofthe Michigan Department of Corrections as a condition of retaining good time credits, work details, educational and rehabilitative program opportunities, among other rights, privileges 1md benefits.
36. Plaintiffs have been subjected to intimidation, threats and retaliation upon

refusal to participate in sexual activity with male staff, for reporting male staff sexual misconduct and as a mecl::umism to force and coerce women to remain silent about sexual

misconduct of male staff in Michigan's women's facilities.

37.

Defendants were aware, from reports by women prisoners, reports and t1ndings

of state and federal commissions, independent investigative agencies and human rights

organizations, that there existed an endemic problem of custodial sexual abuse of female

prisoners in Michigan prisons as a result of Defendants' policies, procedures, acts and

omissions. 38.

The level of sexual abuse and degrading treatment of women prisoners by male -14-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 15 of 50

employees from 2000 to the present was described as rampant by the United States Court of Appeals in its ruling in Everson v. Michigan Dep't o.f Corrections. 391 F 3d 737 (61h Cir 2004). The Defendants and each ofthem were or should have been aware ofthc pervasive risk of sexual assault and abuse by male staff on Plaintiffs.
39. Defendants were aware of prior complaints by female prisoners against male staff, including Defendants, for sexual assaults, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and invasion ofprivacy including knowledge ofthe prosecutions ofmale stafffor sexual assaults on female prisoners. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to take adequate steps to remedy the situation and/or deter such sexual misconduct against female prisoners and these Plaintiffs in particular including failure to properly train, assign, supervise, investigate and

discipline.

40.

Despite their knowledge of prior sexual assaults, misconduct, harassment and

violation of privacy, Defendants failed to implement an effective mechanism to identify,

.investigate and prevent the widespread sexual, emotional and physical abuse and

discriminatory treatment ofwmnen prisoners, including Plaintiffs.

41. Defendants knew or should have known that as a result of their acts and

omissions there was a strong likelihood of further sexual misconduct and/or great bodily

harm and injury to female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, by male staff of the MDOC.

42. Defendants' acts and omissions created a hostile environment and pervasive

risk of harm to female prisoners, including Plainti tfs, and Defendants knew or should have

known of the undue threats to Plaintiffs which have resulted from placing inadequately

trained or supervised male staffon duty in areas where female prisoners, including Plaintiffs,

-15-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 16 of 50

are subjected to sexual misconduct and violation of their privacy rights.

43.

Defendants in supervisory positions exhibited reckless disregard and deliberate

indifference to the sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, assaults, degrading treatment and

violations of the basic privacy rights of Plaintiffs by failing to take adequate steps to deter

violations ofPlaintiffs' rights, including but not limited to: failing to adequately investigate

allegations of sexual assaults, harassment and degrading treatment of female prisoners, failing to provide adequate supervision of staff, failing to adequately discipline staff who violated Plaintiffs' rights and/or failing to adequately train and screen their staff, including

investigators and supervisory staff.

44. Defendants failed to adequately screen employees prior to assignment to a

women's facility and failed to provide adequate training to staff, investigators m1d

supervisors, on issues of cross-gender supervision, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment,

'' ',1•"''1' :·,···

'

reporting violations of work rules, privacy rights of women prisoners, despite their

knowledge of incidents of sexual misconduct and incidents of sexual activity between male

staff and women prisoners. 45. Defendants' acts and omissions regarding screening, training, supervision,

investigation, discipline ofstaffand failures to protect women prisoners, including Plaintiffs, fi·om retaliation, permitted, encouraged and ratified the discriminatory and sexually abusive

a11d degrading treatment of Plaintiffs. 46. The management and supervisory practices, rules, procedures a11d acts of the
Defenda11ts were so deficient in their failure to Iimit the risks of sexual misconduct by male staff on female prisoners as to constitute deliberate indifference to the safety needs offcmale
-16-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 17 of 50

prisoners under their jurisdiction, including Plaintiffs. 47. The management and supervisory practices, mles, procedures and acts ofthe
Defendants were so deficient in their failure to limit the risks and incidents of sexual misconduct by male staffon female prisoners as to constitute encouragement and aid to male staffwho violated female prisoners', including Plaintiffs', rights to be free ofsexual assault, harassment, degrading treatment and privacy violations.
48. Defendants, by their actions, aided and abetted the sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment andrctaliation against female prisoners, including PlaintiffS, by giving assistance and encouragement to other Defendants who engaged in discriminatory and unlawfi.Jl conduct, either affirmatively or by failing to report, investigate and discipline

staff.

49.

Defendants placed m1d housed women prisoners in facilities including Western

Wayne Correctional Facility, Huron Valley Women's Complex, Camp Brighton and SAT

Boot Camp, without taking adequate steps to ensure Plaintiffs' privacy, protect Plaintiffs

from risk of custodial sexual abuse, and without adequate staff supervision and/or

mechanisms for reporting abuse. 50. Defendants failed to identify, screen, treat or protect Plaintiffs with prior
histories of abuse, rendering them particularly vulnerable to harm by male staff and failed to take adequate steps to identify, house, treat and protect Plaintiffs from further harm and

exacerbation of their injuries.

51.

Defendants' placement of girls, including Plaintiffs under the age of 18 in areas

where they were supervised by male staff and subjected to viewing in states of undress and

-17-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 18 of 50

while performing basic bodily functions without taking adequate steps to protect them from harm, constitutes deliberate indifferenpe and r,eckless disregard oftheir safety and rights and

rendered them particularly vulnerable to harm by male staff.

52.

The failures, acts, and/or omissions of Defendants, as set forth above, were and

are a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries.

53.

The deprivation of constitutional rights alleged in this complaint are the direct

result of official policies, custom and practices of Defendants and each ofthcm.

EXHAUSTION OF ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

54. Plaintiffs have exhausted all 'available' administrative remedies, or alternately,

have taken all available steps to bring these matters to Defendants' attention and seck

resolution prior to filing litigation. 55. The Michigan Department ofCorrections, and Defendants do not allow female
prisoners, including Plaintiffs, claiming staff sexual misconduct to exhaust their administrative remedies through the grievance procedure and do not provide an alternative

administrative mechanism. 56. Plaintiffs were and arc routinely discouraged from use ofthe grievance system
by threats and intimidation by staff, including Defendants, procedural barriers created by Defendants and Defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs are provided grievance forms, Defendants' refusal to process grievances, and/or Defendants' failure to ensure responses to grievances, rendering any administrative process for Plaintiffs unavailable or futile.
57. In addition to the above noted barriers, at all relevant times Plaintiffs were advised that a precondition to filing a grievance was consultation with the individual who
-18-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 19 of 50
was being grieved. Since complying with this requirement, in the context of Plaintiffs grieving staff criminal sexual conduct and staff abuse, would place Plaintiffs in danger, Defendants' requirement rendered the grievance system unavailable to Plaintiffs.
58. Plaintiffs' prior class action complaints, including Neal, et al. v MDOC, eta!., File No. 96-6986-CZ and Anderson, et al. v MDOC, et al., File No. 03-162-MZ, have adequately advised Defendants, and each of them, of the existence of pervasive custodial sexual misconduct in Michigan's women prisons, stat1 sexual assaults, privacy violations, degrading treatment and retaliation, to allow Defendants the opportunity to take remedial actions prior to Plaintiffs filing this action.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF'S FACTS Natheauleen Mason
59. During her incarceration PlaintiffNatheauleen Mason was routinely subjected to sexually degrading comments and privacy violations by male staff including the officers assigned to her housing unit at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, located in Wayne County, Michigm1 and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan.
60. Beginning in July 2002 Plaintiff Mason was forced to perform oral sex on Defendant Carlton Carter, a correctional officer employed by the MDOC and assigned to supervise her housing unit on the second shift at the Wcstem Wayne Correctional Facility.
61. Defendant Carter entered Plaintiff Mason's prison cell on at least three occasions between July and October, 2002, and threatened, coerced and forced Plaintiff Mason to perform oral sex. Defendant Carter also physically assaulted PlaintiffMason and subjected her to sexually degrading treatment on multiple occasions.
-19-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 20 of 50

62. Defendant Carter, with the cooperation of other staff, including Defendant Madden, subjected Plaintiff Mason to ongoing sexual assaults, harassment and degrading treatment in such a manner that supervisory Defendants knew or should have known of the

assaults. 63. Defendant Carter repeatedly threatened Plaintiff Mason physically and
intimidated her with threats of future harm should she resist or report his assaults and

criminal behavior. 64. Defendants failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff Mason's complaints
against Defendant Cmter and by such actions both ratified the actio11s of Defendant Carter and endangered the safety of other Plaintiffs including Plaintiffs Yolanda Limmitt and

Davone Wilson.

65.

Plai11tiff Mason was transferred to Camp Brighton located in Livingston

County where she becmne the target for sexual assaults and degrading treatment by another

male correctional officer, Defendant William Merrow, beginning in the fall of2003.

66. Defendant Merrow began soliciting sex from Plaintiff Mason, touching her

breasts and pressing his body against her on multiple occasions. Defendant Merrow routinely

sexually harassed PlaintiffMason by telling her what sexual acts he intended to do with her,

using sexually offensive language and threatening her with physical harm if she reported his

actions. 67. Defendant Merrow attempted to prevent Plaintiff Mason's parole by writing
her false misconduct reports and his actions continued until Plaintiff Mason was released

from MDOC custody.
-20-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 21 of 50

68.

Defendants failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff Mason's reports of abuse,

failed to adequately supervise, discipline or take steps to prevent ongoing assaults against

Plaintiff Mason. 69. While at Camp Brighton, Plaintiff Mason was subjected to retaliation by staff
for reporting sexual abuse by male staff ~nd continues to fear retaliation while she remuins
under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Con-ections. 70. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm

to Plaintiff Mason.
YOLANDA LIMMITT
71. In 2002, Plaintiff Yolanda Limmitt was a prisoner housed at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan, and was supervised in her
housing unit by Defend~mt Carlton Carter on the second shift. 72. At the time PlaintiffLimmitt was supervised by Defendant Carter, Defendants
Stovall, Chapman and Zang were aware of prior allegations of sexual assaults and sexually degrading treatment of female prisoners by Defendant Carlton Carter at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility an.d had failed to adequately investigate, discipline, supervise or assign
Defendant Carter subsequent to these reports. 73. On or about September 2002 Defendant Carlton Carter began sexually
assaulting PlaintiffLimmitt in her cell, a tool room and in other areas at the Western Wayne
-21-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 22 of 50
Correctional Facility. 74. Defendant Carter's sexual assaults included forced oral sex and genital
touching and forced sexual exposure. In addition to the sexual assaults, abuse and degrading treatment, Defendant Carter kept Plaintiff Limmitt from reporting with a combination of
coercion, threats, intimidation and mental abuse. 75. Defendant Carter's sexual harassment and sexual abuse of Plaintiff Linunitt
occurred with the knowledge and cooperation of other male officers, including Defendant Madden, who allowed Defendant Carter to remove Plaintiff Limmitt from her unit for purposes of sexually assaulting her and/or was aware that Defendant Carter was entering Plaintiff Limmitt's cell for purposes of sexually assaulting and degrading treatment and failed to take any steps to report or. stopi)efendant Carlton Carter's actions.
76. The actions of Defendant Carter were so open and obvious as to make Defendants aware ofthe sexual assaults and misconduct ofthe officer. However, Defendants failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff Limmitt.
77. Defendm1t Carlton Carter continued to sexually assault and/or sexually harass
Plait1tiff Limmitt up to and including the fall of 2003. 78. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Limmitt has a prior
history ofsexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to
take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 79. PlaintiffLirnmitt was fearful of reporting Defendant Carlton Carter until she
was transferred from the Western. Wayne Correctional Facility. PlaintiffLimmitt reported on or about October, 2003, while incarcerated at Camp Brighton, where she was then
-22-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 23 of 50
subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees. 80. Defendants Stovall, Chapman, Caruso and Zang failed to adequately
investigate Plaintiff Limmitt's reports of abuse and failed to adequately discipline or supervise Defendant Carter. Defendant Carter continued to sexually assault and abuse Plaintiffs at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility until his transfer to the Huron Valley
Women's Complex. 81. Upon Defendant Carter's transfer to the Huron Valley Women's Complex,
Defendants Davis, Zang and Caruso failed to properly train, assign, supervise or discipline this Defendant. Defendant Carter again sexually assaulted and sexually harassed female prisoners at the Ht1ron Valley Women's Complex until his transfer to a men's facility in
2005. 82. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
without adequate training or supervisim1; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies tmd procedures tor investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm
to Plaintiff Limmitt.
DAVONE WILSON
83. PlaintiffDavone Wilson was twenty years old when she was incarcerated in the Huron Valley Women's Complex in August of2004.
84. Shortly after PlaintiffWilson arrived, Defendant Carlton Carter began to stalk her, exposing himself and groping her breasts and buttocks on multiple occasions.
85. Defendant Carter was assigned to supervise Plaintiff Wilson's unit and used -23-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 24 of 50
his position to view her in states of undress, while showering, and to force physical contact and make sexually based comments and threats.
86. Plaintiff Wilson attempted to report Defendant Carter's acts and threats on multiple occasions both verbally and in writing requesting to talk to her counselor who failed and refused to speak to her.
87. PlaintiffWilson was made aware that Defendant Carter assaulted other women prisoners and that no discipline or other actions were taken as a result of those assaults.
88. On or about February, 2002 Defendant Carter entered Plaintiff Wilson's cell after she had showered, exposed his penis and threatened her with a major misconduct ticket he claimed could cancel her pending parole and keep her in prison unless she performed oral sex. Defendant Carter then forced Plaintiff Wilson to perform oral sex on him in her cell.
89. Plaintiff Wilson was released on parole on or about July, 2005 and continues to fear retaliation while she remains under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
90. Defendants' system and practices for reporting abuse, Defendants' failure to adequately supervise, discipline and investigate Defendant Carter and Defendants' policies and procedures with regard to cross-gender supervision were a proximate cause ofPlaintiffs' assault and abuse.
RENEE WILLIAMS
91. Plaintiff Renee Williams was placed under the jurisdiction of the MDOC in 1999 and housed at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and then Camp Branch.
92. 1!1 2000, Plaintiff Williams was transferred to Western Wayne Correctional
-24-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 25 of 50
Facility where multiple male officers began making sexual comments to Plaintiff Williams and telling her they were going to have a lot of fun with her at that facility.
93. Plaintiff Williams was subjected to routine privacy violations, sexual harassment and touching. In the Fall of2002, PlaintiffWilliams was sexually assaulted by a male correctional officer, Defendant Madden. The sexual assaults included vaginal intercourse and forced oral sex.
94. The sexual assaults and rapes occurred in Plaintiff Williams' cell, a closet in the prison, the staff bathroom, a porter's closet and a counselor's office.
95. The sexual abuse ofPlaintiffWilliams was so open and obvious that Defendant Supervisors were or should have been aware of Defendant Madden's criminal actions yet took no steps to prevent further assaults and abuse.
96. The assaults and abuse occutTed with the cooperation and/or knowledge of other staff and officers who failed to report or intervene.
97. Defendants' failure t!) lflke,artY ~ptions in light of the open and obvious abuse together with Defendant Madden's threats of retaliation and Plaintiffs' experience with retaliation by staff made any reporting futile and/or dangerous.
98. Defendants knew or should have known of Plaintiff Williams' experience of c.hildhood sexual abuse and her vulnerability to any coercive sex and/or sexual abuse by male staff. Defendants tailed to take adequate steps to protect or treat Plaintiff Williams.
99. PlaintitTWilliams has also been the recipient ofother acts ofsexual harassment by male staffincluding a male correctional officer who watched PlaintiffWilliams while she was naked and made lewd sexual comments to her. In the food service area and on her unit,
-25-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 26 of 50
a male correctional officer looked over her door cover to view her in a state of undress. A male correctional officer grabbed his penis and told PlaintiffWilliams he wanted to perform sexual acts.
100. The custodial sexual abuse ofPiaintiffWilliams ended when she was paroled. Plaintiff Williams continues to fear retaliation while under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
101. Defendants' continued failure to take adequate steps to deter the assaultive behavior of Defendant Madden and protect Plaintiffs, including inadequate investigations, assignments, reporting mechanisms, supervision and discipline, resulted in Defendant Madden continuing to assault women prisoners the Huron VaJiey Women's Complex.
102. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Williams.
VELVET FARLEY•JOHNSON
103. In 2001, Plaintiff Velvet Farley-Johnson was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
I04. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson had previously been subjected to sexually debrrading treatment, sexual touching by male staff and routine viewing and sexual comments by male staffofthe MDOC.
105. In the summer of2001 PlaintiffFarley-Johnson was approached for sex by the -26-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 27 of 50
assistant deputy warden, Defendant Williams Chapman, at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
106. Defendant Chapman used his position as assistant deputy warden to order Defendant Farley-Johnson to work in his .office.
107. PlaintiffFarley-Johnson's job detail in the prison was recreation aide assigned to the same building as Defendant Chapman. Defendant Chapman ordered that Plaintiff Farley-Johnson be assigned to paint his office and, at this time, while in his office, began to touch Plaintiff Farley-Johnson sexually.
I08. Defendant Chapman ordered PlaintiffFarley-Johnson into an empty office and on three occasions sexually assaulted and raped PlaintiffFarley-Johnson by bending her over and penetrating her vaginally.
109. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson was subjected to retaliation by employees of the MDOC for reporting assaults and continues to fear retaliatory acts by Defendants while she is under t he jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
110. TI1e Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Farley-Johnson.
TAMMY LACROSS
111. Plaintiff Tammy Lacross was seventeen years old when she was placed in an adult prison and subjected to supervision by male correctional officers who routinely touched
-27-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 28 of 50

her while performing body searches, viewed her while nude in showers and while dressing

and undressing. 112. Shortly after her arrival at the Scott Correctional Facility, Plaintiff LaCross
was, on a weekly basis, subjected to sexual overtures from male corrections officers, forced physical contact and sexually degrading language. Plaintiff LaCross was also made aware of sexual contact between female prisoners and male staff that was open and obvious and

went undisciplined. 113. Plaintiff LaCross was also aware of incidents of retaliation against female

prisoners who resisted or reported assaults by male staff. 114. In 2000, PlaintiffLaCross was transferred to the Western Wayne Correctional
Facility which had recently been converted to a female prison. 115. Defendant Willis Chapman was the Assistmtt Deputy Warden (ADW) for
Custody and Housing at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility and acted as an investigator of complaints of staff misconduct. Within five (5) months of women arriving at tlte Western Wayne CotTectional Facility, ADW Chapman began sexually assaulting at least two female prisoners, including Plaintiff Farley-Johnson. By May of 2001, he began

sexually

harassing

Plaintiff

Tammy ,.,

LaCross.
', ,.,, \' .,

,1,

116. Defendant Chapman's behavior was open and obvious to any supervisor

concerned with ensuring the safety of female prisoners. 117. By July of 2001, Defendant Chapman had coerced Plaintiff LaCross into a
sexual relationship with forced intercourse and touching on a weekly basis. These sexual assaults and coerced sex took place in multiple areas of tlte Western Wayne Correctional

-28-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 29 of 50
Facility and, including instances when Defendant Chapman ordered Plaintiff LaCross be brought to his assistant deputy wnrdcn's office, the school building and other offices and
closets for purposes of the coerced sex and assaults. 118. The physical assaults and coercive sex by Defendant Chapman against Plaintiff
LaCross resulted in physical injury to PlaintiffLaCross, including but not limited to multiple bruises, scrapes and lacerations. In addition to the sexual assaults and abuse, Defendant Chapman mentally abused Plaintiff LaCross and kept her from reporting the abuse with a
combination of threats and mental abuse. 119. In June 2001, several employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections
reported the sexual misconduct of Assistant Deputy Warden Chapmnn and his violations of
facility rules, policies and procedures. 120. Defendant Stovall specifically directed that Defendant Chapman not be placed
on any restrictions. As a result, Defendant Chapman could and did intimidate and threaten PlaintiffLaCross to prevent her cooperating with any investigation or reporting the assaults. Further, Defendant Stovall did not reassign Defendant Chapman, did not report the alleged criminal activity to the Michigan State Police, did not adequately investigate the allegations
and placed no restrictions on Defendant Chapman. 121. Defendant Chapman continued to sexually assault, degrade and intentionally
inflict emotional distress on PlaintiffLaCross on a weekly basis, including acts ofpenetrative intercourse, forced oral sex, viewing Plaintiff LaCross in various states of undress and
degrading trentrnent through 2003. 122. Defendant Chapman was not removed from his position until August, 2003.
-29-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 30 of 50
123. Plaintiff LaCross was subjected to acts ofretaliation by MDOC employees at both Westem Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton, located in Livingston County, Michigan until her release.
124. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate trai11ing or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the ham1 to Plaintiff LaCross.
KANDICE HALL
125. PlaintiffKandicc Hall was incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex in March of2005, when a male correctional officer on the midnight shift ordered her out of her cell and into another room of the housing unit.
126. The officer, Defendant Jody Nunn, then sexually assaulted Plaintiff Hall by grabbing her breasts and buttocks, digitally penetrating her and raping her from behind.
127. On the same date and time, Defendant Nunn forcibly removed PlaintiffHall's clothes, pushed her down and attempted forced oral sex.
128. Defendant Nunn then threatened PlaintiffHall against reporting, said he knew where her family lived and reminded her that his wife was also an officer in the facility.
129. When Plaintiff Hall did report the assaults to prevent further abuse, she was retaliated against by staff, including Defendant Nunn, for reportit1g.
130. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter
-30-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 31 of 50
and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes ofthc harm to Plaintiff Hall.
EBONY BATES
131. In April of2005, Plaintiff Ebony Bates was incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Facility when she was assaulted by a male correctional officer, Defendant Jody Nunn, while he worked the second shift supervising her in temporary segregation.
132. Defendant Nunn routinely sexually harassed Plaintiff Bates by requesting she expose herself to him and using sexually offensive language.
133. Defendant Nunn ordered Plaintiff Bates to pull down her prison jumpsuit so he could view her. Defendant Nunn groped Plah1tiffs genital area and made sexually offensive and degrading statements to her.
134. Plaintiff Bates reported th~.a,ssault and has been subjected to retaliatory acts by Defendant Nunn, his wife and other staff since reporting.
135. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Bates.
CHRISTINA SCHUSTER
136. Defendants knew of should have known that Plaintiff Christina Schuster was the victim of sexual and physical abuse throughout her adolescence, but failed to take any
-31-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 32 of 50
steps to protect her from ft1rther abuse. 137. While incarcerated in the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, Plaintiff
Schuster was coerced into sex with a resident unit officer, Defendant Dallas Mesack. 13 8. Defendant Mesack routinely sexually harassed PlaintiffSchuster by requesting
she expose herself to him and by using sexually offensive language. 139. Defendant Mesack entered Plaintiff Schuster's cell at night, ordered her cell
mate to face the wall and ordered Plaintitito engage in acts of oral sex on multiple occasions during the Spring and Summer of2003.
140. Plaintiff Schuster was subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees after reporting the sexual assaults.
141. The actions of Defendant Mesack were open and obvious. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Schuster.
DYANNA MCDADE
142. Pla.intiffDyanna McDade was 21 years old when she was placed in the Robert Scott Correctional Facility in 2002.
143. Beginning in the Spring of 2004, Defendant Crosby Talley, who is a corrections officer at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, began sexually harassing Plaintiff McDade by using sexually degrading language aimed at her.
144. During the same time period, Defendant Talley sexually touched, pruriently
-32"

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 33 of 50
viewed and leered at Plaintiff McDade. 145. On or about September, 2004 Defendant Talley coerced PlaintiffMcDade into
a restroom at the MSI factory and.foUowed her into the restroom, blocking her exit. 146. Plaintiff McDade attempted to resist and, on the day in question, Defendant
Talley raped Plaintiff McDade and threatened her against reporting the assault. 147. PlaintiffMcDade was tearful to report the assault in light of her knowledge of
the lack of adequate investigation, lack of discipline and incidents of retaliation against women who reported such assaults.
148. On November 20, 2004, fearful that the assaults would continue, Plaintiff
McDade did report this penetrative sexual assault, to Lieutenant Hockenhull, a member of the supervisory staff at Scott Correctional Facility.
149. MDOC's lt1temal Affairs' investigation into the sexual assault was inadequate and inconclusive.
150. On two occasions previous to this incident, Defendant Talley had been reported for sexually assaulting female prisoners.
I51. Despite repeated reports of sexual assaults on female prisoners, Defendant
Supervisors, including Defendants Yukins, Stovall, Zang and Caruso, have allowed Defendant Talley to remain employed by the MDOC with full access to female prisoners including working in the housing units.
152. Defendants were aware or should have been aware that Plaintiff McDade has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. The subsequent assault exacerbated PlaintiffMcDade's
-33-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 34 of 50

prior condition. 153. Defendants', including Defendants Yukins and Stovall, failure to adequately
supervise the staffat Robert Scott Correctional Facility resulted in retaliatory actions being taken against Plaintiff McDade in the form of loss of detail, time in segregation and major

misconduct tickets. 154. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm

to Plaintiff McDade.

HELISHA BAILI.tY

155. In 2003, Plaintiff Helisha Bailey was incarcerated at the Western Wayne

Correctional Facility where she was assaulted by two male correctional officers.

156. On or aboutJanuary 2003, Defendant Firas Awad ordered PlaintitiBailey into

a closet and grabbed her breast and groped her vaginal area. Later that day, Defendant Awad

again

forced

Plaintiff

Bailey

into

a
<

closet
•

and

grabbed
I,

her

breasts

and

forced

her

hand

onto

his penis. On the same date, later in the evening, Defendant Awad ordered Plaintiff Bailey

to come out of her cell. PlaintiffBailey lett her cell and walked to the officer's station. At

that time, Defendants Carter and Madden sent her into the laundry room where Defendant

Awad forced Plaintiff to perform oral sex and digitally penetrated and raped her.

157. DefendantAwad thrcatenedPlaintiffBailey, with future sexual assaults and

punishment. -34-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 35 of 50
158. On or about March 2003, Defendant Kirk Tollzein began making sexual comments to Plaintiff Bailey and in Apri12003 grabbed her breasts on several occasions.
159. On multiple occasions Defendant Tollzein entered PlaintiffBailey's cell on the second shift and tbrced her to expose her body to him, grabbed her breasts and digitally penetrated her.
160. Defendant Tollzien threatened Plaintiff Bailey against reporting the repeated sexual assaults.
161. Defendant Tollzein's and Defendant Awad's actions were open and obvious and the assaults occurred with the cooperation and assistance of other staff including Defendants Madden and Carter.
162. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Bailey.
JILL FLANnERS
163. PlaintiffJill Flanders was repeatedly sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by Defendant Arthur Lancaster, a school teacher at Camp Branch in Branch County, Michigan, while she worked as a tutor in the school under Lancaster's supervision from November 1999 through July 2000.
164. The assaults were open and obvious to MDOC staff who failed to take adequate steps to investigate or discipline Defendant Lancaster and failed to assist or protect
-35-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 36 of 50
Plaintiff Flanders. 165. The assaults did not stop until Defendant Lancaster was allowed to resign in
lieu ofany investigation or discipline. Defendant Lancaster continued to harass, threaten and stalk Plaintiff Flanders while she was on parole, impairing her rehabilitation and interfering with her parole status.
166. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assi~o,>ning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Flanders.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 167. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of all women prisoners similarly situated who, since March of 2000, have been, are now or will be hereafter incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections correctional system. Plaintiffs seek class action status pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b).
168. The number of female prisoners who have alleged they have been st1bjected to custodial sexual abuse while under the jurisdiction of the MDOC since March of 2000, exceeds two hundred women. Class action status is the most practical method for Plaintiffs to challenge the policies, procedures and practices of the MDOC which are a proximate cause of the ongoing custodial sexual misconduct in Michigan's women prisons.
169. There are common questions of law and fact in the action that relate to and -36-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 37 of 50
effect the rights of each member of the class. The Plaintiffs as women prisoners have all been subjected to Defendants' policies, procedures and failures to provide for proper screening, training and supervision of male staff at the various facilities where they have been housed. The policies and procedures with regard to reporting, investigating and disciplining of custodial sexual misconduct apply to all facilities and Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief and damages for themselves and class members for the injuries caused by Defendants' acts and omissions.
170. The claims of Plaintiffs who are representatives of the class herein arc typical of the claims of the class of women prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections that are subjected to custodial sexual misconduct and degrading treatment by male employees ofthe Michigan Department ofCorrcctions, while incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the MDOC.
171. All women prisoners have been subjected to Defendants' assignment of male staffto unsupervised positions in women's housing units, all women have been housed under the inadequate policies and procedures for training, assignment, supervision, investigation and discipline of its male employees assigned to Michigan women's prisons. All have been deterred from reporting by Defendants' inadequate and unusable policies. As a result, all Plaintiffs have been incarcerated in a hostile and unsafe sexual environment which has resulted in a pervasive risk of harm to their safety.
172. The named Plaintiffs are the representative parties of the class, and are able to and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The attomeys for Plaintiffs are experienced and capable litigants in the field ofcivil rights and prison litigation and have
-37-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 38 of 50
successflllly represented claimants in other litigation of this nature.
173. The class consists of all fonner, current and future female prisoners under the
jurisdiction ofthe MDOC who suffered and who will suffer damages and injuries as a result
of sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment, violation of their privacy and
retaliation for reporting same, and deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights to
fully and equally utilize prison programs and facilities and who seek injunctive and remedial
relief.
174. This action meets the requirements ofF.R.C.P. 23(a) and (b) because:
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions oflaw or tact common to the class, the claims ofthe representative parties are typical of the claims of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
B. Additionally, the prosecution ofseparate actions byindividnal members ofthe class would create a risk ofinconsistent or varying adjudications or adjudications with respect to individual members of the class where as a practical matter it would be dispositive ofthe interests ofthe other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or the party opposing the class has acted or refltsed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate tlnal injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory reliefwith respect to the class as a whole; or the court finds that questions oflaw or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and et1lcient aqjudication of the controversy.
175. Further, Plaintiffs constitute a sub-class of a previously certified class action
in the state action of Neal, et al. v MDOC, eta!., No. 96-6986-CZ, who are prevented from
pursuing their claims for violations of their statutory rights under the state civil rights act.
Accordingly, this action meets all the requirements for a class action under F.R.C.P.
-38-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 39 of 50
23(a) and F.R.C.P. 23(b)(l), (2) or (3). CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 176. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thrmtgh 175 as if set fotih fully
herein. I 77. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual assaults, harassment,
degrading treatment and privacy violations by Defendants and employees ofMDOC upon the Plaintiffs, constitutes an official policy, custom, pattern or practice that has deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to bodily integrity and right to privacy without due
'.
process of law in violation ofthc Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
178. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male officers and subjection of Plaintiffs to unnecessary viewing and touching by male officers violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated prisoners ofthe equal protection oflaws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male officers and subjection of Plaintiffs to verbal and physical sexual harassment and unnecessary viewing and touching by male officers also violate the customary international law norm prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
179. The deprivation of constitutional rights alleged in this complaint are the direct -39-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 40 of 50
result of oftlcial policy, custom and practices of Defendants and each of them. 180. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male officers, subjecting Plaintiffs to
unnecessary viewing and touching by male staff and the sexual assaults and degrading treatment, deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated female prisoners of the right to humane treatment, the right to privacy, 1md the right to equal treatment under the law and equal protection against discrimination in violation of customary international law and
articles 7, I0, 17 and 26 of the hlternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and articles 1, 2 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
De&>rading Punislm1ent.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (BODILY INTEGRITY)
181. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 180 above as if set
forth fully herein.
182. The above described acts constitute unreasonable searches and seizures,
deprivations of liberty and invasions of privacy and bodily integrity, without adequate penalogical justification and without due process of law in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT)
183. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 182 above as if set
forth fully herein. 184. The above-described acts of the Defendants constitute the unnecessary an.d
wanton infliction of pain and suffering and emotional distress on the Plaintiffs, without -40-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 41 of 50
penalogical justification. 185. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual abuse, harassment,
degrading treatment and retaliatory acts which Plaintiffs have been and are subjected constitutes deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' medical, psychological and emotional needs and amounts to cmel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983, and constitutes cruel and degrading treatment or punishment in derogation of Article 16 ofthe Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punislunent.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (EQUAL PROTECTION)
186. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 185 above as if set forth fully herein.
187. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual abuse, harassment, degrading treatment, retaliation and ongoing violations of Plaintiffs' privacy violates Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and customary international law standards.
188. Defendants' employment and assignment of male officers and other male employees in the women's prisons, in positions where they commonly observe women in states of undress and performing basic bodily functions and Defendants' failure to remedy the resultant sexual assaults and sexual harassment of women prisoners and ratification of the hostile conditions and treatment for women prisoners constitutes discrimination based on sex. This inferior treatment is not substantially related to an important and legitimate
-41-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 42 of 50
governmental interest and violates Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
189. The denial of Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, of the right to equal opportunity for rehabilitation and the subjection ofthe Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to a hostile prison environment constitutes prohibited discrimination based on their sex in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and customary international law standards.
190. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants and each of them were acting under color of law and, in doing so, deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated female prisoners of the equal protection ofthc law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and under customary international law and articles 2, 3 and 26 ofthc International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
FIFTH CAUSE OF' ACTION (RETALIATION AND INTIMIDATION) 191. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 190 above as if set forth fully herein. 192. Defendants' retaliation and failure to prevent or remedy retaliation against Plaintiffs for reporting staff misconduct constitutes a violation of their rights to freedom of speech tmd association guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
-42-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 43 of 50
SIXTH CAUSE OJ;' ACTION (DECLARATION THAT THE ELCRA'S MARCH 10,2000
AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
193. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 192 above as if set
forth fully herein. 194. Prior to March 10, 2000, the facilities, camps and centers housing Plaintiffs
were recognized as a"public service" facility within the meaning of the ELCRA, MCL
37.2301(b). Neal, eta!. v MDOC:. eta/, 232 Mich App 730 (1998). (Exhibit 2)
195. On December 20, 1999, the State of Michigan amended the ELCRA's definition of"public service" by excluding from the definition "a state or county correctional facility with respect to actions and decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment." Michigan Public Act No. 202 of 1999. (Exhibit 1, M.C.L. 37.2301). The amendment took effect on March 10, 2000. The stated purpose of the amendment was to
target Plaintiffs who were and are part of a class of prisoners in Neal, et al. v MDOC, et al.,
No. 96-6986-CZ (Exhibit 1, Enactment Language). 196. The amendment of the ELCRA deprives Plaintiffs, and all those similarly-
situated, of equal protection ofthe laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the amendment targeted deprivation ofa single class ofpersons (Michigan female prisoners) for all state statutory protection from unconstitutional discrimination. This deprivation of protection lacks any rational relationship to any legitimate state purpose.
197. The amendment to the ELCRA subsequent to the limitations contained in the Plison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, deprives Plaintiffs of an effective remedy or redress for serious deprivations of their rights under customary international law and in
-43-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 44 of 50
violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 2, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, article 14.
198. The Amendment to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act is a violation of the federal due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BILL OF ATTAINDER)
199. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 198 above as if set forth fully herein.
200. The amendment to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, precluding Plaintiffs from the protection of the Civil Rights Act and its protection against sexual discrimination in Michigan, constitutes a Bill ofAttainder in violation ofArticle I, §I 0 ofthe United States Constitution.
201. This amendment punishes Plaintiffs based upon their gender and status as a prisoner.
202. The amendment disqualifies Plaintiffs from the protections of their rights as women, allows for sexual harassment and discriminatory treatment based on their gender without recourse under state laws.
203. The amendment does not serve any purpose ofthe Civil Rights Act but instead its sole purpose is to punish Plaintiffs.
-44-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 45 of 50
DAMAGES
204. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 203 above as if set forth fully herein.
205. The acts and omissions of Defendants constituting violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory and common law rights were and are a proximate cause ofPlaintiffs' damages.
206. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs, individually and as a class, have suffered emotional and physical injuries and damages, loss of freedom and rehabilitation opportunities.
207. The acts and omissions ofDefendants constitute violations ofPlaintiffs' rights and were and are a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' damages.
208. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered the following injuries and damages, among others: physical injuries; increased levels and length of incarceration, loss offreedom and rehabilitation opportunities; loss of wages and income; loss of educational and training opportunities; severe psychological injuries and damages; and exacerbation of prior medical conditions and injuries.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintit1s pray for a judgment against the Defendants and each ofthem and requests that this Court:
a. Issue a declaratory judgment that the policies, practice, acts and omissions complained of herein violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights guaranteed by the specified sections of the United States Constitution, statutory law, customary international law and treaties;
-45-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 46 of 50

b. Certify this case as a class action;
c. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants' practices, acts and omissions complained of herein;
d. Order remedial action to remedy Defendants' unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions and to deter future violations;
e. Issue a declaratory judgment that the amendment to the ELCRA is unconstitutional as violative of Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection and constitutes a bill of attainder, and violates Plaintiffs' rights under customary international law and treaties;
f. Retain jurisdiction over this action until such time as the Court is satisfied that the unlawful policies, practices, rules, acts and omissions complained of herein have been satisfactorily rectified;
g. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs for injuries incurred;
h. Award punitive and exemplary damages;
T. Award Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs;
J· Award such other and further relief as seems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY NOW COME Plaintiffs by and through their counsel and hereby demand a trial by

jury as to all those issues so triable as of right. Respectfully submitted,

DATED: October 13, 2005

v~~ BORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 (734) 996-5620

-46-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 47 of 50
MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 (734) 769-0077 PATRTCIA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 222-0088 MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Stc. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 248.398.9800 RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) RONALD J. REOSTJ (P19368) DENNIS D. JAMES (Pl5427) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 248.691.4200
-47-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 48 of 50

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 49 of 50

RIGHTS
~n sdecteJ affinuative ·ice Dd. of W.2d 260,
liscriminamative ac:-
h the dvH
~ commi5.
;,Jan. J.F. 1983) 337
lffirma1ive ivil Rights
Ol'l l"eVl!FSC'!
equal pru•n by CaupositiOmL
6 N.W.2d hpp, 801,
r.:onrt rule
1y a panel ss insulmalso instl• ivll Right.s
mid re.1ch
pn~viom:
1999) 606 Mkh.App.
sition suithat L:ity's pplic.:anl's au::.c. and N by Stt 1ged coni 11 \111SlH~­ .'Jposition,
~iden'ltitm 1Siti()11 1.0
Appeals. I N.W.2d
1 not be mdanls oymenl

ELLIOIT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

37.2301

Historical and Stal.ulory Notes

SourL-c: P.A.I976, No. 453, § 211, Elf. M~roh 31, 1977.

C.L.l970, § 37.2211

Law ·a~vlcw and Journal Commentaries

Affirmative actlOI'l in extremis. Ralph Smith, Reducing s6.!niority as a disciplimuy toni.

26 Wayn" LRev. 1337 (1980).

Carl E. Ver Beck, 60 Mich.B.J. 356 (1981).

Library References

Mi.:.:h Civ .h1r, Civil Rights§ 9. 1.1 Am Jm· 2d, Civil rughts § 190.
12 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 49, 'Business Nec.e~sily' JustifYing Prima Facie Disctimi~ natory Employment. Practi(:.o,;!,
4 Am Jur Pt'oof of Fads 2d 477, .R..1cial Di:sc,·im\nation. ill Empl\)ymc~nt-Post-hiring
Pract.ic(:s,

21 Am Jur Ttiuls 1, Employm.E:tnt Discrimination Action Um.lt!r Ft~d,~ral Civil Rights Acts.
fionns
5 Am Jur PI & P1· Forms, Rev, Civil Rights, Form 61.3.
T!.!xl'l and Treatise.s Gillespie Mich Cl'im L & Pmc ?i 1371 (2nd Ed).

Notes of Decisions

In g~neral 1 t. In general

<.:nllt~<:tivc bargaining agreen\ent, nc.::uttal on il.s face, ruling of liability was pn~chHkd by virtue of ~his section whk.h tespect.s legitimacy of S(\·
niodty. Jones v. T.t'uck Drivers Loc:-11 Union

To lhc cxr.ent district COuL'l imp(lSCd liability
nn 1.1nion for breach uf c.luty Ln r!.!pn~sent fairly and a.(.lt~quatdy hv r'~ason of sex discrimination
by n~:i..~:o:n o( tulion's a.dhettrl(..;t: tu terms of

N<>. i9<), C.A.6 (Mich.)1988, 838 f.2cl 856, rehearing tlcnh~d, n:(:onstderation denied 873 F.2d 108. l:t.':Itiorad denied 110 8.Ct. 404, 493
Ll .$, 964, 107 L.Ed.2d 370.

ARTICLE 3. Pusuc hccoMMOoAnuNs AND SERvicEs
Cap1ion edit(wia fly supplied
37.2301. Definitluns
Sec. 301. As used in this article: (a) ((Place of publit: accommodation" means a business, or an educational, refreshment, cntcrtainm~nl., ren·ention, health, or tran,portal.ion facility, or institution nf any kind, whether licensed or not, whos(o goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accornrnodations are extended, offered, sold, or ol.h~rwise made available to the puhlic. .Place of public accomnHldation also includes the facilil.ies of the following private clubs: (i) A (:omllry club or golf club. (ii) A boating or yachting club. (iii) A sports or athletic club. (iv) A dining club, except a Jining club that in good faith limits it' rncmhcrship to the members of a particular religion for the purpose of furthering the teachings or principles of that religion and not for the purpose of excluding individuals of a pat·ticular gender, race, or color. (b) "Publk service'' means a public facility, department, agency, board, or commission, owned, operated, or managed by or on hchali' of the stale, a
649

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 50 of 50

37.2301

CIVIl. RIGHTS

E

polit.it:al subdivi,ion, or an agency thereof or a tax ~xcmpt pr-ivate agen"y eswblishcd 10 provide st:rvicc to the: pllblic, <:xccpt th1•1. pt1blic s<:rvicc do~s not

Ri
ex

include a state or county corn:ctional l"acility \vith respect to actions and

d

dcdf.>ions regarding un iru..Hvidu:.il sc.rving ;.t sentence of imprh;or1n1ent.

re
ul

tlmcmk:d by P.A.J992, No. 70, § 1, !meL Eff. May Z9, 19~!2; I'.A.19!J!i, No. 202, t;ff.

:il:

March J0, 2000.

•11
gt

Historical and St.1:'1:tutm-y Noh~.s

w DL

S0111"Cl':
PAI!!71l, No. ·15~~. ~ .101. Ei'f. MordL 31,
1977. C.L.I970, § 37.2.101.

st\'l.t.(~ or l.:Cnmly ~~orn:·c.tion\'11 fad1it_y wilb respl:ct to at:!.ions .:1nd dt:t:i~ions n~garcliug an individu:-at servlllg a S(~nl.em.:e of imprisonn"'.ent"; <.\nd
111\~ih~ nonsub~1anLive ch1:1ngt~s throughoc11 the;

v. 2.

Tht.: 1992. <'tlTI(:nrJrnent, in suhJ. (~1), added lhe
l(i"1 sl~nten.ce ;.:lnci subds. (a)(i) to (~l)(i·v),
~·or Executiv(~ Onk·r No. 1994-16, issur.d Mav

secdnn. P.A.1999. No. 202, t..~tDcHng ~ 1, provides: "f:::n('lnlng secl'ion t. This ~mcndatory ad is

(~
nc:
p,..r

2J, t 994, !'elatinf. lo the Mi('.higau Equal En;·_ ployrnt~nt and Hl.l"im:ss Opportunily COl111(.il. see the H.istmic<:tl and S.t.ai.1Hmy Not.r:~ following

curative.· aml inU::ndcd to corn~d auy misiutcrpretation of legis)\'ltlvc inlent )n tilt: t:Ourt nf appeals ckcl:;;ion Nc<~:.~ v Depart.m.L.:.11l uf Corl't:L:.-

m
~l~
0

~.l7.11UI.
For Ex...:cuLlv~ Orde-r No. 1996 1.'.~, l~su~d De· (.:enlher ?.3, 1996, <.H)d fili~d \'1.-·ith the: ~L":crcl<J.rv of S1atc Decemb1~r 23, I 996, rdatiug to thi.' cstablishnwnl ol the ~.:Haw Equ£tl Opp~~rtunily Work·

tion,, 2.l2 Mich App 730 (1'!98). This i•.gisl": tinn lurthe.r E~xrH·u:o.s~~s th(~ original ini.(~nt of the lcgisb.Lturc l.haL <.uL individual :;;en'i11f:': .!::1. s{~nlcnn~ uf im.pl"i~mHucnt in :1 sL:Llc or c:oun1.y con•t-.ction-
al fJC"ility b not v.:ithlu the ptlrvicv,.· t)f this <\Ct."

1! 3.

force Pl(i.nniJL!--1 Cotm(.i\, .S(..'t.! the His1.mical J.nd StatutO!')' Notes f'ollov\o'ing § ·~ 7.1101.
P.A.I999, NL>. 202. in <LLhd. (b), odcl"d ", exccp1 LhM public sen•ice doe." not includi~ a

For <:·Jf(~dive date pmvisions of P.A.J999, No.

202, S(~c the Historical and !:it.Mtulm'V' Notes fol·

lowin~' <l 37.2101.

·

PI
M
(:(
in

pl

Law Review and Journal Commentaries

to

No clOAS all0\1/L~d: Freedom of a:;sodatlnn v. Porcecl indmlnn anti.discriminalion s1:~1.tilllS
:'lind thdr <:1pplkability to pdvalc tH'gtmi7atioos.

K(win Pl'atK'.~rt., t7 T.M. Couley LJ~(~v. 273 (2000).

tf.1 M
"

Library References

m ol

Civil Rights ®=104.1. 119.

IS Am .Jur 2d, Civil Rights§§ 28-59.

,a ,

WESTLAVv' Topic No. 78.

linrmn

C..J.S. Civil Righi' §§ II. !$, 2.l to 24, ):l '"

)A Am Jur ?1 & Pr::~c Ponrll., Rev, Civll

ni

55.
Mic.h Clv Jur, Civil Rights, ?l 14.

Ri.ght.s, Pu!'ms 21 '~l ::;eq.

•+ ru

F

WESTLAW lilectron.k Research

4,

Sri~ WESTLAW Rli:t:tronic Rc~t~an.:fl Gltid~.;; flllltlwing tl1t~ Pn:fac-e.,

e.~

Noles of Decisioos

pl

Public acmmrt\O(hu.inn 3
Public service 4 Purpnsc uf law 2 Validity I

on fi'<.Herna1 orgM:tiz:1t.ion'H constitHt.ioually prn·

M

tectr.>.d righLs u[ afi.t>ocialional fn;:i~dmn lJy regll-

C<

lf:tting it:. tlle.mbt;rship pollc.ir-s, uc implic£\t.C

ir

c.onslltulional issm~s of intimail: and r~xpressive

p.

as~m:ialion, ~!'!:\ stalule did nnt indica1t~ ll)a,l pri·

t.c:

vaL(~ dubs, ,:~pi-:l.rl fl'om 1h~ir facilities whidt :u•o:::

\C
rv

1. Validity
Artkll: o[ !vlkhigan's EllioH-Lar·scu Civil
Rights Act (MELCRA), \'!~ ruH~:ud~d to ~liminate. f',\c.\usion:~ry and rcsrrlcl.ivc prt\ctic.es of pr•ivate dllhs, ami s~ctinn pmvidlng for pl'ivoue duh exe.rnption, diJ tl01 uncnn">l.ilution<'llly impin~e

statutoril:y dcHm:.:J as places of pt1blic (ltcom-
modation, are not entillcd lt) be.nent nf private dub ex~~mption, ;3ond where sl\'li.LltL: did not othe-rwise n:~1c:h meJTlht~r.o.;hip iss,w.s. Benevolent
J.nd Pmte.c.tiv~ On.ler of Elks of ti.S. v. Reyn· nlds, W.D.Mich. 1994, 1)6:~ P.Supp. 529.

'II
tr
"a '

6'l0

 
 Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, RENEE WILLiAMS, YOLANDA LIMMITT, HELISHA BAILEY, TAMMY LaCROSS, VELVET FARLEYJOHNSON, EBONY BATES, KANDICE HALL, DAVONE WILSON, CHRISTINA SCHUSTER, DY ANNA McDADE and JILL FLANDERS, on behalf of the themselves and all others similarly situated,

Case No. 05~ 73943

tons ocT 20 P t: liO

Hon. Paul D. Borman US OIST. COURT CLERr\ ..EAST OIST. MICH M1H AR80R
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, v

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity, as Governor ofthe State of Michigan, PATRICIA CARUSO, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, NANCY ZANG, CLARICE STOVALL, SUSAN DAVIS, JOAN YUKINS, SALLY LANGLEY, THOMAS DeSANTIS, WILLIS CHAPMAN, JERRY HOWELL, FIRAS AWAD, JODY NUNN, CARLTON CARTER, ART LANCASTER, CROSBY TALLEY, KIRK TOLLZEIN, WILLIAM MERROW, RODNEY MADDEN, jointly and severally,
Defendants.

DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel Jar PlaintiJTs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 481 04 734.996.5620
MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.769.0077
!11ICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI48067-3804 248.398.9800

RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5600
PATRlCIA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St.., Stc. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.222.0088
RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) RONALD J. REOSTI (Pl9368) DENNIS D. JAMES (P15427) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI48069-1133 248.691.4200

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 2 of 50
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT NOW COME Plaintiffs by and through their counsel and for their Complaint against the Defendants and each of them state as follows:
INTRODUCTION l. Plaintiffs, Natheauleen Mason, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Hclisha Bailey, Tammy Lacross, Velvet Farley-Johnson, Ebony Bates, KandiceHall, Davone Wilson,
Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade and Jill Flanders, arc all former or current prisoners who
have been subjected to discrimination, sexual abuse and degrading treatment by male prison staff, while under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Conections (hereinafter "MDOC"). Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf ofthemselves and all other former, eutTent
and future female prisoners under MDOC jurisdiction since March 10, 2000, whose rights
have been similarly violated.
Plaintiffs are cunently members of a certified class action in the case of Neal, et al. v. MDOC, et al., File No. 96-6986-CZ, pending in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court.
Plaintiffs, in the state action, allege violations of their state constitutional and civil rights
protected by the state's Civil Rights Act. On February 10, 2005, the Michigan Court of
Appeals ruled that the Neal Plaintiffs' claims, which arose after the effective date of an
amendment to the state's Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101, et seq., were no longer viable as the amendment deleted prisoners from the Act's protection. M.C.L. 37.2301 (b). (Exhibit 1).
Plaintiffs in this case are those Neal class members whose claims of discrimination, sexual abuse and degrading treatment arose after the March 10, 2000 amendment of the state's Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs' claims were tolled by tl1e filing ofNeal, et al. v. MDOC,
-2-

____ ____ ... ,,, -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·-··

,

,

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005

Page 3 of 50

et al., File No. 96-6986-CZ, on March 26, 1996, and now seek relief for violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Constitution of the United State
In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek: 1) Injunctive relief to prevent the Defendants' continuing deprivation of Plaintiffs' constitutional and stat11tory rights; 2) Certification of Plaintiffs as a class; 3) A declaratory ruling that the policies, procedures and practices ofthe Michigan Department of Corrections and Defendants have and continue to deprive female prisoners of equal privileges and opportunities; and subject Plaintiffs to a pervasive risk of custodial sexual misconduct, including sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment and unnecessary viewing and touching by male employees of the MDOC; intimidate, punish and retaliate against Plaintiffs who report discrimination, custodial sexual misconduct and degrading treatment; and constitute a violation ofPlaintiffs' rights as secured by the Constitution, treaties and law of the United States; 4) A declaratory ruling that the March 10, 2000 amendment to Michigan's Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. 37.2301, violates Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the law and deprives Plaintiffs of a remedy for actual wrongs; and 5) A monetary award to Plaintiffs to compensate for their injuries together with punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for themselves and all similarlysitlmted female prisoners.
JURISDICTION 2. This is a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981 et seq., seeking
declaratory, injunctive relief and monetary damages against Defendants for purposeful discrimination and violation of the United States Constitution including the First, Fourth,
-3·

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 4 of 50

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and violations of the laws, conventions, treaties and

customary international law norms.

3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and

1343(a)(4). Jurisdiction for declaratory relief is also premised on 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202

and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

4. The amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-five Thousand ($75,000.00)

Dollars, excluding interest and costs.

VENUE

5.

Venue lies in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(d).

The majority of the events in controversy occurred in the counties of Wayne, Washtenaw,

and Livingston, which are located within the jurisdiction of United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

6. Plaintiff Representatives are citizens of the United States and, at all relevant

times, were under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Plaintiffs

bring this action on behalfofthemselves and all former, current and fhture female prisoners

who from March 10, 2000, were subjected to sexual misconduct, sexual assaults, sexual

harassment, degrading treatment, gender discrimination and violation oftheir privacy rights

by male employees of the MDOC and who suffered economic and non-economic injury as

a result of the deprivation of their rights including intimidation and retaliation for reporting

same.

-4-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 5 of 50
7. PlaintiffRepresentative Natheauleen Mason was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a male cOITectional officer and subjected to sexually degrading and harassing treatment beginning in 2002 while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan. Beginning in 2003, PlaintiffMason was again sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to violations of her privacy, and retaliated against by correctional officers and staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. PlaintiffMason is currently on parole under the jurisdiction ofthe MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
8. Plaintiff Representative Yolanda Limmitt was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and sttbjected to cruel and degrading treatment by male correctional officers beginning in September 2002 and continuing through 2003 while she was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan. In 2003, Plaintiff Limmitt was sexually harassed, subjected to privacy violations and retaliated against by corrections officers and staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. PlaintiffLimmitt is currently on parole under the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims arc set forth below.
9. Plaintiff Representative Davone Wilson was sexually assaulted in 2005 by a male correctional officer while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex, located in Washtcnaw County, Michigan. In 2005, Plaintiff Wilson was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigm1. Plaintiff Wilson is currently on parole under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
-5-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 6 of 50
10. Plaintiff Representative Hclisha Bailey was sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment by two male correctional officers beginning in 2003 while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. Plaintiff Bailey was also subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations at Western Wayne Correctional Facility. PlaintiffBailey is currently incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex located in Washtenaw County, Michigan, where she continues to be subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
11. Plaintiff Representative Kandice Hall was sexually assaulted, sexually harassed, retaliated against and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy
'''·""I"' '
violations by male correctional officers while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex in 2005. Plaintiff Hall is incarcerated in the Huron Valley Women's Complex where she continues to be subjected to privacy violations, sexual harassment and retaliatory actions. The specific facts of her claims arc set forth below.
12. PlaintiffRepresentative Ebony Bates was sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male correctional officers while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex from April 2005 to present. PlaintiffBates continues to be incarcerated in the Huron Valley Women's Complex where she is subjected to ongoing sexual harassment, privacy violations and retaliation. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
13. Plaintiff Representative Renee Williams was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by
-6-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 7 of 50
male correctional officers beginning in September or October of 2002 and continuing through February 2003. Plaintiff Williams was subjected to ongoing retaliation by staff while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. PlaintitTWilliams is currently on parole under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
14. PlaintiffRepresentative Christina Schuster was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed, battered and subjected to privacy violations by male correctional officers beginning in2003 and retaliated against by staff while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. PlaintiffSchuster is currently incarcerated at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan, where she is subjected to ongoing privacy violations, sexual harassment and retaliatory acts. The specific facts of her claims arc set forth below.
15. Plaintiff Representative Tammy LaCross was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by a male assistm1t deputy warden and male correctional officers and staff beginning in 2000 and continuing unti12003 and retaliated against by staff while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. Plaintiff LaCross was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male correctional officers and staff a11d retaliated against by staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. Plaintiff LaCross is no longer under the jurisdiction ofthe MDOC and resides in the State ofMichigan. The specific facts
-7-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 8 of 50
of her claims are set forth below. 16. Plaintiff Representative Velvet Farley-Johnson was repeatedly sexually
assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by a male assistfmt deputy warden and male staff and correctional officers while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility from 2001 until2002 and subjected to retaliation by staff and correctional offi.ccrs. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male correctional officers and staff and retaliated against by staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. PlaintiffFarley-Johnson is on parole under the jurisdiction ofthe MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
17. Plaintiff Representative Jill Flanders was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male employees of the MDOC from April through the Fall of 2000 while incarcerated at Camp Branch located in Branch County, Michigan. Plaintiff Flanders is currently incarcerated at the Huron Va1Jcy Women's Complex located in Washtenaw County, Michigan, where she continues to be subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male employees. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
18. Plaintiff Representative Dyanna McDade was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to privacy violations by male employees ofthe MDOC tmd subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees while incarcerated at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, located it1 Wayne County, Michigan. Plaintiff McDade is currently incarcerated at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, where she continues to be subjected
-8-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 9 of 50

to sexual harassment, privacy violations and retaliatory acts. The specific facts ofher claims

are set forth below.

DEFENDANTS

19. Defendant Jennifer Granholm is the Governor of the State of Michigan invested with executive powerpursuantto Art. V §I ofthe Michigan Constitution. Governor Granholm is sued in her official capacity for purposes of addressing Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. Defendatlt Granholm is ultimately responsible for the care and custody of women prisoners in the State ofMichigan, and has the authority and ability to remedy current and future conditions at facilities housing women and girl prisoners which have given rise to the custodial sexual abuse and degrading treatment set forth in this complaint. Defendant Granholm resides in Ingham County and the capitol of the State of Michigan is in Ingham

County.

20.

Defendant

Patricia

Caruso,
. ,,, ,, \

as

the

Director

of

the

Michigan

Department

of

Corrections, is charged with the responsibility ofdeveloping and implementing policies and

procedures for the management of the Michigan Department of Conections and its

employees, and is responsible for the care, custody and protection of prisoners under the

jurisdiction of the Michigan Depariment of Corrections. Defendant Caruso is being sued

individually and in her official capacity. 21. Defendant Nancy Zang was, at all times relevant to this action, employed as
an administrator for women prisoners' affairs and responsible tbr developing, implementing and overseeing any policies or procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating custodial sexual misconduct and/or disciplining staff for sexual misconduct against female prisoners
-9-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 10 of 50
in Michigan. Defendant Zang was also responsible for the training ofmale staffworking at female prisons, responding to complaints of custodial sexual misconduct and degrading treatment of female prisoners and for ensuring the promulgation and/or implementation of any MDOC rules, policies and procedures for preventing custodial sexual abuse of female prisoners. She is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
22. Defendant Clarice Stovall was, from the time it began to house women female prisoners until its closure, the Warden of the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, and responsible for overseeing its operations. Defendant Stovall is currently the Warden of the Robert Scott Correctional Facility. In her capacity as a Warden for female facilities, Defendant Stovall was responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation ofcorrectional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at those facilities. Defendant Stovall, in her warden capacity, was at all relevant times, responsible for the custody, safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation of female prisoners at facilities housing female prisoners. Defendant Stovall was also, at all relevant times, responsible for ensuring tl1at the facilities housing female prisoners were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff misconduct and treatment of victims ofcustodial sexual abuse. Defendant Stovall is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
23. Defendant St1san Davis is currently the Warden of the Huron Valley Complex for Women and Camp Brighton, and responsible for overseeing their operation for female prisoners. In her capacity as Warden, Defendat1t Davis has at all times been responsible for
-l 0-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 11 of 50
the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation ofcorrectional oftlcers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at the Huron Valley Women's Complex. Defendant Davis, during the time she was the warden, was responsible for the custody, safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation of female prisoners at these facilities housing female prisoners. Defendant Davis was also, during the time she was the warden of Huron Valley Women's Complex and Camp Brighton, responsible for ensuring that the facilities were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and tbr ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staffmisconduct and treatment ofvictims ofcustodial sexual abuse. Defendant Davis is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
24. DefendantJoan Yukins was the prior Warden ofthe Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton, and responsible for overseeing its operation for female prisoners. Defendant Yukins, during the time she was the Warden of the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton, was responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation of correctional officers and MDOC employees assigt1ed to or working at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton. Defendant Yukins was, at all relevant times, responsible for the custody, ensuring the safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation of female prisoners at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton. Defendant Yukins was also, at all relevant times, responsible for ensuring that the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff
-11-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 12 of 50
misconduct and treatment of victims of custodial sexual abuse. Defendant Yukins is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
25. Defendant Sally Langley was at all relevant times the Warden ofthe Florence Crane Correctional Facility and Camp Branch, located in Coldwater, Michigan, and responsible for overseeing its operation for female prisoners. Defendant Langley, during the time she was the Warden ofthe Florence Crane Correctional Facility and Camp Branch, was responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation of correctional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at the Florence Crane Correctional Facility and Camp Branch. Defendant Langley was, at all relevant times, responsible for the custody, ensuring the safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation offemale prisoners at the Florence Crane Correctional Facility and Camp Branch. Defendant Langley was also, at all relevant times, responsible for ensuring that the Florence Crane Correctional Facility and Camp Branch were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff misconduct and treatment of victims of custodial sexual abuse. Defendant Langley is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
26. Defendant Thomas DeSantis was, at all times relevant to this action, the Site Supervisor of Camp Brighton, and in that capacity, responsible for the onsite training, assignment and supervision of correctional officers and staff at Camp Brighton. Defendant DeSantis was responsible for the safety, custody and protection offemale prisoners at Camp Brighton and for ensuring tl1e implementation of all rules, policies and procedures.
-12-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 13 of 50

Defendant DeSantis is being sued individually and in his official capacity.

27.

Defendant Willis Chapman was, until August of 2004 and at all times relevant

to this action, an Assistant Deputy Warden at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility,

responsible for the custody and security in the housing units, assignment and supervision of staffand investigations of staff misconduct. He is being sued individually and in his official

capacity. 28. Defendant Jerry Howell was, at all times relevant to this action, the Supervisor
of the SAT Boot Camp, and in that capacity, responsible for the onsite training, assignment and supervision of correctional officers and staff at the SAl Boot Camp. Defendant Howell was responsible for the safety, custody and protection of female prisoners at the SAl Boot Camp and for ensuring file implementation of all rules, policies and procedures. Defendant

Howell is being sued individually and in his official capacity.
29. Defendants Firas Awad, Jody Nunn, Carlton Carter, Rodney Madden, William

Merrow, Crosby Talley and Kirk Tollzein were, at all times relevant to fuis action, employed as correctional onlcers by the Michigan Department ofCorrections and assigned to supervise

female prisoners. 30. Defendant Art Lancaster, was at all times relevant to this action employed by
the Michigan Department of Corrections and assigned to work with female prisoners.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 31. Defendant supervisors and wardens assigned male officers and staff to supervise female prisoners at all facilities housing female prisoners without providing adequate training, oversight or mechanisms to ensure the safety a11d protection of female
-13-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 14 of 50
prisoners including Plaintiffs. 32. Defendants, without adequate procedures, training or supervision, assigned
male officers and staff to supervise women prisoners, including Plaintiffs while in states of undress and performing basic bodily functions and required male staff to perform random and specific body searches of female prisoners including Plaintiffs which searches included male staff touching female breasts and genital areas.
33. Defendants assigned male officers to transport women prisoners including Plaintiffs to facilities, clinics and hospitals without ensuring the privacy and safety offemale prisoners in states of undress and during intimate medical procedures.
34. Female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, were and are routinely subjected to offensive sex-based language, sexual harassment, offensive touching and requests for sexual acts and degrading treatment by male staff at all facilities housing women prisoners.
35. There is a pattern and practice of male officers and male staff sexually assaulting women prisoners, including Plaintiffs, under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department ofConections, in contravention of law and policy.
36. There is a pattern and practice of male officers requesting sexual acts from women prisoners, including Plaintiffs, under the jurisdiction ofthe Michigan Department of Corrections as a condition of retaining good time credits, work details, educational and rehabilitative program opportunities, among other rights, privileges and benefits.
37. Plaintiffs have been subjected to intimidation, threats and retaliation upon refusal to participate in sexual activity with male staff, for reporting male staff sexual misconduct and as a mechanism to force and coerce women to remain silent about sexual
-14-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 15 of 50

misconduct of male staff in Michigan's women's facilities.

38.

Defendants were aware, from reports by women prisoners, reports and findings

of state and federal commissions, independent investigative agencies and human rights

organizations, that there existed an endemic problem of custodial sexual abuse of female

prisoners in Michigan prisons as a result of Defendants' policies, procedures, acts and

omissions.

39.

The level of sexual abuse and degrading treatment of women prisoners by male

employees from 2000 to the present was described as rampant by the United States Court of

Appeals in its ruling in Everson v. Michigan Dep 't ofCorrections, 391 F 3d 737 (6'h Cir

2004). The Defendants and each of them were or should have been aware of the pervasive

risk of sexual assault and abuse by male staff on Plaintiffs. 40. Defendants were aware of prior complaints by female prisoners against male
staff, including Detendnnts, for sexual assaults, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and

invasion ofprivacy including knowledge ofthe prosecutions ofmale stafffor sexual assaults on female prisoners. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to take adequate steps to remedy the situation and/or deter such sexual misconduct against female prisoners and these Plaintiffs in particular including failure to properly train, assign, supervise, investigate and

disdpline. 41. Despite their knowledge of prior sexual assaults, misconduct, harassment and
violation of privacy, Defendants failed to implement an effective mechanism to identify, investigate and prevent the widespread sexual, emotional and physical abuse and discriminatory treatment of women prisoners, including Plaintiffs.
-15-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 16 of 50

Defendants knew or should have known that as a result of their acts and

omissions there was a strong likelihood of further sexual misconduct and/or great bodily

harm and injury to female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, by male staff of the MDOC.

43. Defendants' acts and omissions created a hostile environment and pervasive

risk of harm to female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, and Defendants knew or should have

known of the undue threats to Plaintiffs which have resulted from placing inadequately

trained or supervised male staffon duty in areas where female prisoners, including Plaintiffs,

are subjected to sexual misconduct and violation of their privacy rights.

44.

Defendants in supervisory positions exhibited reckless disregard and deliberate

indifference to the sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, assaults, degrading treatment and

violations of the basic privacy rights of Plaintiffs by failing to take adequate steps to deter

violations of Plaintiffs' rights, including hut not limited to: failing to adequately investigate

allegations of sexual assaults, harassment and degrading treatment of female prisoners,

tailing to provide adequate supervision of staff, failing to adequately discipline staff who

violated Plaintiffs' rights and/or failing to adequately train and screen their stan: including

investigators and supervisory staff.

45. Defendants failed to adequately screen employees prior to assignment to a

women's facility and failed to provide adequate training to staff, investigators and

supervisors, on issues of cross-gender supervision, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment,

reporting violations of work rules, privacy rights of women prisoners, despite their

knowledge of incidents of sexual misconduct and incidents of sexual activity between male

staff and women prisoners.

-16-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 17 of 50

Defendants' acts and omissions regarding screening, training, supervision,

investigation, discipline ofstaffandfailurcs to protect women prisoners, including Plaintiffs,

from retaliation, permitted, encouraged and ratified the discriminatory and sexually abusive

and degrading treatment ofPlaintitTs.

47. The management and supervisory practices, rules, procedures and acts of the

Defendants were so deficient in their failure to limit the risks of sexual misconduct by male

staffon female prisoners as to constitute deliberate indifference to the safety needs of female

prisoners under their jurisdiction, including Plaintiffs.

48. The management and supervisory practices, rules, procedures and acts of the

Defendants were so deficient in their failure to limit the risks and incidents of sexual

misconduct by male staffon female prisoners as to constitute encouragement and aid to male

staffwho violated female prisoners', including Plaintiffs', rights to be free of sexual assault,

harassment, degrading treatment and privacy violations.

49. Defendants, by thci r actions, aided and abetted the sexual assaults, sexual

harassment, degrading treatment and retaliation against female prisoners, including Plaintiffs,

by giving assistance and encouragement to other Defendants who engaged in discriminatory

and unlawful conduct, either affirmatively or by failing to report, investigate and discipline

staff.

50.

Defendants placed and housed women prisoners in facilities including Western

Wayne Correctional Facility, Huron Valley Women's Complex, Camp Brighton and SAl

Boot Camp, without taking adequate steps to enstlrc Plaintiffs' privacy, protect Plaintiffs

from risk of custodial sexual abuse, and without adequate staff supervision and/or -17-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 18 of 50

mechanisms for reporting abuse. 51. Defendants failed to identify, screen, treat or protect Plaintiffs with prior

histories of abuse, rendering them particularly vulnerable to harm by male staff and failed

to take adequate steps to identify, house, treat and protect Plaintiffs from further hmm and

exacerbation of their injuries.

52.

Defendants' placement of girls, including Plaintiffs under the age of 18 in areas

where they were supervised by male staff and subjected to viewing in states of undress and while performing basic bodily functions without taking adequate steps to protect them from

harm, constitutes deliberate indifference and reckless disregard oftheir safety and rights and

rendered them particularly vulnerable to harm by male staff.

53.

The failures, acts, and/or omissions of Defendants, as set forth above, were and

are a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries.

54.

The deprivation of constitutional rights alleged in this complaint are the direct

result of official policies, custom and practices of Defendants and each of them.

EXHAUSTION OF ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 55. Plaintiffs have exhausted all 'available' administrative remedies, or alternately,

have taken all available steps to bring these matters to Defendants' attention and seek

resolution prior to filing litigation. 56. The Michigan Department ofCorrections, and Defendants do not allow female
prisoners, including Plaintiffs, claiming statT sexual misconduct to exhaust their administrative remedies through the grievance procedure and do not provide an alternative

administrative mechanism.

-18-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 19 of 50
Plaintiffs were and are routinely discouraged from use ofthe grievance system by threats and intimidation by staff, including Defendants, procedural barriers created by Defendants and Defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs are provided grievance forms, Defendants' refusal to process grievances, and/or Defendants' failure to ensure responses to grievances, rendering any administrative process for Plaintiffs unavailable or futile.
58. In addition to the above noted barriers, at all relevant times Plaintiffs were advised that a precondition to filing a grievance was consultation with the individual who was being grieved. Since complying with this requirement, in the context of Plaintiffs grieving staff criminal sexual conduct and staff abuse, would place Plaintiffs in danger, Defendants' requirement rendered the grievance system unavailable to Plaintiffs.
59. Plaintiffs' prior class action complaints, including Neal, et at. v MDOC, eta/., File No. 96-6986-CZ and Anderson. et al. v MDOC, et aL, File No. 03-162-MZ, have adequately advised Defendants, and each of them, of the existence of pervasive custodial sexual misconduct in Michigan's women prisons, staff sexual assaults, privacy violations, degrading treatment and retaliation, to allow Defendants the opportunity to take remedial actions prior to Plaintiffs filing this action.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF'S FACTS Natheauleen Mason
60. During her incarceration Plaintiff Nathcauleen Mason was routinely subj ccted to sexually degrading comments and privacy violations by male staff including the officers assigned to her housing unit at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan.
-19-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 20 of 50
Beginning in July 2002 Plaintiff Mason was forced to perform oral sex on Defendant Carlton Carter, a correctional officer employed by the MDOC and assigned to supervise her housing unit on the second shift at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
62. Defendant Carter entered Plaintiff Mason's prison cell on at least three occasions between July and October, 2002, and threatened, coerced and forced Plaintiff Mason to perform oral sex. Defendant Carter also physically assaulted Plaintiff Mason and subjected her to sexually degrading treatment on multiple occasions.
63. Defendant Carter, with the cooperation of other staff, including Defendant Madden, subjected Plaintiff Mason to ongoing sexual assaults, harassment and degrading treatment in such a manner that supervisory Defendants knew or should have known of the assaults.
64. Defendant Carter repeatedly threatened Plaintiff Mason physically and intimidated her with threats of future harm should she resist or report his assaults and criminal behavior.
65. Defendants failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff Mason's complaints against Defe11dant Carter and by such actions both ratified the actions of Defendant Carter and endangered the safety of other Plaintiffs including Plaintiffs Yolanda Linm1itt and Davone Wilson.
66. Plaintiff Mason was transferred to Camp Brighton located in Livingston County where she became the target for sexual assaults and degrading treatment by another male correctional officer, Defendant William Merrow, beginning in the fall of 2003.
67. Defendant Merrow began soliciting sex from Plaintiff Mason, touching her -20-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 21 of 50

breasts and pressing his body against her on multiple occasions. Defendant Merrow routinely sexually harassed PlaintiffMason by telling her what sexual acts he intended to do with her, using sexually offensive language and threatening her with physical harm if she reported his

actions. 68.

Defendant Merrow attempted to prevent Plaintiff Mason's parole by writing

her false misconduct reports and his actions continued until Plaintiff Mason was released

from MDOC custody.

69.

Defendants failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff Mason's reports of abuse,

failed to adequately supervise, discipline or take steps to prevent ongoing assaults against

Plaintiff Mason. 70. While at Camp Brighton, PlaintiffMason was subjected to retaliation by staff

for rcpotiing sexual abuse by male staff and continues to fear retaliation while she remains

under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections. 71. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of statT sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm

to Plaintiff Mason.

YOLANDA LlMMITT
72. In 2002, Plaintiff Yolanda Limmitt was a plisoner housed at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan, and was supervised in her housing unit by Defendant Carlton Carter on the second shift.
-21-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 22 of 50
73. At the time PlaintiffLimmitt was supervised by Defendant Carter, Defendants Stovall, Chapman and Zang were aware of prior allegations of sexual assaults and sexually degrading treatment of female prisoners by Defendant Carlton Carter at the Western Wayne Correctional Fac.ility and had failed to adequately investigate, discipline, supervise or assign Defendant Carter subsequent to these reports.
74. On or about September 2002 Defendant Carlton Carter began sexually assaulting PlaintiffLimmitt in her cell, a tool room and in other areas at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
75. Defendant Carter's sexual assaults included forced oral sex and genital touching <md forced sexual exposure. In addition to the sexual assaults, abuse and degrading treatment, Defendant Carter kept Plaintiff Limmitt from reporting with a combination of coercion, threats, intimidation and mental abuse.
76. Defendant Carter's sexual harassment and sexual abuse ofPlait1tiffLimmitt occurred with the knowledge and cooperation of other male officers, including Defendant Madden, who allowed Defendant Carter to remove Plaintiff Limmitt from her unit for purposes of sexually assaulting her and/or was aware that Defendant Carter was entering Plaintiff Limmitt's cell for purposes of sexually assaulting and degrading treatment and failed to take any steps to report or stop Defendant Carlton Carter's actions.
77. The actions of Defendant Curter were so open and obvious as to make Defendants aware ofthe sexual assaults and misconduct ofthe officer. However, Defendants failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff Lim mitt.
78. Defendant Carlton Carter continued to sexually assault and/or sexually harass
-22-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 23 of 50
PlaintiffLimmitt up to and including the fall of2003.
79. Defendants were or should have been aware that PlaintiffLimmitt has a prior
history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable attd they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
80. PlaintiffLimmitt was fearful of reporting Defendant Carlton Carter until she was transferred from the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. PlaintiffLimmitt reported on or about October, 2003, while incarcerated at Camp Brighto11, where she was then subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees.
81. Defendants Stovall, Chapman, Caruso and Zang failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff Limmitt's reports of abuse and failed to adequately discipline or supervise Dcfendartt Carter. Defendant Carter continued to sexually assault and abuse Plaintiffs at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility until his transfer to the Huron Valley Women's Complex.
82. Upon Defendant Carter's transfer to the Huron Valley Women's Complex,
Defendants Davis, Zang and Caruso failed to properly train, assign, supervise or discipline this Defendant. Defendant Carter again sexually assaulted and sexually harassed female prisoners at the Huron Valley Women's Complex until his transfer to a men's facility in 2005.
83. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual n1isconduct were proximate causes of the ham1
-23-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 24 of 50
to Plaintiff Limmitt.
DAVONE WILSON
84. Plaintiff Davone Wilson was twenty years old when she was incarcerated in the Huron Valley Women's Complex in August of2004.
85. Shortly after PlaintiffWilson arrived, Defendant Carlton Carter began to stalk her, exposing himself and groping her breasts and buttocks on multiple occasions.
86. Defendant Carter was assigned to supervise Plaintiff Wilson's unit and used his position to view her in states of undress, while showering, and to force physical contact and make sexually based comments and threats.
87. Plaintiff Wilson attempted to report Defendant Carter's acts and threats on multiple occasions both verbally and in writing requesting to talk to her counselor who failed and refused to speak to her.
88. PlaintiffWilson was made aware that Defendant Carter assaulted other women prisoners and that no discipline or other actions were taken as a result of those assaults.
89. On or about February, 2002 Defendant Carter entered Plaintiff Wilson's cell after she had showered, exposed his penis and threatened her with a major misconduct ticket he claimed could cancel her pending parole and keep her in prison unless she performed oral sex. Defendant Carter then forced Plaintiff Wilson to perform oral sex on him in her cell.
90. Plaintiff Wilson was released on parole on or about July, 2005 and continues to fear retaliation while she remains under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Depatiment of Corrections.
91. Defendants' system and practices for reporting abuse, Defendants' failure to
-24-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 25 of 50
adequately supervise, discipline and investigate Defendant Carter and Defendants' policies and procedures with regard to cross-gender supervision were a proximate cause ofPlaintiffs' assault and abuse.
RENEE WILJ,JAMS
92. Plaintiff Renee Williams was placed under the jurisdiction of the MDOC in 1999 and housed at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and then Camp Branch.
93. ln 2000, Plaintiff Williams was transferred to Western Wayne Correctional Facility where multiple male officers began making sexual comments to PlaintiffWilliams and telling her they were going to have a lot of fun with her at that facility.
94. Plaintiff Williams was subjected to routine privacy violations, sexual harassment and touching. In the Fall of2002, Plaintiff Williams was sexually assaulted by a male correctional officer, Defendant Madden. The sexual assaults included vaginal intercourse and forced ora1sex.
95. The sexual assaults and rapes occurred in Plaintitl'Williams' cell, a closet in the prison, the staff bathroom, a porter's closet and a counselor's office.
96. The sexual abuseofPlaintiffWilliams was so open and obvious that Defendant Supervisors were or should have been aware of Defendant Madden's criminal actions yet took no steps to prevent further assaults and abuse.
97. The assaults and abuse occurred with the cooperation and/or knowledge of other staff and officers who failed to rcpo1i or intervene.
98. Defendants' failure to take any actions in light of the open and obvious abuse together with Defendant Madden's tlrreats of retaliation and Plaintiffs' experience with
-25-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 26 of 50
retaliation by staff made any reporting futile and/or dangerous. 99. Defendants knew or should have known of Plaintiff Williams' experience of
childhood sexual abuse and her vulnerability to any coercive sex and/or sexual abuse by male staff. Defendants failed to take adequate steps to protect or treat Plaintiff Williams.
100. PlaintiffWilliams has also been the recipient ofother acts ofsexual harassment by male staffincluding a male correctional officer who watched PlaintiffWilliams while she was naked and made lewd sexual comments to her. In the food service area attd ott her unit, a male correctional officer looked over her door cover to view her in a state of undress. A male correctional officer grabbed his penis and toldPlaintiffWilliams he wanted to perform sexual acts.
I01. The custodial sexual abuse ofPlaintiffWilliams ended when she was paroled. PlaintiffWilliams continues to fear retaliation while under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
102. Defendants' continued failure to take adequate steps to deter the assaultive behavior of Defendant Madden and protect Plaintiffs, including inadequate investigations, assignments, reporting mechanisms, supervision and discipline, resulted in Defendant Madden continuing to assault women prisoners the Huron Valley Women's Complex.
103. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff ' '
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from repo1iing; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Willian1s.
-26-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 27 of 50
VEJNET FARLEY-JOHNSON
104. In 2001, Plaintiff Velvet Farley-Johnson was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
105. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson had previously been subjected to sexually degrading treatment, sexual touching by male staff and routine viewing and sexual comments by male staff of the MDOC.
106. Tn the surmner of2001 PlaintiffFarley-Johnson was approached for sex by the assistant deputy warden, Defendant Williams Chapman, at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
107. Defendant Chapman used his position as assistant deputy warden to order Defendant Farley-Johnson to work in his office.
108. PlaintiffFarley-Johnson's job detail in the prison was recreation aide assigned to the same building as Defendant Chapman. Defendant Chapman ordered that Plaintiff Farley-Johnson be assigned to paint his office and, at this time, while in his office, began to touch Plaintiff Farley-Johnson sexually.
109. Defendant Chapman ordered PlaintiffFarley-Johnson into an empty office and on three occasiotlS sexually assaulted and raped PlaintiffFarley-Johnson by bending her over and penetrating her vaginally.
110. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson was subjected to retaliation by employees of the MDOC for reporting assaults and continues to fear retaliatory acts by Defendants while she is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
111. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
-27-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 28 of 50
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Farley-Johnson.
TAMMY LACROSS
112. PlaintiffTmnmy Lacross was seventeen years old when she was placed in an adult prison and subjected to supervision by male correctional officers who routinely touched her while performing body searches, viewed her while nude in showers and while dressing and undressing.
113. Shortly after her arrival at the Scott Correctional Facility, Plaintiff LaCross was, on a weekly basis, subjected to sexual overtures from male corrections officers, forced physical contact and sexually degrading language. Plaintiff LaCross was also made aware of sexual contact between female prisoners and male staff that was open and obvious and went undisciplined.
114. Plaintiff LaCross was also aware of incidents of retaliation against female prisoners who resisted or reported assaults by male staff.
115. In 2000, PlaintiffLaCross was transferred to the Western Wayne Correctional Facility which had recently been converted to a female prison.
116. Defendant Willis Chapman was the Assistant Deputy Warden (ADW) for Custody and Housing at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility and acted as an investigator of complaints of staff misconduct. Within five (5) months of women arriving at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, ADW Chapman began sexually assaulting at
-28-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 29 of 50
least two female prisoners, including Plaintiff Farley-Johnson. By May of2001, he began sexually harassing Plaintiff Tammy LaCross.
117. Defendant Chapman's behavior was open and obvious to any supervisor concerned with ensuring the safety of female prisoners.
118. By July of 2001, Defendant Chapman had coerced Plaintiff LaCross into a sexual relationship with forced intercourse and touching on a weekly basis. These sexual assaults and coerced sex took place in multiple areas of the Western Wayne Correctional Facility and, including instances when Defendant Chapman ordered Plaintiff LaCross be brought to his assistant deputy warden's office, the school building and other offices and closets for purposes of the coerced sex and assaults.
119. The physical assaults and coercive sex by Defendant Chapman against Plaintiff LaCross resulted in physical injury to PlaintiffLaCross, including but not limited to multiple bruises, scrapes and lacerations. In addition to the sexual assaults and abuse, Defendant Chapman mentally abused Plaintiff LaCross and kept her from reporting the abuse with a combination of threats and mental abuse.
120. In June 2001, several employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections reported the sexual misconduct of Assistant Deputy Warden Chapman and his violatio11S of facility rules, policies and procedures.
121. Defendant Stovall specifically directed that Defendant Chapman not be placed on any restrictions. As a result, Defendant Chapman could and did intimidate and threaten PlaintiffLaCross to prevent her cooperating with any investigation or reporting the assa\ilts. Further, Defendant Stovall did not reassign Defendant Chapman, did not report the alleged
-29-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 30 of 50
criminal activity to the Michigan State Police, did not adequately investigate the allegations and placed no restrictions on Defendant Chapman.
122. Defendant Chapman continued to sexually assault, degrade and intentionally int1ict emotional distress on PlaintiffLaCross on a weekly basis, including acts ofpcnetrative intercourse, forced oral sex, viewing Plaintiff LaCross in various states of undress and degrading treatment through 2003.
123. Defendant Chapman was not removed from his position until August, 2003. 124. Plaintift'LaCross was subjected to acts of retaliation by MDOC employees at both Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton, located in Livingston County, Michigan until her release. 125. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the ham1 to Plaintiff LaCross.
l<ANDICE HALL
126. PlaintiffKandicc Hall was incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Complex in March of2005, when a male correctional officer on the midnight shift ordered her out of her cell and into another room of the housing unit.
127. The officer, Defendant Jody Nunn, then sexually assaulted Plaintiff Hall by grabbing her breasts and buttocks, digitally penetrating her and raping her from behind.
128. On the same date and time, Defendant Nunn forcibly removed PlaintiffHall's -30-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 31 of 50
clothes, pushed her down and attempted forced oral sex. 129. Defendant Nunn then threatened PlaintiffHall against reporting, said he knew
where her family lived and reminded her that his wife was also an officer in the facility. 130. When Plaintiff Hall did report the assaults to prevent further abuse, she was
retaliated against by staff, including Defendant Nunn, for reporting. I 31. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the ham1 to Plaintiff Hall.
.EBONY.BATES
132. In April of2005, Plaintiff Ebony Bates was incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Facility when she was assaulted by a male correctional officer, Defendant Jody Nunn, while he worked the second shift supervising her .in temporary segregation.
133. Defendant Nunn routinely sexually harassed PlaintiffBates by requesting she expose herself to him and using sexually offensive language.
134. Defendant Nunn ordered Plaintiff Bates to pull down her prison jumpsuit so he could view her. Defendant Nunn groped Plaintiffs genital area and made sexually offensive and degrading statements to her.
135. Plaintiff Bates reported the assault and has been subjected to retaliatory acts by Defendant Nunn, his wife and other staff since reporting.
136. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
-31-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 32 of 50
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Bates.
CHRISTINA SCHUSTKR
137. Defendants knew of should have known that Plaintiff Christina Schuster was the victim of sexual and physical abuse throughout her adolescence, but failed to take any steps to protect her from further abuse.
138. While incarcerated in the Western Wayne CotTectional Facility, Plaintiff Schuster was coerced into sex with a resident unit officer, Defendant Dallas Mesack.
139. Defendant Mesack routinely sexuallyharassed PlaintiffSchu8terby requesting she expose herself to him and by using sexually offensive language.
140. Defendant Mesack entered Plaintiff Schuster's cell at night, ordered her cell mate to face the wall and ordered Plaintiffto engage in acts oforal sex on multiple occasions during the Spring and Summer of 2003.
141. Plaintiff Schuster was subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees after reporting the sexual assaults.
142. The actions of Defendant Mesack were open and obvious. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Schuster.
-32-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 33 of 50
DYANNA McDADE 143. PlaintiffDyannaMcDade was 21 years old when she was placed in the Robert Scott Correctional Facility in 2002. 144. Beginning in the Spring of 2004, Defendant Crosby Talley, who is a corrections officer at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, began sexually harassing Plaintiff McDade by using sexually degrading language aimed at her. 145. During the same time period, Defendant Talley sexually touched, pruriently viewed and leered at Plaintiff McDade. 146. On or about September, 2004 Defendant Talley coerced Plaintitl'McDade into a restroom at the MST factory and followed her into the restroom, blocking her exit 147. Plaintiff McDade attempted to resist and, on the day itt question, Defendant Talley raped Plaintiff McDade and threatened her against reporting the assault. 148. PlaintiffMeDade was fearful to report the assault in light ofher knowledge of the lack of adequate investigation, lack of discipline and incidents of retaliation against women who reported such assaults. 149. On November 20, 2004, fearful that the assaults would continue, Plaintiff McDade did report this penetrative sexual assault, to Lieutenant Hockcnhull, a member of the supervisory staff at Scott Correctional Facility. !50. MDOC's Internal Affairs' investigation into the sexual assault was .inadequate and inconclusive. 151. On two occasions previous to this incident, Defendant Talley had been reported for sexually assaulting female prisoners.
-33-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 34 of 50
152. Despite repeated reports of sexual assaults on female prisoners, Defendant Supervisors, including Defendants Yukins, Stovall, Zang and Caruso, have allowed Defendant Talley to remain employed by the MDOC with full access to female prisoners including working in the housing units.
153. Defendants were aware or should have been aware that PlaintiffMcDade has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. The subsequent assault exacerbated PlaintiffMcDade's prior condition.
154. Defendants', including Defendants Yukins and Stovall, failure to adequately supervise the staff at Robert Scott Correctional Facility resulted in retaliatory actions being taken against Plaintiff McDade in the form ofloss of detail, time in segregation and m~uor misconduct tickets.
155. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff McDade.
HELISHA BAILEY
156. In 2003, Plaintiff Helisha Bailey was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility where she was assaulted by two male correctional officers.
157. On or about January 2003, Defendant Firas Awad ordered PlaintiffBailey into a closet and grabbed her breast and groped her vaginal area. Later that day, Defendant Awad
-34-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 35 of 50
again forced Plaintiff Bailey into a closet and grabbed her breasts and forced her hand onto his penis. On the same date, later in the evening, Defendant Awad ordered Plaintiff Bailey to come out of her cell. Plaintiff Bailey left her cell and walked to the officer's station. At that time, Defendants Carter and Madden sent her into the laundry room where Defendant Awad forced Plaintiff to perform oral sex and digitally penetrated and raped her.
158. Defendant Awad threatened Plaintiff Bailey, with future sexual assaults and punishment.
159. On or about March 2003, Defendant Kirk Tollzein began making sexual comments to Plaintiff Bailey <md in April2003 grabbed her breasts on several occasions.
160. On multiple occasions Defendant Tollzein entered PlaintiffBailey's cell on the second shift and forced her to expose her body to him, grabbed her breasts and digitally penetrated her.
161. Defendant Tollzien threatened Plaintiff Bailey against reporting the repeated sexual assaults.
162. Defendant Tollzein's and Defendant Awad's actions were open and obvious and the assaults occurred with the cooperation and assistance of other staff including Defendants Madden and Carter.
163. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Bailey.
-35-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 36 of 50

JILL FLANDERS
164. PlaintiffJill Flanders was repeatedly sexually harassed and sexually assaulted
by Defendant Arthur Lancaster, a school teacher at Camp Branch in Branch County, Michigan, while she worked as a tutor in the school under Lancaster's supervision from

November 1999 through July 2000. 165. The assaults were open and obvious to MDOC staff who failed to take
adequate steps to investigate or discipline Defendant Lancaster and failed to assist or protect

Plaintiff Flanders. 166. The assaults did not stop until Defendant Lancaster was allowed to resign in
lieu ofany investigation or discipline. Defendant Lancaster continued to harass, threaten and stalk Plaintiff Flanders while she was on parole, impairing her rehabilitation and interfering

with her parole status. 167. The Defendants' policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff
without adequate training or supervision; Defendants' policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants' policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm

to Plaintiff Flanders.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

168. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of all women prisoners similarly situated who, since March of 2000, have been, are now or will be hereafter incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections correctional system. Plaintiffs seek class action status pursuantto the provisiotlS of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
-36-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 37 of 50
23(a) and (b). 169. The number of female prisoners who have alleged they have been subjected
to custodial sexual abuse while under the jurisdiction of the MDOC since March of2000, exceeds two hundred women. Class action status is the most practical method for Plaintiffs to challenge the policies, procedures and practices of the MDOC which are a proximate cause of the ongoing custodial sexual misconduct in Michigan's women prisons.
170. There are common questions of law and fact in the action that relate to and effect the rights of each member of the class. The Plaintiffs as women prisoners have all been subjected to Defendants' policies, procedures and failures to provide for proper screening, training and supervision of male staff at the varim1s facilities where they have been housed. The policies and procedures with regard to reporting, investigating and disciplining of custodial sexual misconduct apply to all facilities and Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief and damages for themselves and class members for the injuries caused by Defendants' acts and omissions.
171. The claims of Plaintit1's who are representatives of the class herein arc typical of the claims of the class of women prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections that are subjeyted to custodial sexual misconduct and degrading treatment by male employees ofthe Michigan Department ofCorrections, while incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the MDOC.
172. All women prisoners have been subjected to Defendants' assignment of male staffto unsupervised positions in women's housing units, all women have been housed under the inadequate policies and procedures for training, assignment, supervision, investigation
-37-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 38 of 50
and discipline of its male employees assigned to Michigan women's prisons. All have been
deterred from reporting by Defendants' inadequate and unusable policies. As a result, all
Plaintiffs have been incarcerated in a hostile and unsafe sexual environment which has
resulted in a pervasive risk of hann to their safety.
173. The named Plaintiffs are the representative parties of the class, and are able to
and wiJI fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The attorneys for Plaintiffs
are experienced and capable litigants in the field ofcivil rights and prison litigation and have
successfully represented claimants in other litigation of this nature.
174. The class consists of all fmmer, current and future female prisoners under the
jurisdiction of the MDOC who suffered and who will suffer damages and injuries as a result
of sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment, violation of their privacy and
retaliation for reporting same, and deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights to
fully and equally utilize prison programs and facilities and who seek injunctive and remedial
relief.
175. This action meets the requirements ofF.R.C.P. 23(a) and (b) because:
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions oflaw or fact common to the class, the claims ofthe representative parties are typical of the claims of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
B. Additionally, the prosecution ofseparate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk ofinconsistent or varying adjudications or adjudications with respect to individual members of the class where as a practical matter it would be dispositive ofthe interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
-38-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 39 of 50

class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory reliefwith respect to the class as a whole; or the court finds that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
176. Further, Plaintiffs constitute a sub-class of a previously certified class action
in the state action of Neal, et al. v MDOC, et al., No. 96-6986-CZ, who are prevented from
pursuing their claims for violations of their statutory rights under the state civil rights act.
Accordingly, this action meets all the requirements for a class action under F.R.C.P.

23(a) and F.R.C.P. 23(b)(l), (2) or (3).

CAUSES OF ACTION .FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

177.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 176 as if set forth fully

herein. 178. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual assaults, harassment,
degrading treatment and privacy violations by Defendants and employees ofMDOC upon the Plaintiffs, constitutes an official policy, custom, pattem or practice that has deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to bodily integrity and right to privacy without due process oflaw in violation ofthe Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. 179. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male officers and subjection of Plaintiffs to
unnecessary viewing and touching by male officers violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States

-39·

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 40 of 50
Constitution, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated prisoners ofthe equal protection oflaws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male officers and subjection of Plaintiffs to verbal and physical sexual harassment and unnecessary viewing and touching by male officers also violate the customary international law norm prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
180. The deprivation of constitutional rights alleged in this complaint are the direct result of official policy, custom and practices of Defendants and each of them.
181. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male officers, subjecting Plaintiffs to unnecessary viewing and touching by male staff and the sexual assaults and degrading treatment, deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated female prisoners of the right to humane treatment, the right to privacy, and the right to equal treatment under the law and equal protection against discrimination in violation of customary international law and articles 7, 10, 17 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and articles 1, 2 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(BODILY INTEGRITY)
182. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 181 above as if set forth fully herein.
183. The above described acts constitute unreasonable searches and seizures,
-40-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 41 of 50
deprivations of liberty and invasions of privacy and bodily integrity, without adequate penalogical justification and without due process of law in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT) 184. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 183 above as if set forth fully herein. 185. The above-described acts ofthe Defendants constitute the unnecessary and wanton intliction of pain and suffering and emotional distress on the Plaintiffs, without penalogical justification. 186. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexnal abuse, harassment, degrading treatment and retaliatory acts which Plaintiffs have been and are subjected constitutes deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' medical, psychological and emotional needs and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983, and constitutes cruel and degrading treatment or punishment in derogation of Article 16 ofthe Convention Against Torture a11d Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (EQUAL PROTECTION)
187. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 186 above as if set
forth fully herein. 188. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual abuse, harassment,
degrading treatment, retaliation and ongoing violations of Plaintiffs' privacy violates
-41-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 42 of 50
Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and customary international law standards.
189. Defendants' employment and assignment of male officers and other male employees in the women's prisons, in positions where they commonly observe women in states of undress and pcrfom1ing basic bodily functions and Defendants' failure to remedy the resulta11t sexual assaults and sexual harassment of women prisoners and ratification of the hostile conditions m1d treatment for women prisoners constitutes discrimination based on sex. This inferior treatment is not substantially related to an important and legitimate governmental interest and violates Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the law and 42
u.s.c. §1983.
190. The denial of Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, of the right to equal opportunity for rehabilitation and the subjection ofthe Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to a hostile prison environment constitutes prohibited discrimination based on their sex in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and customary international law standards.
191. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants and each of them were acting under color of Jaw and, in doing so, deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated female prisoners of the equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and under customary international law and articles 2, 3 and 26 ofthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
-42-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 43 of 50
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (RETALIATION AND INTIMIDATION) 192. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 191 above as if set
forth fully herein. 193. Defendants' retal.iation and failure to prevent or remedy retaliation against
Plaintiffs for repmiing staff misconduct c011stitutes a violation of their rights to freedom of speech and association guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DECLARATION THAT THE ELCRA'S MARCH 10, 2000
AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
194. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 193 above as if set
forth fully herein. 195. Prior to March 10, 2000, the facilities, camps and centers housing Plaintiffs
were recognized as a"public service" facility within the meaning of the ELCRA, MCL 37.230l(b). Neal, eta!. v MDOC, eta!, 232 Mich App 730 (1998). (Exhibit 2)
196. On December 20, 1999, the State of Michigan amended the ELCRA's
'' " . '
definition of"public service" by excluding from the definition "a state or county correctional facility with respect to actions and decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment." Michigan Public Act No. 202 of 1999. (Exhibit 1, M.C.L. 37.2301). The amendment took effect on March 10, 2000. The stated purpose of the amendment was to target Plaintiffs who were and are part of a class of prisoners in Neal, et al. v MDOC, eta!., No. 96-6986-CZ (Exhibit 1, Enactment Language).
-43-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 44 of 50
197. The amendment of the ELCRA deprives Plaintiffs, and all those similarlysituated, of equal protection ofthe laws in violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment, because the amendment targeted deprivation ofa single class ofpersons (Michigan female prisoners) for all state statutory protection from unconstitutional discrimination. This deprivation of protection lacks any rational relationship to any legitimate state purpose.
198. The amendment to the ELCRA subsequent to the limitations contained in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, deprives Plaintiffs of an effective remedy or redress for serious deprivations of their rights under customary international law and in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 2, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, article 14.
199. The Amendment to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act is a violation of the federal due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BILL OF ATTAINDER)
200. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 199 above as if set forth fully herein.
201. The amendment to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, precluding Plaintiffs from the protection of the Civil Rights Act and its protection against sexual discrimination in Michigan, constitutes a Bill of Attainder in violation of Article I, §10 of the United States Constitution.
-44-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 45 of 50
202. This amendment punishes Plaintiffs based upon their gender and status as a prisoner.
203. The amendment disqualifies Plaintiffs from the protections of their rights as women, allows for sexual harassment and discriminatory treatment based on their gender without recourse under state laws.
204. The amendment does not serve any purpose ofthe Civil Rights Act but instead its sole purpose is to punish Plaintiffs.
DAMAGES 205. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 204 above as if set forth fully herein. 206. The acts and omissions of Defendants constituting violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory 1md common law rights were and are a proximate cause ofPlaintiffs' damages. 207. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs, individually and as a class, have suffered emotional and physical injuries and damages, loss of freedom and rehabilitation opportunities. 208. The acts and omissions ofDefendants constitute violations ofPlaintiffs' rights and were and are a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' damages. 209. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered the following injuries and damages, among others: physical i11iuries; increased levels and length ofincarceration, loss offreedom and rehabilitation opportunities; loss ofwages and income; loss of educational and training opportunities; severe psychological injuries and damages;
-45-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 46 of 50
and exacerbation of prior medical conditions and injuries.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray tbr ajudgment against the Defendants and each ofthem
and requests that this Court:
a. Issue a declaratory judgment that the policies, practice, acts and omissions complained of herein violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights guaranteed by the specified sections ofthe United States Constitution, statutory law, customary international law and treaties;
b. Certify this case as a class action;
c. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants' practices, acts and omissions complained of herein;
d. Order remedial action to remedy Defendants' unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions and to deter future violations;
e. Issue a declaratory judgment that the amendment to the ELCRA is unconstitutional as violative of Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection and constitutes a bill of attainder, and violates Plaintiffs' rights under customary international law and treaties;
f. Retain jurisdiction over this action until such time as the Court is satisfied that the unlawful policies, practices, rules, acts and omissions complained of herein have been satisfactorily rectified;
g. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs for injuries incurred;
h. Award punitive and exemplary damages;
I. Award Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs;
J· Award such other and further relief as seems just and proper. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
NOW COME Plaintiffs by and through their counsel and hereby demand a trial by
jury as to all those issues so triable as of right.
-46-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 47 of 50

DATED: October 20, 2005

RespectfuAte~~­
D BORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Stc. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 996-5620
RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Sle. 200 Ann Arbor, MI481 04 734.996.5600
MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 769-0077
PATRICIA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs
221 N. Main St., Stc. 300
Ann Arbor, MI 481 04 (734) 222-0088
MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 248.398.9800
RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) RONALD J. REOSTI (Pl9368) DENNIS D. JAMES (P15427) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 248.691.4200

-47-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 48 of 50
J

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 49 of 50

RIGHTS
:n sd~~Ctt:d llfflrmative ke Btl. of W.2J 260,
liscrin1ina .
1"1.1<:ttivt~ ~c­
h lh<~ civil
:~ commis-
)}an. J.F.
-1983) 337
1ffirmat.ive ivi I R. ight:s
on n:verse equal pro·
•n by C:m-
posiLion.<:,
6 N.W.2\i App. 8()(,
Lourl rnlt~
J,Y a pand
<.~.s insubltalso insu-
ivil Kight.s nlld reach
previotts 1999) 606 Mich.App.
.siti(1n sufthat city's pplicant's
ausl.:l, and
N by Su-
:)gctl t..:oilin unsuc-
~rmsitiorl,
sidc::t·ation )Sitiun to
/\ppeals.
J N.W2d
J not b(: 111dards oymenl

E.LLIOlT-LI\RSEN CIVU. RIGHTS ACT

37,2301

ll!storical and Statutory Notes

Sourc...-c:
PA\976, No. 4.1:\, § 211, ElL March 31, 1977.

C.L.I970, 9 37.2211.

Law Review and Journal Cornmentaries

Affirmati.,·e <u.:.:lion ln extremis. Ralph .Smith,

Reducing seniotiLy as a disciplinary Lool.

26 Wayne L.Rev. Ll37 (\ 9~0).

Cad E. Ver Beek, 60 Mich.B.J. .l56 (1981).

Ubr11ry References

Mich Civ Jur, Civil Rights§ 9.
15 Am Jur 2d, Civil Rights § 190.
12 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2tl 49, 'Fhtsines:s Necessity' Justitying Prima Fa.dt: llis{:riminatory Empluyment Practi..:;c.
4 1\m Jur Ptuof nf f<acts 2d 477, RiliU":ial Dis-
.;,~dmination in Employn:ttrH-Post-hi.ring rnu:ti(:cs,

21 Am. Jw' Ttials t, Ernployme.nt Distt'imina·
tion Actiorl Under fr.<ler;:~.l Civil Right..:; At:t'io.
Forms 5 Am Jur Pl & Pr Fonns, Rev. Civil Right.-., Form 6U_
Texts and Ttealiscs Gillespie Mich Crim L & Proc § 1371 (2nd Ed).

Notes of Decisions

In general 1

collective bargaining agn!'em~nt, neutral on its

faLe, mling of liability wa.s pred1.1ded by virtue

I. In genet·al

of ~hi:s :s~:.:c.:tion which respects legitimacy of se~ niority. Jone~ v. Tmck Drivers Local lJnioo

To the extent tlistrkt co1.111 impo!:il!'d liability . No. 299, CA6 (Mioh.)l988, 838 F.2d 8.16, reon union ror bret'lch of duty to n~present fairly hearing denied, ·n:t:.:onsideration denied 873 and adequately by r'~ason of sex di!«.:riminat.ion F.2d 108, ce<'liorari denied 110 S.CL 404, 493 by reason of union's atlhcn:nce to terms of u.~. 964, 107 LEd.2d 370,

ARTJCtF- 3. PuBLIC AccOMMODATIONS AND SnRVtCE~
Caption editorially supplied
37.2301. Definitions
Sec. 30 l. As used in this a1ticle: (a) "Pl«ce of public accommodation" means a business, or an educational,
or rclreslunent, ent.ertain1nent1 n..:Creation1 health, ur transportation faciJity, or
institution any kind, whcth~r licens.ed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extend~d. offered, sold, or otherwise made avai.lable to the public. Pl«ce of public accommodation also includes tlw lc;dlities of the following private clubs:
(i) A cotllltly club or golf cluh. (ii) A boating or yachting club. (iii) A oporl.s or athletic club.
(iv) A dining club, except a dining club that in good faith limits its membership to th~ members of a particular religion for the purpose or furthering the teachings or principles of that religion and not l(>r the purpose of excluding individuals of a particul;.:tr gender. race. or t:olor.
(b) "Public service" means a public facility, department, agency, bo<trd, or commiosion, owned, opcrar.ed, or managed by or on behalf of the state, a
649

' '. ~

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-1 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 50 of 50

37.2301

CIVIL RIGHTS

politicul sulldivision, or an ~•gcncy thereof or· a tax ex<empt private agency established to provide servic<~ to the public, except that public sccvice does not include a state or county eorrcctional facility with respect to actions and dt.:cisions regardinr, ~m. indiviJual serving ~i st::utcnce of i.mprbonn1en!..
Amended by I'.A.l992, No. 70, § L lrud. Eff. May 2Y, 1992; P.A.l999, No. 202, liff.
Mm·d, 10, 2000.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Source: f.A-1976. No. 453, § 301, Elf. Mmch 31,
I ~)17. C.L.IY70, § :~7.2.101.
The 1Y9l :;imr:ndmenl, iu subd. (a), addr~d th(:
I~1:St :se.nten<:e Rnd subd:-.. (a)(i) to (a)(iv).
For Exct~nl.iv~ On.1(.lr No. 1994 . 16, il:'~U£!d May 23, .l~J94, relating to the Michigan Equal Em-
ployment l'lnd Business. Opportunity CoundJ, :>ee tbe Histodcal and StalulU[)' Notes following
§37.1101. For Ex('lc.ut.lv<~ Onh~r No. 1996.. 13, issued Tk~
c~mber 23, I ~N6, and filet! with the Secretary of Slatt~ Decernbe!' 23, l~N6, relating lO the e.stab-
lishme:nt of the Stale Equal Opportunity Workrorc·t: Planning Coundl, S~·:(: the Historical and
.Statutory Note:-. lo!lowin.g § 37, 1101.
P.A.l'l'J'J, No. 202, in sctbd. (b), oddt:d ", cxcept that public !:>lTvit:e docs 110t inc.lud'~ a

st.t\te or ('.mml.y t:ol'rectionr:tl fadHly with rcspec.t to ac-.tions 1-1nd decisions reg:uding au individual :~ci'Ving ~ ~{.~nlente of irnprisonment'': and rnade nonsub.':iU:J.ntivc changr.:s J.hmughout. the
~cdiOJl.
P.i\.1999, No. 202, enacting~ 1, prm1it.les:
"Enacting ~Wt:liun 1. This :-tmem.h.Ltllry ::~.ct [~ t:ut'fttive (lnd intended l'o corrcd auy misinterp!'etation of lc:p;islalive intent in the t:tmrL of appe<tls d~~l:hiilJ~I Neal v lkparlmetJt of Col'nx-
ti<>ns, 2.12 Mich App 7.10\i 998). This i•gisb: iliill "further ex.pre:<>scs lhe origh1:tl inl.cnt. of the
lcl-!,i~bttlre th;:~l an individual S(~rving a scnh~nl'.e of im.prisonm\~nt. i11 a :;tate or r:ounty cont:diunal facility is not. within the purview of thii. at:t''
For' effective dtltt: pmvisions of P.A.1999, No, 202, see. rhe Historit:al aud St.attH.ory Nut.<:s fnl· lowing§ 37.2101.

Law Review and Journal Commentaries

No dngH alluw~t!: Freedom of MsndatiO[l \1, Fr.m;(~d im::lusion anti·diSC.I"il11in:=~.t.lcm sUtttttes
:md their applicability to privRtc org<.mizations.

Kevin Fr::~.n~,.;al'l. 17 T.M. Cuuley L.Re.•,:, .21:~ (2000).

Library References

Civil Rights <1»104.!, II'J.
WESTLAW Topic No. 7R. C.J.S. Civil l<igh" 'i'i II, 18. 23 to 24, 53 t.o
ss.
Mich Civ Jur, Civil Rights,§ 14,

1.1 Am Jur 2d, Civil Rights§§ 28-59.
Forms SA Am Jur '1-"1 & Prac Forms, Rev, Civil Rights. Focms 21 ct. ?>e4.

WESTI.AW Elect•·onic Research
See W~$Tl.AW Elcctmnic Research Guide follt)wing the Prefac.~.

Not-es or Decisions

:::

Publlt acoonmJodatinn 3 P11blic !'tcrvicc- 4

Purpose of law 2

Volidi!y I

nn fr::~.te:rnal organi?.sl.ion's constitutkH1ally pT'O· l.t~t:Lcd l'ights o( associ::~.liml~"tl ff'eedom by n:~ll­
lat.ing ib member:r:;hip policies. or implicate t.:onslilulional l55'1.1\~!!t of intimate and t~xpressivet as~or.::iation, a~ statute did not indka.te that pri-

vate clubs, ap:\rt l"rmn their fac.ilitit:.::s whidt <U't'-

1. Validity Artide of Michigan's Flliot.t.-L:-.~.~·sc-n Ci\'il
Right~ A\:t (i\fELCRA), as anLended to eliminate c~xdusinnal'y and restrklivf' pro'lctkc~; of pr·ivate chtbs, and s~~:r:tion prnvidir~g (IJJ' private cluh exenlption, did r'H"!l unconstitutionally Impinge

statutorily ddincJ as places of public. accorn· modation, arc nM entitled t.o henefit of privat<~ '.~luh t:xemption, and ·where: statute did not utherwi~c !'each m~"''(nh{~r:~hip issues. fknevulent and Prot~c.tivr: Onlcx· of Elks of U.S. v. Reyn-
o(ds, W,D,Mk.h.1994, M63 F.Supp. 529.

650

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 11

ELLJOTT-LARS£N CIVIL RJGIITS ACT

37.2301
Note 4

Anic.le of Michigan's Ellinu-larsE'ln Civil
Rights Act (MHLCRA), as .amcnde.d t.o eliminate exdusion.ary anJ testrktivt.~ practin~s of priv~\te clubs. wao.; not unc.onslitutional, us it vmuld not

it was R tax tX(~mpt 1W11pmfit corporation orga· ni7.(~d to provide volunteer public sdl'Viccs through its. member!>. Rogers v. lntct'll<'ltional Ass'n of Lions CluUs, :E.O.Mich. 1986, 636

requin~ ft•aternal urganiz:.at.il)tt ch~llcnging st.aL-
t\1:(~ w i.\dmit. wumen as rnemb~~rs; language of statute n~quidng d1al "all cl:-tsses of rnembtr-

f.Supp. 1476. Antit.liscrimlnation prmlisions of Civil Right:-.
At:t (CRA). and Persons with Dis;tbilitir.~ Civil

ship" be availah(e: without n:gard to, inter alia,
gL~nder, plainly applied only w individuals who
were ::~!ready me:r:nht~n:; of a given pdvate cluh.

Righls Act (PWDCRA), apply to pr\!;>ons and prison inr:nates. Pot: v. Department of Cnrn:~c. t.imlS (ZOOO) 611 N.W.Zd), 240 Midulpp. IW,

Bcn,:volent and Ptotectiv(~ Otder of Elks ot' U.S. 1'e111;tnded 625 N.W.Zd 750.

v. Reynold,, W.D.Mkh.l994, R63 F.~upp. 529.

Facilities oyenw:d by Mit:higan Dep::u·t.rncnt

2. Purpose of law

u( Con·edions arc place~ of "public service" for purpm.es of provision iH stt1te Civil ,Rights Acl

Mi(chig<.\ll's Elliott-Lars(:n Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination by plac~::;: of puLlk

(MELCRA) amcrldtue.nt was adopted to dimi·· accommodation m· publk servkc on ba-1is of

natc exchtsiorl<.\l'Y r:md l'estrict.ivc practk;es of certain ctittl'!ria. Neal v. Department of Corn~t:.­

JH'iv:.u.t: dubs, such as club!:i which adopted rolc!:i restrit.ting tirttes when !>pouses and chi ldn:~n of

liMs (1998) 592 N.W.Zd 370, 2.l2 Mich.App. 730, spedt'll panel convened, opinion vacawd.

f

rnemb(!TS could \Jsc t:ertain dub facilities, s\u..:h a...c; the golf ~..:ourse. Bt:ncvolent and Proledive Order of Elks of U.S. v. Reynold•, W.D.Mich. 1994, 863 F.Supp. 529.

Corncdiunal facilities were nol place~ of "public service," \mder th(~ Civil :Kights Act, in their d(~alings wit.h prisoners, Neal v. Depati· mont of Correction' (1998) 583 N.W.Zd 249,

3. Public acconunodo11tion

230 Mkh.App. 2·02, on rehearing 592 N.W.2d

State high m.:hool athletic a&5ot:iation failed to 370, 232 Mich.App. 730, >pedal panel conestablifih, as lW~.I.te:t' of law, thc:\t. it. was nut vened, opinion vill.:ated.

public acc.ommmlation or public sct·vicf. ur1der Fm' an ~gmlcy or department t.o fall within

I.

Michigan t:ivil rights law, as law of public a<:~ Lhe scope l)f th(! Civil Rights Act, it must be

1-

commodation '\vas vel'y broad and ~tatutory Jd- established tn provide servke to the public.

initim:t of "pnblit: servic:e" incl\ldcd tax cxetnpt pdvate agelldes establishE':d Lu provide services to public, which descri.ption CO\lld have ;::~.pplied

Neal v. l)cp~trtm(~nl of Corrections (199$) 583
N.W.Zd 249, ::no Mic.h.App. 202, on reheating
592 N.W.Zd 370, Z32 Mic.h.App. 730, sp<'"ial

3

to assoc.iation. Comrntmith.~s for f'.quity v. Michigr-tn High School Athldit Ass'1~.

panel c'mvened, opinlon vacated. To the extent a prisOn open:; its doon to

W.Ll.Micb.l998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1001

visllm'S, ernployees, uffic.i:::.l.s, or other pr.r!ions

Local Lions club was a place of public accmn~ who voluntati.Jy see.k ::u!u\itt;:mct! or to utili7.c

rnn<lation and a public servi.;::c within mcani11p; uf this scL:tion, where its rnt:t:..~lings wl!re held hi a puhlit: plac.e and open to the public and where.

any :-lt!I'ViC(! available tO free: l.:itize:n.s, thOSf. pt::l'" sm'lll may not b(: the S\tbject of any l'm·m of discrimination pl'oscri~d by the Civil Righlt!:l

it was a tax exempt nonprofH. t:m·poration orga- Act. Neal v. Department of Corredions (1998)

il

niz.e.d to pl'ovidc volunte(~T publk servkt:s 5R3 N.W.2d 249, 230 Mich.App. 202, on rehearthrough its m(~mhel's. Rogers v. lnternatiun~'\l ing 592 N.W.2d 370, 2.U Mich.App. 730, special

A~~:n of Lions Clubs, E.D.Mich. ]986, 6.36 pt'lnt::l convened, opinion v~u:ated.

F.~upp. 1476.

Prhmn~rs a.rc not protected atJainst disc:rlmi-

4. Public service

nalion by Lhe Civil Right.!:> Act. Neal v. bepart-

Statc high scho!.ll athletit: assod:tlion failed to me11t uf Corrt::dions (199:5) 583 N.W.2d 249,

estahli:.h, as rnatter of law, that it was 11ot 230 Mi(:h.App, 202, on rehearing 59Z N.W.2d

public acc:onm1odat.ion or public sc,·vice under 370, 232 Mkh./\pp. 730, spec.ial panel con·

o-
u-

Mkhigan dvil rights law, as. law of public. ~tct.(Jlllmodation wa.!:i very broad t'lnd sLatutory def..

venItedw, aospihnciyoon!lvda:<h~:agiteslda.t.ivl~ purpose to provide

te
ire
.·i~

inil.inn of "public sendee" lnduded tax txempt

private agencies to public. which

\CStablished description

tcool.pt!rJovhaidv\e~ saejr-~vpilciee<si

civil righbi action umh!r public accommodation

se.ction of Ci.vH Rights
in daims pn)c.essing:

tAlpcot nf<lirssbure:a~<n"c.eh

uf of

conlt'~tct policy of

re n-

tn ttssodaLion. Cmrununit.ic:.> for Equity v. Mi<".higan High School Athletic Ass'n,

ainrscurnaom:l:oen, gseelr' v"kse~rsviocwesed.b.y.

inSllrer to ins11red m\'\dc avail!:!.ble to

te hnt n-

WmoL.dDo~.ctMailoilc.n.h.i.anln9nsd98ca,lu2pb6uwb'folai's.cStutsp~p~plr.~2vicdcce1o0wf0ip1tu.hhilnit::nwaca.cnoimng-
of this section, where: Hs meetings were held in

the puhlic" gatious of c

obnutrtaicntvinoglvpe.:p~rdtiveas.t.e

Kla'igsh~ta.sb

<v:.utdMlcnhbil.i~-

gun Basi<.: N,W.2J 545,

P4r4o1perMtyi<::hT. n4s,~H,Asresh'n~~,.(l1ri9n9g2d) en4i9e1d

a pLtbhc plact• and open to the pubhc and wlwre 491 N.W.2J 829, 441 Mkh. 1202.

651

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 2 of 11

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 3 of 11

vVestlaw.
592 N.W.2d 370 232 Mith.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370 (Cite as: 232 Midt.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370)

Page 1

Court of Appeals of Michigan. Tracy NEAL, Helen Gibbs, Stacy Barker, Ikemia
Russell, Derth Clark, Linda Nunn, and Jane Doc,on behalf of themselves ami all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Director of Michigan Depattment of Couections, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Carol
Howes, RobtTt Salis, Cornell Howard, Officer Portman, and Officer Robey,
Defcndanls-Appellattts (On Rehearing), and
Officer Tate, Officer Ellison, and Officer Gallagher, Defendants.
DockctNo.l98616.
Subn:rltted Sept. 4, 1997, at Grand Rapids. Decided June 5, 1998, al9:15 a.m.
Subtrrltted on Rehearing Sept 23, 1998. Decided on Rehearing Nov. 24, 1998, at 9:20a.m.
Released for Publication Feb. 23, 1998.
Female prisoners brought class-action suit under state Civil Rights Act, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and individual employees for alleged gender-based discriminatory conduct, sexual harassment, and retaliation. The Washtenaw Cin;uit Court, Timothy P. Connors, J., denied defendants' motion for summary disposition. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed, in par!, and remanded, 230 Mich.App. 202, 5R3 N.W.2d 249. On rehearing, the Court of Appeals, MacKenzie, J., held that: ( 1) facilities operated by Michigan Department of Com:ctions are places of "public service" within meaning of state Civil Rights Act; (2) such facilities do not fall within exemption for private clubs or other establishments not in fact open to the public; (3) different treatment of prisoners on basis of gender is permissible if its
passes constilutional muster; and (4) Circuit Court,
rather than Coul1 of Claims, had subject-matter jurisdiction over present action.
Atlirmcd.
O'Connell, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes

ill Civil Rights €;=1004
78kl 004 Most Cited Cases (Fonncrly 78k102.1, 78k101)
Purpose of state Civil Rights Act is to prevent discrin:rlnation directed against a person because of that person's mcmbcrsltip in a certain class and to eliminate the effects of offensive or demeaning stereotypes, prejudices, and biases. M.C.L.A. §
37.2101 et seq.

ill Civil Rights €=::>1004
78kl004 Most Cited Cases (Follllerly 78k1 02.1)
State Civil Rights Act is remedial and must be liberally construed to effectuate its ends. M.C.L.A. §
~illl.!.et seq.

Ill Civil Rights €;=1090
78k I(190 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78k135)
Facilities operated by Michigan Department of Corrections are places of "public service" for purposes of provision in stale Civil Right• Act prohibiting discrimination by places of public accommodation or public service on basis of certain
criteria. M.C.L.A. § 37.2302Cal

ill Civil Rights €;=1 050
78k1050 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78kl24)

ill Civil Rights 1(:;:;:;:>1090
78k I090 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78kl35)
Michigan Department of Corrections docs not fall within exemption in state Civil Rights Act for private clubs or other establishments not in tact open to the public, even though some of its physical structures are no! fully open to the public. M.CJ .. A. § § 37.2101 et seq., 37.2303.

e=t 1.§1 Civil Rights

044

78k1044 Most Cited Cases

(Fonnerly 78kl19.1)

Provision of Civil Rights Act guaranteeing full and

equal enjoyment of public services is essentially a

codification of State Constitution's Equal Protcc!ion

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2
592 N.W.2d 370
232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370
(Cite as: 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370)

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 4 of 11
Page2

and Antidiscrimination Clauses, broadened to include categories not covered under those clausest such as age, sex, and marital status. M.C.L.A. Const. Art. ], §_l; M.C.L.A. § 37.2302(al.
I!il Constitutional Law ~11 0(1)
92k210(1) Most Cited Ca0Qa
Cnnstitutiorutl equal protection guarantee applies to prisoners. M.C.L.A. Canst. Art. I,§ 2; M.C.LA § 37.2302(a).
!1l Constitutional Law ~0.1(2)
92k70.1(2) Most Cited Cases A court must not judicially legislate by adding into a statute provisions that the Legislatore did not include.
ll!l. Constitutional Law ~208(1)
92k208( I) !Y!.!.!~c!!£\!.l..!!i>liil 11 Discrim.ination,u in c.onstitutional tetm.st refers to baseless and irrational line drawing; when there is a sufficiently important governmental interest and the classification is adequately related to that interest, it does not amount to discrimination to draw legislative lines on the basis of those classifications. M.C.I..A. Cons!. Art. l. § 2.
ill Prisons ~17(1)
310ki7(Jl Most Cited Cases Michigan Department of Corrections may treat prisoners differently on the basis of gender, provided that the gender-based treatment serves important penological interests and is substantially related to achievement of those interests. M.C.L.A. Con~t. Art. L...§...l; M.C.L.A. § 37.2302(al.
J.!Ql Courts €:::>472.1
I06k472. J Most Cit~d Casgs Circuit Court, rather than Court of Claims,' had subject-matter jurisdiction over female prisoners' class-action suit against Michigan Department of Corrections and individual employees for declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with alleged violatiofis of state Civil Rights Act. M.C.T .. A. § § 37.2101 etseq., 37.2801(0, 600.6419!l)(a).
I!!l Courts €;::::;1472,1
I06k472.1 Most Cited Cases Complaint against the state seeking only equitable or declaratory relief must be filed in the Circuit Court.
llll States ~184.2(2)
360kl84.2(2) Most Cited Cases Guards and wardens employed by Michigan Department of Corrections were not "state officers"

who could be sued in the Court of Claims. M.C.l..A.
§ 600.6419(I)(al.
••372 *732 Law Offices of Deborah LaBelle (by
Deborah LaBelle, Richard A. Soble and Molly Reno ), Ann Arbor, Goodman, Eden, Millender & Bedrosian (by Mary P. Minnet )Detroit, and Gail A. Grieger, Livonia, for the plaintiffs.
Frank J Kelley, Attorney GeneraL Thomas L Casey, Solicitor General, and ""'"'-'"'-llil"-"' Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
Bclbrc O'CONNELL, P.J., and MacKENZIE a11d ~c\;.. JJ.
ON R.EHEARlNG
MacKENZIE, J.
Thi.s is a class-action SLtit brought, in relennt part, under the Civil Rlghls Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) el seq., by female prisoners
housed in facilities operated by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). Defendants
are the department, its director, and several wardens, deputy wardens, and corrections officers employed
by the MDOC. Defendants appeal by leave granted from a circuit court order denying their motion for
summary *733 disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), (7), and (8). We affirm.
The case arises out of allegations that male corrections persotmel have systematically engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment of female inmates incarcerated by the MDOC. Specifically, plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the MDOC assigns male ofl'iccrs to the housing units at all women•s facilities without providing any training related to cross. gender supervision; that women are forced to dress, undress, and perform basic hygiene and body functions in the open with male officers observing; that defendants allow male officers to observe during gynecological and other intimate medical care; that defendants require male officers to perform body searches of women prisoners that include pat-downs of their breasts and genital areas; that women prisoners are rontinely subjected to offensive sex· based sexual harassment, offensive touching, and requests for sexual acts by male officers; and that there is a pattern of male officers requesting sexual acts from women prisoners as a conditi.on of retaining good-time credits, work details, and educational and rehabilitative program opportunities. l11e complaint also alleged that the imnates were subject to retaliation for reporting this gender-based

© 2005 Thomsotl!West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2
592 N. W.2d 370 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370 (CUe as: 232 Micb.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370)

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 5 of 11
Page 3

misconduct. Plaintiff., claimed that these actions, and defendants' failure to protect female inmates from this misconduct through adequate training, supervision, investigation, or discipline of MDOC employees, constitute gender-based discriminatory conduct, sexual harassment, and ret<diation in violation of the Civil Rights Act. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief, their initial claim for monetary damages having been ordered dismissed.
"734 I
lll.l£1 TI1e purpose of the Civil Rights Act is to
prevent discrimination directed against a person because of that person's membership in a certain class and to eliminate the effects of offensive or
demeaning stereotypes, prejudices, and biases. Noecker v. Dep't o( Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 43, 46, 512 N.W.2d 44 (1993). The act is remedial and must be liberally construed to etlectuatc its ends. **313Reed v. Michigan Metro Girl Seoul Council. 201 Mich.App. 10, 15,506N.W.2d231 (]993).
Article 3 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and public set·vices. Subsection 302(a) states:
Except where permitted by law, a person sha11 not (a) Deny att individual the full and equal enjoyment uf the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status. (MCL 37.2302(al; MSA 3.548(302)(a) ]. Section 103 of the act, M.C.L. § 37.2103; MSA 3.548(103), declares that sexual harassment is a fom1 of sex discrinrination.
Section 301 defines "place of public accommodation•• and "public servicen as those tem1s arc used in subsection 302(a). It states:
(a) "Place of public accommodation" means a btL~incss, or an educational, refreshment, entertailllllent, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, faciliLiest privileges)
advantages, or accommodations are extended,
offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public .... (b) "Public service" means a public facility, department, agency, board, or commission, owned, operated, or managed *735 by or on behalf of the state, a political division, or an agency thereof, nr a tax exempt private agency established to provide service to the public. [MCL 37.2301; MSA

3.548(301) ].

Finally,§ 303 of the act creates an exemption under

article 3 for private clubs:

This article shall not apply to a private club, or

ot11er establishment not in fact open to tlte public,

except to the extent that the goods, services,

facilities,

privileges,

advantages,

or

accommodations of the private club or

establishment are made available to the customers

or patrons of anothe:r establi~hment that is a place

of public accommodation or is licensed by the

state.... (MCL 37.2303; MSA 3.548(303) ].

In denying defendants' rnotion for summary
disposition with respect to plaintiffs' Civil Rights Act olain~ the trial court ruled that the MDOC is a "public service" agency prohibited from engaging in gender-based discrimination or harassment under subsection 302(a) of the act. The court f\1rth.er noted that the act docs nat specifically exclude prisoners from its coverage and declined to read such an
exclusion into the act.

II
Ul The narrow issue before ns is whether the
MDOC: correctional facilities are places of "public service" in which discrimination against itmJate.s,
based on sex, is prohibited. The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Pennsvlvania Dm't o( Corrections v. Yeskev, 524 U.S. 206, 118
S.Ct. 1952. 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998), leads us to conclude that the MDOC facilities are places of
"public service" within the meaning of subsection
30l(b).

*736 The question in l'cskey was whether a state prisoner could maintain a cl~im ~gainst a state department of corrections under another civil rights statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act of I990(ADA), title II of which prohibits discrimination by a "public entity" agai11st individuals with a disability. 42 USC 12132. The statutory definition of "public entity" at issue in Yesk~y is similar to the
definition of "public service" set forth in subsection 301(b): "any department, agency, special purpose
district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or
local government." 42 USC l2131(1)(B). Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Sca1ia held that "the statute's language uamistakably includes
State prisons and prisoners within its coverage." i l l
S.Ct. at 1254. Emphasizing the broad statutory language, the Court stated that "the ADA plainly
covers state institutions without any exception that
could cast the coverage of prisons into doubt." Jd.

© 2005 Thomson/West. N(> Claim to Otig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2
592 N.W.2d 370 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370 (Cite as: 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370)

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 6 of 11
Page4

The Court therefore c<mcluded that "[s]tate prisons fall squarely within the statutory definition of 'public
elltity'.... " Id.
The Supreme Comt's reasoning in Ye.\'key applies equally to this case. Urtder subsection ••374 30I(b),
a "public service" includes "a public facility,
department, agency, hoard, or commission, owned, operated, or managed hy or on behalf of the state.... " The MDOC is a state agency, and tllis state's correctional facilities arc operated by it. Any "exception that could cast the coverage of prisons
into doubt," 118 s.rt. at 1954, is conspicuously
absent from the unambiguous statutory language of the Civil Rights Act. Thus, under the plain language nf subsection 30l(b), the MDOC clearly falls witllin the brnad statutory definition of a "public service." Defendants essentially concede as much.
I!l *737 Defendants argue that even if the MDOC is
a "public service," its prisons arc nevertheless not required to comply with subsection 302(a) of the Civilllights Act because they fall within the § 303
exemption for "private dub [s], or other establishment[s] not in fact open to the public." We reject this at·gument. The fact that the MDOC
operates buildings that are not tully open to the
public does not mean that the MDOC itself is a
"private club or other establishment" not open to the public. There is a distinction between a state agency and the buildings that house that state agency. There are presumably many depattments of state government (this Court included) that operate facilities that members of the public may not enter at their will. This, however, does not mean that those departments themselves are private establishments not open to the public; it merely means that the physical structure.• used by those departments are not fully accessible to the public.
Moreover, "[r]csident irunates are obviously
members of the public in a general sense." Martin v. Dep't of Corrections, 424 Mich. 553, 565. 384 N. W.2d 392 (1986) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting). Our
Supreme Court has held that prisoners arc members of the public for purposes of the governmental t\lrt
liability act, M.C.L. § 691.1401 et seq.; MSA
3.996(101) et seq. Green v. Dep't ol" Corrections, 386 Mich. 459. 464, 192 N.W.2d 491 (1971). The Supreme Court has also held that prisoners arc members of the public for purposes of the Administrative Procedures Act, M.C.L. § 24.20 I et seq.; MSA 3.560(101) et seq. Marlin, supra, p. 555, 384 N. W.2d 392. Civil rights acts arc to be liberally construed to provide the broadest possible

remedy. Reed, supra. Only by reading "private club,
or other establishment 110t in *738 fact open to the
public" in its most restrictive, literal sense, may a correctional facility be deemed to he ''not open to the public." We therefore conclude that the § 303 exemption does not relieve defendants of the obligation to act in conformity with subsection 302(a)
of the Civil Rights Act.
lll Defendants contend that even if the § 303 exemption does not apply to state-run correctional facilities, subsection 302(a) of the Civil Rights Act was not intended to protect prisoners. Again, we
disagree.
ill We begin by reviewing the legislative purpose of
the Civilllights Act in general and subsection 302(a) in particular. Cons! 1963, art l, § 2 states:
No person shall be denied the equal protection of
the laws; r10r shall any person be derlied the
enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. The Civil Rights Act was enacted as 1976 PA 453.
Its purpose was two-fold. First, it was intended to centralize and make uniform tile patchwork of then-
existing civil rights statutes applying to the private sector, such as the Fair Housing Act, the Fair Employment Practices Act, and the Public Accollllllodations Act. See Dep't o( Civil Rights ex rei. Forton v, Wqter&rd Twp. Dep't of Parks &
Recreation. 425 Mich. 173, 187-188, 387 N.W.2d 821 (] 986). Second, it was intended to broaden the scope of the then-existing civil rights statutes to
include govenrmental action: *739 [11he Legislature's addition of "public service" to [subsection] 302(a), thereby induding state action violations that amount to constitutional deprivation with private sector, non-state action legislative violations, can be explained by the fact
that article I § 2 of the Michigan Constitution
**375 provides: "the legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation." Jt is the only provision of the Declaration of Rights to provide so. [/d., p. 188, 387 N. W.2d 821 (emphasis in the original).] Thus, insofar as subsection 302(a) of the Civil Rights Act governs "public service," it is essentially a codification of the constitution's Equal Protection and Antidiscrimination Clauses, brMdened to include categories not covered under the constitution, such as age, sex, and marital status. See Dep't of Civil

© 2005 'TI10mson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2
592 N.W.2d 370 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370 (Cite as: 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370)

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 7 of 11
Page 5

Rights, pp. 188·189.
I!iJ. The constitutional equal protection guarantee
applies to prisoners. As explained in .lack.wn v. Bishop. 404 1<'.2d 571, 576 (C.A.S, 1968):
Lawful incarceration may properly operate to deprive the convict of certain rights which would otherwise be his to enjoy. A classic example is (the] denial to the !Cionofthe right to vote....
On the other hand, a prisoner of the state does not lose all his d vi! rights during and because of his
incarceration. In particular, he continues to be protected by the due process and equal protection clauses which follow him thmugh the prison doors. [Citations omitted.] Because, as our Supreme Court has stated1 the protections of subsection 302(a) of the Civil Rights Act were intended to he coe><tensive with the Equal Protection and Antidiscrimination Clauses of the
Michigan Constitution, and because prisoners do not
lose *740 their right to equal protection by virtue of their status as inmates, we can only condude that the Legislature also intended all persons--including inmates--to be protected under subsection 302(a).
ill Further, as noted by the trial court, nowhere does
the language of the Civil Rights Act purport to preclude its application because of a person's statos as a prisoner or inmate. Compare Walters v. n,m't o(
1'rem!Ut}', 148 Mich.App. 809, 819, 385 N.W.24 695 0986): Mar.,•h v. Dep't of Civil Serviqe, 142 Mich.App. 557,569,370 N.W.2d 613 0985), Whc11
the Legislature has seen fit to exclude prisoners from
the provisions of a statute, it has specifically done so.
See, e.g., M.C.L. § 15.23li2l; MSA 4.1801(1)(2), excluding "those persons incarcerated in state or local correctional facilities" from provisions of the Freedom of lnfonnation Act. A court must not
judicially legislate by adding into a statute provisions that the Legislature did not include. Empire Iron Mining Partnershi{! v. Orhanen, 455 Mich. 4.10, 421, 565 N.W.2d 844 (19971. Accordingly, we decline to
read into the Civil Rights Act au exclusion barring prisoners from bringing an action under subsection 302(a).
IV
Illli2l Defendants suggest that any holding that the
Civil Rights Act applies to prisoners will unacceptably impair the MDOC's corrections responsibilities. Their fear is unwarnnted. At least to the extent that a state agency's conduct is' at issue, the pmtections of subsection 302(a) of the Civil

Rishts Act were intended to be coextensive with those of the Antidiscrimination and Equal Protection Clauses of the constitotion. *741 Dep'l of Civil Rights supra, p. 188, 387 N,W.2d 821. As our Supreme Court stated in Dep't of Civil Rights, .1·ur.ra, p. 189, 387 N. W.2d 821 ~
Discrimin~tion, in constitutional terms, refers to baseless and irrational line drawing.... When there is a sufficiently important goverrunental interest and the classification is adequately related to that interest, it does not amount to discrimination to draw legislative lines on the basis of those classifications. It would be anomalous at best and contradictory at worst to attempt to rid the state of discriminatory practices by the usc of an arbitrary standard that would prohibit, in effect, any line draw:n between the genders, regardless of its relevance to the purpose of the regulation, unless the Legislatore, in its wisdom and its own good time, countervails it. Thus, even though we hold that subsection 302(a) prohibits the MDOC from engaging in discriminatory practices in dte operation of its correctional facilities, the MDOC may still treat prisoners ditlcrcntly on the basis of gender, provided that the gender·bas~d **376 treatment can pass constitutionalnruster. As the Court acknowledged in Dep't of Civil Rights,
merely because the state engages in a practice that treats men and women differently, it does not
necessarily mean that it engages in unlawful gender discrimination. Rather, the test is whether the gender-based treatment serves a sufllciently important governmental interest and is substantially related to the achievement of that inten:st. De~'l of
Civil Right.<, >'Upra, p. 189, 387 N.W.2d 821. 'lbe
MDOC may therefore treat prisoners differently on the basis of gender without violating subsection
302(a), as long as the gender-based treatment serves important penological interests and is substantially
related to the achievement of those interests.
*742 This approach to state sex discrimin~tion claims by inmates ntirrors not only the analysis employed in equal protection cases, but also the analyses typically employed by federal court~ in 42 USC 1983 actions. See aru10: Se.x discrimination in
treatment of jail ur ttrison inmates, 12 II.L.R.4th
11l2,. Because the MDOC admits that prison<'rs may bring equal protection claims under § 19R3, our holding that prisot:ters are not excluded from the protections of subsection 302(a) of tile Civil Rights Act should impose upon defendants no stricter standards than those to which they must presently adhere in order to survive either a constitutional or§.
1983 chalknge.

C9 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2
592 N W.2d370 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370 (Cite as: 232 Micb.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370)

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 8 of 11
Page 6

v

[I OJ[ 11] Finally, defendants argue that the Court of

Claims, not the circuit court, had subject-matter

jurisdiction over plaintiffs' case. While it is

generally true that the Court of Claims has exclusive

jurisdiction over "all claims and demands, liquidated

and unliquidated, ex contractu and ex delicto, against

the state" or any of its agencies, M.C.L. §

600.6419(1)(a);

MSA 27A.6419(l)(a), that

exclusivity does not extend to Civil Rights Act

claims. MCL 37.2801(1); MSA 3.548(801)(1);

Rangel v. Univ. of' Michigan 157 Mich.App. 563,
564-565. 403 l:l W.2d 836 (19871. Moreover, a

complaint against the state seeking only equitable or

declaratory relief must be filed in the circuit court.

Watson v, Bureau o{ St11te !.Qttem 224 Mich.App.

639, 643, 569 N.W.2d 878 (1997), Silverman v. Univ.

o{Michigan Bd. o(Regents, 445 Mic~. 209. 217. 516

N.W.Zd 54 (1994), Because plaintiffs no longer are

seeking money damages, the circuit court, rather than

the Court of Claims, had jurisdic!ion to consider the

Civil Rights Act claims, as well as •743 the

remaining equitable and declaratory claims against

the MDOC and defendant McGinnis in his official

capacity as the director of the MDOC.

.l1ll The circuit court also had jurisdiction over

plaintiffs' Civil Rights Act claims against the

rcmammg individual defendants.

MCL

600 6419(1)(a): MSA 27A.6419(1)(a). Moreover,

the defendant guards and wardens are not state

officers who may be sued in the Court of Claims.

Lowery v. Dep't of Corrections. 146 Mich.App. 342,

349. 380 N.W.2d 99 (19851; Burnett v. Moore, I J I

Mich.App. 646, 648-649, 314 N.W.2d 458 (1981};

Randt1eld v. Wood, I04 Mich.App. 279, 282, 304

N.W.2d 551 0981\. Accordingly, we find no error in

the circuit court's ruling that it had jurisdiction to

hearing plaintiffs' claims.

Affirmed.

GAGE, J., concurred.

O'CONNELL, P.J. (dissenting.)

My views with respect to the legal issues here presented have already been published at length in
what was then a majority opinion, Neal v. Dep't o(
Correcliom, 230 Mich.App. 202. 583 N.W.2d 249 0998), and I readopt that opinion without repeating it. All that needs now to be added is comment concertting the application to this case of the decision in Penn.nJ/vania Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskev. 524

IJ.S. 206, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed 2d 21 ;> (1998).

Jn Yeskey, the United States Supreme Court was
faced with detennining, under the federal jurisprudential standards for statutory construction of legislation affecting states' rights, whether title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA), 42 USC 12131 el .1eq., applies to state corrcctinnal
facilities. The language *744 used by Congress embraced within the ambit of the ADA "the services, programs, or activities of a public entity," 42 USC 12132, with "public entity'' being defmed as
including "any department, agency, **377 special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or
States or local government," 42 USC 12131Cll(R).

The . facts in Yeskey involved a Pennsylvania

program, the motivational boot camp, that offered the

plaiutiff imnate the opportunity, if successfillly

undertaken, of reducing his minimum incarceration

before parole from eighteen months to six months.

118 S.Ct. at 1953.

Because Yeskey was

hypertensive, the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections concluded that his participation in tlte

boot camp program was medically contraiudicated,

and it refused to adn1it him to the program. Yeskey

then claimed tltat this was discrimination proscribed

hy the ADA. The Supreme Court held that the

statutory definition of a "qualified individual with a

disability," 42 USC 1213112), does not exclude

prisoners, rejecting !he contention that the terms

"eligibility" and "participation" necessarily imply a

prerequisite voluntariuess tlmt is inherently lacking in

the case of persons confmed against their will.

In contrast to tlte ADA, tbe Civil Rights Act (CRA),
M.C.L. § 37.2101 etseq.; MSA3.548(10l)etseq.,
defmes "public service" so as to include only entities
that "provide service to the public." MCL J7,2301(b); MSA 3.548(30l)(b). !FNlJ State
prisoners, by defntition, are not part of the general puhlic to whom any otherwise public service pro!Tered by the Micltigan Department of Comctions can be provided. This limitation of the definition of "public service" is cotlSpicuously absent from the
definition of " public entity" found in the ADA,
which has no correspondiug language of limitation. IFN2) The MDOC is subject to the CRA, as we held in the original majority opinion, to the extent that it opens the doors of any place of confinement under its jurisdiction to visitors, employees, ofticials, or otlter
persons voluntarily seeking admittance. 230
Mic~.App. at 209, 583 N.W.2d 249. Indeed, with
respect to employees of the Department of Corrections, the CRA applies by virtue of article 2,

© 2005 ThonlSon!West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2
592 N.W.2d 370 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370 (Cite as: 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.ld 370)

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 9 of 11
Pagc7

which exteruls the CRA's prohibition of the statutorily enumerated forms of discrimination to the employme!lt relationship, McCallum v. !Jep'l of Correcliom. 197 Mich.App. 589. 496 N. W.2d 361
P 992), rather than atticle 3, which covers places of
public accommodation and public services. The majority's current expansion of the CRA's reach conflates all these crucial •746 distinctions. I'FN3] I am unable to subscribe to the notion that the decision
in Yeskt;y, which involved a ditTerent statute,
significantly different statutory language, different facts, **378 and different jurisprudential principles of statutory constmction., somehow controls the
present case or even 1\sefillly informs our analysis
and decision.

FN 1 One of the goals of the CRA is to

prcvc'nt discrimination in public

accommodations and public services. MCL

37.2102(1); MSA 3.548(102)(1). In my

opmton,

references

to .. ,.'.'p~b\\c

acconunodation" and "public service" within

the CRA are not intended to include

establishments that are not open to the

general public or that do not provide a

service to the public at large. I note that

even for purposes of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, "public accommodations" were

originally understood tu indude only such

public gathering place• as restaurants and

tl1eaters. See Olson, 71w l:."xcu9e Factory:

llow Employment Law L• Paralyzing the

American Workplace (New York: The Free

Press, 1997), p 50. It should be clear that

our Legislature similarly envisioned only

entities serving the general public when

bringing the CRA to bear on public

accommodations and public services.

PN2. Section 303 of the CRA provides t11~t
"[t]his mticle shall not apply · io ;:::
establishment[s] not in fact open to the public,," Not only are prisons not open to the general public, but their very mission·· forcibly keeping felons away from the public--renders them the very antithesis of tltose public accommodations that offer services to the public. 230 Mich.App. at 214 583 N.W.2d 249. Even if I were to agree with the majority's liberal definition of
tlw term '1public service," I would nonetheless conclude that § 303 created an
exentption for prisons.

FN3. Plaintift:, advocate a liberal

interpretation of the tenns "place of public

accormnodationu and "public service." For

tho reasons stated in my prior opinion, I

believe that a liberal reading of these terms,

or any specific term, is inappropriate and

dangerous. Defining specitic terms in a

liberal fashion leads to a slippery •lope of

absurd results. 1'his Court should not be in

the business of adding a libeml meaning to a

specific and well-recognized term. An

example regarding the term "place of public

accommodation" may clarify my concern:

In their brief, plainti!Ts allege that prisons

are also places of public acconunodation as

defmed by CRA, "because prisons house

members of the general public at taxpayers

expense." A liberal interpretation of the

term "place of public accommodation"

would on the surface seem to support their

position. However, once this Comt adopts

plaintiffs' definition, it will not be long

before another plaintiff argues that some

private residences arc also "places of public

accommodation." I anticipate the argument

would be that because we allow members of

the public (our friends, neighbors, and

relatives) to spend nights at our homes, and

in some cases the governntent either pays or

subsidizes the rent, our private hornes arc

now transformed into places of public

accommodation, because they house

"members of the public at taxpayers'

expense." This slippery slope logic is

untenable and, as l have previously stated,

inappropriate and dangerous.

230

Mich.App. at 2]3. 583 N.W.2d 249.

Appropriately the majority has not adopted

plaintiffs' definition of "place of public

accommodation." However, the majority

has adopted plaintiffs' definition of "public

service," even though prisons in 110 way

perfom1 a service to the general public.

Prisons arc not situated similarly to sonte of

our other establishments that do perform a

"public scrvic.e," such as a cour1:, a hospital,

OJ an office of the Secretary of State, all of

which we're established to provide, and do

provide, services to the general public, /d.

at 214.583 N.W.2d 249.

It bears reiteration that, if at1icle 3 of the CRA applies generally to prisons and prisoners, the MOOC may find that it canrlot legally maintain separate facilities *747 for men and women [FN4] and that it may no longer segregate young from old, even

© 2005 11tomson/Wcst. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2
592 N.W.2d 370 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370 (Cite as: 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370)

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 10 of 11
Page 8

though the inevitable result of this judicial stampede toward political correctness will be a penological contlict. The female prisoners will, in general, be terrorized by the male p1isoners, who are normally physically larger~ stronger! and more aggressive~ and likewise the juvenile and geriatric prisoners will be subjected to the predations of the more vigorous adult population. Perhaps these pl'Ospects ought to caution plaintiffs to hear in mind the adage to be careful what they wish tor, because it may come to pass.
~ The majority states that "the MDOC may still treat pl'isoners differently on the basis of gender, provided that the genderbased treatment can pass constitutional
nu•ster." Ante at p. 375-76. I suspect that
drawing of the line that delineates what
"pass[es] constitutional muster" will be no
simple task for trial courts; however I suspect that an explosion of prisoner litigation will give the trial courts an ample array of cases to assist them in drawing this line. But I further suspect that the "line" will be anything but clear cut, tending to move in the varied directions of the sensitivities of judges and the objectives of such high-stakes litigation. For these reasons, I choose to draw the line on the basis of the commonly understood meaning of "public service," which I would define to include only entities that are open to the general public or that provide a service to the public at large. l11is commonsense definition does not embrace the relationship between state prisons and their inrnates.
Nothit!g in the prior llllljority opinion suggests that any correctional program that may further a prisoner's rehabilitation, or enhance the prospect of pardon, commutation, or parole, may be lllllde available on a basis that discriminates because of gender, race, religion, national urigint or on any other lnvidious basis. Although that issue is not properly before us, and whatever we say with respect to that issue is obiter dictum, any such programmatic discrimination would appear to fall well within prohibitory penumbra of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
co•Jcemiug •748 race, religion, gender, or national
origin, 42 USC 2000a(d), 2000d-4a(l)(A), United States v. Wyandotte Co., 343 F.Supp. 1189 (D.Kan., 1972), rev'd 011 other grounds 480 F.2d 969 (C.A.IO, 1973). and of the ADA relative to disabilities, Yeskey, supra (assuming that either federal enactment may constitutionally be applied to the states at all, an issue ICSCIYed for later decision in Ye>kev. 118 S.Ct at

1956). However, MDOC pwgrams do not admit of participation by nonprisoners, that is, by any members of the public (in the sense of making the program available to the public, although members of the public may well participate in a correctional program as leaders, instructors, facilitators, and so forth.). To the extent that outside agencies offer public programs that the MDOC pemtits prisoners to have access to! those outside agencies; of course, remain precluded by the CRA from discriminating against prisoners by virtue of gender, race:; and so tbrth (but are not limited in discritninating against prisoners as a class per se, as the status of being a prisoner is not covered by the CRA, or by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Romdo Mav.sMel v. Solis. 4Q9 F.Sugp. 576 [D PR, 1975] ).
The present plairttiffi do not allege gender discrimination in prison employment, educatiortal opportunities, or housingt so we ne.ed not determine whether other articles of the C.'RA protect prisoners from discrimination in such contexts. All we face today is a claim of gender discritnination concerning public services ••379 W1der Article 3. IFN5] lnw;much as prisons are not, •749 with respect to prisoners, "public services" as defined by the CRA, I would adhere to our initial decision holding that plaintiffs' claim under the CRA should be dismissed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)C8) for failure to state a claim on which relief tmy be granted,
FN5 The major flaw in the majority (lpinion is the treatment of a statutory right as coextensive with a constitutional right. A
state statute is by design an entity distinct
from a constitutional provtston. The majority fails to provide support for its inaccurate condusion. In fact, there exists a significant ditf~"Ience between a cause of action alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and a cause of action alleging sex discrimination under the CRA. A party proceeding under constitutional equal protection doctrine must prove intentional or purposeful discrimination. Harville v. State Plumbing & Heqtinv inc. 218 Mich.App. 302, 306, 553 N,W.2d 377 (1996). In contrast, a party proceeding under the CRA need show only disparate treatment, the prima facie case requiring legally admissible and sufficient evidence that "she was a member of a class deserving of protection under the sta11Jte, and tba~ for the same conduct, she was treated differently [from] a man." Schellenberr: v.

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 2-2
592 N.W.2d 370 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370 (Cite as: 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N.W.2d 370)

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 11 of 11
Page9

Rochester, Michigan, rodge No. 2225 o[ Order of Elks. 228 Mich.App. 20, 33, 577 N.W.2d 163 (1998}. 'Jbc majority's failure to recognize the
distinctlons between these two bases for
litigation is the vehicle through which the majority reaches a result not intended by the drafters of the CRA. The majority posits that "because prisoners do not lose their right to equal protection by virtue of their status as :inmates, we can only conclude that the Legislature also intended all persons-including inmates--to be pt·otected under subsection 302(a)'' Ante at p. 375. I agree that inmates do not lose all of their constitutional rights by virtue of their status as inmates. However, this conclusion by no logical path leads to the corollary that a state statute is intended to apply to prisoners. This holds especially in light of § 303's exclusion of "establishments not in fact open to the public," plus the majority's observation that the CRA's protection against sex discrimination exceeds the expressed scope of our state constitution.

I therefore respectfully dissent. 232 Mich.App. 730, 592 N,W.2d 370

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2005 'TI!olnson!West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

 
 Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 96 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MASON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v

Case No. 05-73943 HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

GRANHOLM, et al., jointly and severally,

Defendants. /

DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5620
PATRICIA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.222.0088
JOHN L. THURBER (P44989) DIANE M. SMITH (P32402) Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants Corrections Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517.335.7021

RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5600
MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 248.398.9800
DAVID A. KOTWICKI (P56070) Attorney for Defendant Carlton Carter 20 S. Main St., Ste. 115 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 586.468.9850

MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.449.9883
RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 248.691.4200
ROBERT R. STEARNS (P55188) Attorney for Defendant Chapman 20 S. Main ST., Ste. 115 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 586.868.0303

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS GRANHOLM, CARUSO, ZANG, STOVALL, DAVIS, YUKINS, DeSANTIS, HOWELL, TALLEY, TOLLZEIN, MADDEN AND
LANGLEY’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL

Before this Court is Defendants Granholm, Caruso, Zang, Stovall, Davis, Yukins,

DeSantis and Howell’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Dismissal dated November 17, 2005;

Defendants Talley and Tollzein’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Dismissal dated December 1,

2005; Defendant Madden’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Dismissal dated December 14,

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 96 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 2 of 2 2005; and Defendant Langley’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Dismissal dated February 24, 2006. Plaintiffs filed responses on December 14, 2005, December 23, 2005 and March 17, 2006, respectively. Defendants filed a reply brief on December 28, 2005.
This Court heard oral argument on May 11, 2006 and for the reasons expressed on the record, the Defendants’ motions are DENIED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge Dated: May 15, 2006
-2-

 
 Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 05-73943

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al., Defendants.
____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the court are Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, filed July 14, 2006, and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, filed August 4, 2006. Defendant Chapman filed a separate brief on August 9, 2006. With leave of the court, amicus curiae, the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan and Women Lawyers Association of Michigan, filed a brief in support of Plaintiffs’ position on August 9, 2006. The court heard oral argument on August 31, 2006, and took the matter under advisement. For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and DENIES Defendants’ cross-motion.
BACKGROUND FACTS Plaintiffs challenge an amendment to the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) that excludes prisoners from protection from discrimination. The ELCRA provides, in part, that “the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 2 of 9
educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized and declared to be a civil right.” M.C.L. §37.2102(1). The statute also provides that a person shall not
Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status. M.C.L. § 37.2302(a). In Neal v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 232 Mich. App. 730, 735, 592 N.W.2d 370 (1998), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the ELCRA barred gender-based discrimination against prison inmates, because MDOC’s correctional facilities are places of “public service” within the meaning the statute. The court rejected the MDOC’s argument that the act was not intended to apply to prisoners: “Because, as our Supreme Court has stated, the protections of subsection 302(a) of the Civil Rights Act were intended to be coextensive with the Equal Protection and Antidiscrimination Clauses of the Michigan Constitution, and because prisoners do not lose their right to equal protection by virtue of their status as inmates, we can only conclude that the Legislature also intended all persons – including inmates – to be protected under subsection 302(a).” Neal, 232 Mich. App. at 739-40. In response to Neal, the Michigan legislature amended the ELCRA on March 10, 2000, providing that “public service does not include a state or county correctional facility with respect to actions and decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment.” M.C.L. 37.2301(b). The legislature included an “enacting section,” which provides:
-2-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 3 of 9
Enacting section 1. This amendatory act is curative and intended to correct any misinterpretation of legislative intent in the court of appeals decision Neal v Department of Corrections, 232 Mich App 730 (1998). This legislation further expresses the original intent of the legislature that an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state or county correctional facility is not within the purview of this act. Id. Although the legislature identified the amendment as “curative,” there is no evidence derived from the statutory language or legislative history suggesting that the legislature’s original intent was in fact misinterpreted in Neal. See 1976 Journal of the House 3706-709 (Dec. 16, 1976); 1976 Journal of the Senate 2541-46 (Dec. 15, 1976). The ELCRA is Michigan’s exclusive statutory mechanism for enforcing the Michigan Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws: No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. Mich. Const. of 1963, art. I, § 2. By its terms, this constitutional provision requires the Michigan legislature to provide legislation that will redress discrimination. The ELCRA is that legislation. See Department of Civil Rights ex rel Forton v. Waterford Twp. Dep’t of Parks and Recreation, 425 Mich. 173, 188 (1986); Neal, 232 Mich. App. at 739 (“[I]nsofar as subsection 302(a) of the Civil Rights Act governs “public service,” it is essentially a codification of the constitution's Equal Protection and Antidiscrimination Clauses, broadened to include categories not covered under the constitution, such as age, sex, and marital status.”). Plaintiffs assert that the ELCRA amendment deprives them of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs have
-3-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 4 of 9
moved for partial summary judgment in their favor on this issue. In their complaint, Plaintiffs also challenge the ELCRA amendment as a bill of attainder and as violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. Defendants have filed a cross motion for summary judgment, contending that none of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the ELCRA amendment have merit.
LAW AND ANALYSIS I. Equal Protection
“The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996). “We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” Id.
In Romer, the Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that prohibited legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect gays and lesbians. The court recognized that, under the “rational basis” level of scrutiny, “a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous.” Id. at 632. Even under this deferential standard, the Court found the amendment to the Colorado Constitution violated the Equal Protection clause:
Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single
-4-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 5 of 9
trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.
Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. The Court further explained:
It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. “Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.” Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.
Id. (citations omitted).
The MDOC does not argue that the ELCRA amendment advances legitimate penological
interests, such as maintaining prison order. See generally Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89
(1987). Rather, the MDOC contends that the ELCRA amendment “does advance legitimate
interests such as protecting the public fisc, preventing windfall awards, reducing judicial
intervention in the management of prisons, deterring frivolous lawsuits by prisoners and
reducing trivial or inconsequential suits.” Defs.’ Br. at 6-7. In support of its argument that the
ELCRA amendment is constitutional, MDOC cites to several Sixth Circuit cases upholding
challenges to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act, which placed some restrictions on
prisoners’ ability to file civil rights claims. See, e.g., Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281 (6th Cir.
1997) (upholding fee provisions of the PLRA); Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604 (6th Cir.
1998) (upholding “three strikes” provision of the PLRA); Hadix v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 840 (6th
-5-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 6 of 9
Cir. 2000) (upholding cap on attorney fees under PLRA). In Hampton, for example, the Sixth Circuit found that the filing fee requirements of the
PLRA had a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest: The legislation was aimed at the skyrocketing numbers of claims filed by prisoners – many of which are meritless – and the corresponding burden those filings have placed on the federal courts. Thus, Congress sought to put in place economic incentives that would prompt prisoners to “stop and think” before filing a complaint.
Hampton, 106 F.3d at 1286-87. The court further noted that the “filing fee is small enough not to deter a prisoner with a meritorious claim, yet large enough to deter frivolous claims and multiple filings.” Id. The intent of the filing fee provisions of the PLRA was that “[p]risoners will have to make the same decision that law-abiding Americans must make: Is the lawsuit worth the price?” Id. (citing 141 Cong. Rec. S7526 (daily ed. May 25, 1995) (statement of Sen. Kyl)).
In contrast to the PLRA provisions upheld in Hampton and other cases, the ELCRA amendment paints with a much broader brush. Rather than placing some limits on prisoner litigation and deterring frivolous suits, the ELCRA amendment completely precludes prisoners from challenging the conditions of their confinement or the discriminatory practices of the MDOC under the ELCRA, while they are incarcerated or after their release, and whether their claims are meritorious or not.1 The amendment does not, like the PLRA amendments, essentially
1 Prisoners may file claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law. Defendants argue that as long as a judicial forum is available, prisoners’ right of access to the courts has not been violated. See Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 605 (6th Cir. 1998). This argument does not speak to the issue of whether the ELCRA amendment is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. See id. at 604-605. Because the court finds that the ELCRA amendment does not survive rational basis scrutiny, the court does not address Plaintiffs’ other argument that prisoners’ fundamental right of access to the courts has been infringed.
-6-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 7 of 9
place prisoners in the same position with respect to filing suit as other citizens. Rather, the amendment forecloses the vindication of prisoners’ equal protection rights under Michigan law.2
Viewing the statute in the context of this case, the ELCRA amendment essentially permits the state to discriminate against female prisoners without fear of accountability under Michigan’s civil rights law. Given the state’s abhorrent and well-documented history of sexual and other abuse of female prisoners, the court finds this amendment particularly troubling. See generally Everson v. MDOC, 391 F.3d 737, 741 (6th Cir. 2005) (“The problem of sexual abuse and other mistreatment of female inmates has long plagued the MDOC.”). It appears that the state legislature has not attempted to deter frivolous lawsuits, but rather preclude meritorious ones.3
Moreover, while deterring frivolous suits and protecting the public treasury are legitimate government interests, the ELCRA amendment is too broad to be rationally related to these interests. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting freedom of association and other justifications for Colorado’s Amendment 2, stating that the “breadth of the amendment is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them”). The ELCRA amendment denies prisoners the basic protections against discrimination that all others are
2 The Michigan Supreme Court has held that courts may not infer any damages remedy arising directly from Article I, Section Two of the Michigan Constitution, in the absence of statutory authority. Lewis v. Michigan, 464 Mich. 781, 786-87, 829 N.W.2d 868 (2001). However, it is well recognized that damages are in many cases the only way to effectively remedy constitutional violations. See, e.g., Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 245 (1979) (“Historically, damages have been regarded as the ordinary remedy for an invasion of personal interests in liberty.”) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395-97 (1971)).
3 In so concluding, the court does not intend to and has taken no position on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims here.
-7-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 8 of 9
afforded under Michigan law, as required by Article I, Section Two of the Michigan Constitution, which provides that “The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.” There is no rational basis for denying all prisoners (including those who have been released) – and no one else – the ability to seek redress for illegal discrimination that occurred in prison.4 As the Romer court explained, “[a] law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.” See also Hadix, 230 F.3d at 843 (“[R]ational basis review is not a rubber stamp of all legislative action, as discrimination that can only be viewed as arbitrary and irrational will violate the Equal Protection Clause.”) (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, the court concludes that the ELCRA amendment violates prisoners’ equal protection rights and is unconstitutional. II. Bill of Attainder and Treaty Violations
Plaintiffs also claim that the ELCRA amendment violates the constitutional provision against bills of attainder and that it violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. Defendants seek summary judgment on these claims. Because the court has determined that the ELCRA amendment does not survive equal protection analysis, it is not necessary to address Plaintiffs’ other challenges to this legislation.
4 Other options exist for deterring frivolous filings by prisoners. See, e.g., M.C.L. § 600.5501, et seq. (1999) (requiring, inter alia, exhaustion of administrative remedies and permitting courts to dismiss frivolous complaints sua sponte). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
-8-

Case 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Document 171 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 9 of 9

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ July 14, 2006 motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ August 4, 2006 cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Dated: January 23, 2007

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, January 23, 2007, by electronic or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager
-9-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________/

Case No. 05-73943 Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER DENYING STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY Before the court is the State Defendants’ motion for stay of the court’s January 22, 2007 opinion and order pending appeal.1 Plaintiffs filed a response on February 12, 2007; Defendants submitted a reply brief on February 12, 2007. On January 23, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The court found that an amendment to Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) that excluded prisoners from civil rights protection was unconstitutional. The State Defendants have appealed this decision and seek a stay of all proceedings pending appeal. In support of their request for a stay, the State Defendants rely upon Fed. R. Civ. P.

1 The State Defendants are Patricia Caruso, Susan Davis, Thomas DeSantis, Jennifer Granholm, Jerry Howell, Sally Langley, Rodney Madden, William Merrow, Clarice Stovall, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Joan Yukins, and Nancy Zang.

62(c), which provides:
(c) Injunction Pending Appeal. When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court in its discretion may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party. . . .
Id. In determining whether a stay should be granted pursuant to Rule 62(c), the court considers
the same four factors that are traditionally considered in analyzing a motion for preliminary
injunction. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Michigan Coalition of
Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991).
These well-known factors are: (1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay.
Michigan Coalition, 945 F.2d at 153. The Sixth Circuit has emphasized that these “factors are
not prerequisites that must be met, but are interrelated considerations that must be balanced
together.” Id.
The probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury plaintiff will suffer absent a stay. Simply stated, more of one excuses less of the other. This relationship, however, is not without its limits; the movant is always required to demonstrate more than mere “possibility” of success on the merits. For example, even if a movant demonstrates irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the defendant if a stay is granted, he is still required to show, at a minimum, “serious questions going to the merits.”
Id. at 153-54.
For the reasons stated in its January 23, 2007 opinion and order, the court finds that the
State Defendants have not shown “serious questions going to the merits” of this appeal. Further,
-2-

even if Defendants could show a likelihood of success on appeal, they have failed to demonstrate irreparable injury if a stay is not issued.
In evaluating the degree of injury, it is important to remember that [t]he key word in this consideration is irreparable. Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough. The possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm. Michigan Coalition, 945 F.2d at 154 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). The court’s order allows Plaintiffs’ claim under the ELCRA to proceed, along with other claims set forth in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendants have not explained how the availability of another cause of action for Plaintiffs in this lawsuit irreparably harms them. Nor have Defendants articulated the irreparable harm caused by the potential of future lawsuits brought by prisoners pursuant to the ELCRA. Further, Defendants have not set forth sufficient justification for staying all proceedings in this case pending appeal of the ELCRA issue. Defendants assert that it would be “a waste of judicial resources to have this case proceed along two separate tracks in two separate forums.” Def. Reply Br. at 3. Defendants have not, however, explained why Plaintiffs’ other claims should not proceed pending appeal of this discrete constitutional issue. Delaying the entire case pending appeal is not warranted.
-3-

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ January 31, 2007 motion for stay is DENIED.

Dated: March 07, 2007

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, March 8, 2007, by electronic or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager
-4-

 
 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 236 Filed 07/26/07 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 2378

No. 07-1114

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

iJuL sa 20o7

NATHWAULEEN MASON, et al.,

)

LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

)

Plaintiff~-Appellees,

)

)

v.

)

ORD.ER

)

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et aL,

)

)

Defendants-Appellants,

)

)

WILLIS CHAPMAN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

--·l-...,.0
~.(/)
X-;
Before: CLAY and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; GREER, District Judge.'l>~ c~'o"-';

-' 11
r
rn

Rn
~·o

)>

0

;c;:o:

..

Thirteen ofthe eighteen defendants in this prisoners' civil rights case appeal'1!!1J. inteif!'ocutory

order of the district court, entered on January 23, 2007, granting partial summary judgment for the

plaintiffs and denying the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs now

move for dismissal. The defendants move to stay further proceedings in the district court pending

the outcome of their appeal. To be appealable, the order granting partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs "must

qualify as either a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or an '[i]nterlocutory order[] ... granting,

continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify

injunctions under§ 1292(a)(I),'" Gillis v United States Dep 't ofHealth undHuman Servs., 759 F.2d

565,567 (6th Cir. 1985). A decision is final for purposes of28 U.S.C. § 129\ if it disposes of all

'The Honorable J. Ronnie Greer, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 236 Filed 07/26/07 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 2379 No. 07-1114 -2-
claims and parties on .1he merits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute 1he
judgment. Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). In the absence of certification for an
interlocutory appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an order disposing offewcr 1han all claims in a civil
action is not immediately appealable. Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 104 F.3d 93, 95 (61h Cir. 1997)
(order); William B. Tanner Co. v. United States, 575 F.2d 101, 102 (6th Cir. 1978) (per curiam). The
January 23 order does not dispose of all claims in the action and thus is not final for purposes of
appeal.
The defendants nevertheless claim 1hat 1hey are entitled to immediately appeal1hc January
23 order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 129\(a)(l ). The Supreme Court has stated:
Because§ 1292(a)(1) was intended to carve out only a limited exception to 1he finaljudgment rule, we have construed 1he statute narrowly to ensure 1hat appeal as of
right tm,der § 1292(a)(1) will be available only in circumstances where an appeal will
further the statutory purpose of "permitting litigants to effectively challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence." . . . Unless a litigant can show 1hat an interlocutory order of the district court might have a "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence," and 1hat the order can be "effectively challenged" only by immediate appeal, 1he general congressional policy against piece-meal review will preclude interlocutory appeal.
Bradley v. Milliken, 772 F.2d 266, 270 (61h Cir. 1985) (citing Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S.
79, 89 (1981)). The defendants argutl that the partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs
"pennanently enjoins the State Defendants from raising a valid defense to 1his lawsuit and in
subsequent lawsuits." This argument is wi1hout merit. Any grant of summary judgment effectively
enjoins a litigant from presenting an issue to a jury. See Fouts v. .Joy Manufacturing Co., 1986 WL
16449 (6th Cir. 1986) (order) (unpublished). "This is not one ofthose cases where an order which
has the practical effect ofrefusing (or granting) an injunction may be immediately appealable under
§ 1292(a)(1 )." !d. at * 1.

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 236 Filed 07/26/07 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 2380
No. 07-1114
-3•
ilie" Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss is GRANTED ~ifuo,i ~tit prejudice' t9
defendants' right to perfect a timely appeal upon entry of a final judgment in the district cowt.
The defendants' motion to stay further proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of
their appeal is DENIEDas moot.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

5:05-cv-73943-JCOU-DNIATSED DSoTcAT#E2S36COUFRilTedOF07A/2P6P/E0A7LSPg 4 of 4

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

LEONARD GREEN

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 640

CLERK

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 46202-3988

Pg ID 2381
MARY PATTERSON
16131 664-7033
IFAXI 564·7094 www .e~t6.ue;ourt:a.gov

Filed: Jvly 23, 2007
Deborah A. L~Sollo Law Offices of Deborah LoBello 221 N. Main Sveet Svite 300 Ann Arbor, Ml 48104
John L. Thvrbor Office of the Attorney Oeneral Corrections Division P.O. Bo• 30217 Lonsing, Ml 48909
RE:07·1114 Mason v$. Granholm District Court No, 06-73943
Dear Counsel:
Enclo$ed Is a copy of an order which w~$ $ntered today in the above~ styled case.

Enclosure
cc: HonorPble John Corbett O'Meara Mr. David J. Weaver

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 05-73943

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al., Defendants.
____________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HOWELL AND DEFENDANT LANGLEY’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court are Defendant Howell’s motion for summary judgment, filed March 30, 2007, and Defendant Langley’s motion for summary judgment, filed April 23, 2007. Both motions have been fully briefed. The court heard oral argument on August 23, 2007, and took these matters under advisement. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions are granted.
Plaintiffs are female former or current Michigan prisoners who allege that they have been subjected to discrimination and sexual abuse by male prison staff. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants’ failure to prevent and remedy sexual abuse has violated their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. I. Defendant Howell’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Jerry Howell, now retired, was the Deputy Warden of the Cassidy Lake Boot Camp. Howell seeks summary judgment because Plaintiffs have not alleged that he engaged in any wrongdoing. Plaintiffs allege that Howell was responsible for the implementation of rules,

policies, and procedures for the safety and protection of the women housed at Cassidy Lake. Plaintiffs allege that Howell was in charge of investigating prisoner complaints involving sexual misconduct from 1993 to 1997. Thus, Plaintiffs contend, Howell had a “special awareness” of the occurrence of sexual misconduct and the conditions that allowed it. According to Plaintiffs, despite this “special knowledge,” Howell failed to make policy changes to enhance safety at Cassidy Lake when he became Deputy Warden.
Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to survive summary judgment. None of the Plaintiffs in this suit were ever housed at Cassidy Lake. Therefore, Howell’s alleged failure to implement policy changes could not have harmed Plaintiffs. Further, Plaintiffs do not allege any personal involvement in any constitutional violations by Howell. See Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984) (“At a minimum, a § 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate.”).
Plaintiffs suggest that they are aware of several women who were sexually abused while housed at Cassidy Lake. As the complaint is currently constructed, however, no such women are named Plaintiffs. Further, Plaintiffs have not connected these alleged claims to any wrongdoing by Howell. Accordingly, the court will grant Defendant Howell’s motion. II. Defendant’s Langley’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Sally Langley was Warden of the Florence Crane Correctional Facility from February 26, 1995 until her retirement on July 1, 2003. She also had supervisory authority over Camp Branch from August 10, 1997 until July 1, 2003. Florence Crane housed female prisoners until November 3, 2000; Camp Branch housed female prisoners until July 25, 2001.
-2-

Langley contends that Plaintiffs’ claims against her are barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The last date any claim could have accrued against her was July 25, 2001; Plaintiffs filed this action on October 13, 2005, over four years later.
Plaintiffs contend, however, that the statute of limitations was tolled by the filing of the state case, Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections, on March 27, 1996, in which Langley was named as a defendant. A class was certified in Neal on August 16, 1996, of all “women prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections, past, present and future, who during their incarceration, have been or will be subjected to sexual misconduct . . .” Plaintiff Jill Flanders is also named as a plaintiff and class representative in Neal. (Flanders alleges that she was sexually assaulted while at Camp Branch in July 2000).
In Neal, the plaintiffs alleged violations of the state civil rights act (ELCRA) and the state constitution. On February 10, 2005, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that an amendment to ELCRA (since found to be unconstitutional by this court) barred the Neal plaintiffs’ claims under ELCRA. Thereafter, the Neal plaintiffs filed this action challenging the ELCRA amendment and seeking relief under the federal constitution.
Plaintiffs contend that the statute of limitations related to their § 1983 claims was tolled during the pendency of Neal. Courts look to state law to determine both the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims and whether the statute is tolled. See Board of Regents of the Univ. of the State of New York v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1980). Michigan’s tolling statute provides that a statute of limitations is tolled “at the time the complaint is filed and . . . served” or at “the time jurisdiction over the defendant is otherwise acquired.” M.C.L. 600.5856. The tolling statute applies to prior lawsuits between the parties that have not been adjudicated on the
-3-

merits. See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Isaacson, 145 Mich. App. 179, 183 (1985). In a putative class action, the statute of limitations is tolled for all class members until class certification is denied. See American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 552-53 (1974); Crown, Cork Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350-52 (1983).
In Tomanio, the Supreme Court determined that a prior state case involving state claims did not toll the statute of limitations with respect to a subsequent § 1983 claim in federal court. The Tomanio court noted that § 1983 is a “separate and independent” claim from the remedy pursued in state court and that nothing required the plaintiff to invoke her state remedies first. Tomanio, 446 U.S. at 490-91. The Court also noted that “[n]o section of [New York] law provides . . . that the time for filing a cause of action is tolled during the period in which a litigant pursues a related, but independent cause of action.” Id., at 486.
Similarly, Michigan law does not provide that the time for filing a cause of action is tolled during the period in which a party pursues a “related, but independent cause of action.” See id.; Kurzawa v. Mueller, 545 F. Supp. 1254, 1260 (E.D. Mich. 1982) (“[T]he Michigan legislature has not determined that the statute of limitations on one cause of action should be tolled while another, related, cause of action is litigated to completion.”); Ziegler v. Michigan, 2000 WL 1434496 *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 18, 2000) (holding that filing of state court action did not toll statute of limitations for §1983 claim; “Because Ziegler was not required to exhaust any state court remedies, he is not entitled to toll the statute of limitations during the time any such state court action was pending.”). Accordingly, the court finds that the filing of the Neal action did not toll the statute of limitations with respect to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. See also Lee v. Grand Rapids Bd. of Ed., 148 Mich. App. 364 (1986) (filing of § 1983 claim in federal court, which
-4-

denied class certification as to that claim, did not toll statute of limitations, resulting in dismissal of subsequent § 1983 brought in state court).
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Howell’s March 30, 2007 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Langley’s April 23, 2007 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Dated: August 31, 2007

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, August 31, 2007, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager

-5-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 05-73943

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al., Defendants.
____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, filed December 22, 2006. Defendants submitted a response on January 26, 2007; Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on February 8, 2007. The court heard oral argument on August 23, 2007, and took the matter under advisement. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
BACKGROUND FACTS Plaintiffs are female former or current Michigan prisoners who allege that they have been subjected to discrimination, sexual abuse, and degrading treatment by male prison staff. In general, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to address a culture of sexual abuse in women’s prisons and to implement procedures and policies designed to properly train, supervise, investigate, and discipline male guards. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants’ failure to prevent and remedy sexual abuse “constitutes an official policy, custom, pattern or practice that has deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to bodily integrity and right to privacy without due process in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Pl.’s Br. at 11. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees.
Plaintiffs request that the court certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 “of all former, current and future female prisoners under the jurisdiction of the MDOC who were victims of sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment, violation of their privacy and retaliation for reporting same, and deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights to fully and equally utilize prison programs and facilities and who seek injunctive and remedial relief.” Pl.’s Br. at 10. Plaintiffs estimate that the class consists of approximately 200 women. Defendants oppose the certification of a class.
LAW AND ANALYSIS In order to maintain a class action, Plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating that the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are met. See In re American Medical Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1078-79 (6th Cir. 1996). The district court is endowed with broad discretion in determining whether to certify a class. Id. Such discretion is limited, however, by the necessity of undertaking a “rigorous analysis” within the framework of Rule 23. Id. A class action may be maintained if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition to the above elements, Plaintiffs must show that one of the three conditions set forth in Rule 23(b) is met. Plaintiffs seek to have the injunctive and declaratory relief portion of the case certified under 23(b)(2), and the damages portion certified
-2-

under 23(b)(3). These sections provide that a class may be certified if:
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). See generally Lemon v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 139, AFL-CIO, 216 F.3d 577, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing options for class
certification, including “divided certification,” where the “district court could certify a Rule
23(b)(2) class for the portion of the case addressing equitable relief and a Rule 23(b)(3) class for the portion of the case addressing damages”); Olden v. LaFarge Corp., 383 F.3d 495 (6th Cir.
2004) (affirming grant of class certification under both 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)).
Because the court finds that Plaintiffs cannot meet the requirements of either Rule
23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3), it is not necessary to address whether Plaintiffs meet the requirements of
Rule 23(a). As background, the court notes that Plaintiffs do not meet the standard of class
certification solely under Rule 23(b)(2). In general, a class that seeks monetary relief that
“predominates” over injunctive relief cannot be certified under 23(b)(2). See Coleman v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 296 F.3d 443, 447-48 (6th Cir. 2002); Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998). “[M]onetary relief predominates in (b)(2) class
actions unless it is incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief.” Allison, 151 F.3d at
415. “By incidental, we mean damages that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole
on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief. . . . Ideally, incidental
-3-

damages should be only those to which class members automatically would be entitled once liability to the class (or subclass) as a whole is established.” Id. (emphasis in original).
In this case, Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief regarding MDOC policies that involve the training, supervision, discipline, and investigation of prison guards. Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants’ policies fostered a pattern and practice of sexual misconduct. In addition, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for sexual abuse, harassment, degrading treatment, loss of privacy, and retaliation.
Although Plaintiffs may prove a pattern and practice of sexual misconduct, such proof does not establish liability or damages for the class as a whole. Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages automatically if a pattern and practice of sexual misconduct or a pervasive risk of harm is proven. The damages Plaintiffs seek, therefore, are not “incidental” to the injunctive relief, making certification solely under Rule 23(b)(2) inappropriate.
Plaintiffs have implicitly recognized this and seek a “hybrid” certification of the injunctive relief claims under (b)(2) and the damages claims under (b)(3). Plaintiffs suggest that the court “bifurcate the issues of liability for the existence of a pattern and practice of sexual misconduct from the individual damage issues and then fashion a manageable procedure for handling the damage issue, i.e., trying one or more test or model cases, dividing the claim by categories, ‘etc.’” Pl.’s Reply at 3.
One difficulty with this approach is that Plaintiffs’ damages claims do not meet the requirements for certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). Class certification is appropriate under (b)(3) if “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.
-4-

23(b)(3). This “predominance” inquiry tests “whether the proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997). “In other words, ‘the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole, must predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof.’” Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1005 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
In this case, individualized issues of proof with respect to both liability and damages predominate. Neither liability nor damages can be determined on a group basis. Assuming that Plaintiffs can demonstrate that Defendants’ policies and practices resulted in a pattern and practice of sexual misconduct and retaliation, each Plaintiff will need to demonstrate that Defendants harmed her (i.e. that she was sexually assaulted, harassed, or retaliated against) and that she is entitled to damages. See Allison, 151 F.3d at 419-20 (affirming refusal to certify 23(b)(3) class in race discrimination case because of the “predominance of individual-specific issues” which “detracts from the superiority of the class action device in resolving these claims”). Plaintiffs’ claims involve individualized allegations of sexual abuse or retaliation involving different Defendants at several different MDOC facilities and involving different supervisors. “In these circumstances an action conducted nominally as a class action would degenerate in practice into multiple lawsuits separately tried.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (advisory committee notes). See also Jackson, 130 F.3d at 1005-1006 (reversing certification of (b)(3) class where only common issue was whether defendant had a practice or policy of racial discrimination and “most, if not all, of the plaintiffs’ claims will stand or fall, not on the question of whether Motel 6 has a practice or policy of racial discrimination, but on the resolution of . . .
-5-

highly case-specific factual issues”). The fact that Plaintiffs’ damages claims are not suitable for certification pursuant to
(b)(3) also militates against a partial certification of the injunctive relief claims under (b)(2). See Allison, 151 F.3d at 421 (“[W]e see no legal basis for the district court to certify a class action on the first stage of the plaintiffs’ pattern or practice claim when there is no foreseeable likelihood that the claims for compensatory and punitive damages could be certified in the class action.”). The court does not discern the advantage of trying Plaintiffs’ pattern or practice claim as a (b)(2) class action under these circumstances, where individualized proofs with respect to both liability and damages will be required for each Plaintiff.
Further, the overlap of factual issues to be determined in the injunctive relief stage and the individual liability/damages stage may raise Seventh Amendment issues, making bifurcation inappropriate. See Allison, 151 F.3d at 422-25 (“Once the right to a jury trial attaches to a claim . . . it extends to all factual issues necessary to resolving that claim.”); Bacon v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 205 F.R.D. 466, 488-89 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (“[T]he Seventh Amendment permits bifurcation only when [the] issues are so distinct and separable that the second jury will not be called upon to consider findings of fact by the first.”). For example, it appears that Plaintiffs suggest that the first proceeding address whether Defendants’ policies and practices violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and/or created unconstitutional prison conditions. This issue may need to be revisited as Defendants’ liability to each individual Plaintiff for that Plaintiff’s sexual abuse is considered in subsequent proceedings.
In sum, the court finds that class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), or a combination is not appropriate. The court is confident, however, that a manageable method for
-6-

proceeding with this case can be fashioned. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ December 22, 2006 motion for class certification is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall appear before the court on October 3, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. for a status conference to discuss their proposals for proceeding with this matter, in light of this opinion and order.

Date: August 31, 2007

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, August 31, 2007, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager

-7-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 05-73943

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of this court’s August 31, 2007
order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Sally Langley. At the court’s request
Defendant filed a response on September 27, 2007.
Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the court’s decision that certain claims against Langley
are barred by the statute of limitations.
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
LR 7.1(g)(3).
Having filed a motion for reconsideration that presents the same issues ruled upon by the
court, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties
have been misled. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ September 13, 2007

motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Date: October 23, 2007

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, October 23, 2007, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager

-2-

 
 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 1 of 96 Pg ID 2476

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, RENEE WILLIAMS, YOLANDA LIMMITT, HELISHA BAILEY, TAMMY LaCROSS, VELVET FARLEY-JOHNSON, EBONY BATES, KANDICE HALL, DAVONE WILSON, CHRISTINA SCHUSTER, DYANNA McDADE, JILL FLANDERS, DAMIKA ABNER, AMELIA ABRAHAM, KIM AMYX, BARBARA ANDERSON, LISA AUBUCHON, CARMALITA AYERS, VICKI BALDRIDGE, TRACIE BARLOWYOUNG, ALISON BARNES, TAMI BAUMGART, SANDRA BERGGREN, PATRICIA BIGBEE, LaTRINA BRAXTON, PAMELA BRIGGS, KATESHIA BROWN, DENISE BUCHANAN, LINDA BYRD, JENNIFER CHAMPAGNE, ROSLYN CHESSEBORO, ANNIE COLE, DEBORAH COLLINS, AMECA COPPY, JENNIFER DAVENPORT, ORALIA DONALD, LISA DOLPH, KAMEKA DUREN, RUBY EARLY, FELICIA EDISON, JANE ESHENRODER, JANUARY ESTRADA, REBECCA FACKLER, LINDA FLOWERS, REBECCA GAMBURD, WENDY GARAGIOLA, LAURA GARLAND, LAWANDA GAYLES, DEBRA GENTRY, TANISHIA GRAVES, DARLENE GRECO, SONYA GRISSOM, CHARMAINE HARRIS, CAROLYN HAYES-ZEHNER, TAMEKA HEWITT, KELLY HITT, VICKIE HOSKINS, IRENE HOUSTON, JAMIE JENKINS, EASTER JONES, LINDA KAROW, CORETTA KINGHOWE, SHAMEKA LAYTON, JANISE LEONARD, LARITA LEWIS, LaSHUNDA LEWIS, LaTONYA LEWIS, MARCELLA LITTLE, ZETTA MALLETT, TAMARA MARSHALL, ROBIN McCARDLE, SHAREE MILLER, PATRICIA MINNER, FELICIA MORGAN, CAROLYN MOSS, DONNA MURRY, CHRISTY NEFF, LaTASHA NICHOLS, AMY NOWAK, BEVERLY PARSEL, DEBORAH PATINO, BRENDA PHELPS, SHERRIE PIERCE, JAYNE SCHWERIN, HEATHER SMITH, CHRISTINA SPENCER, TRACEY STUCKEY, MARQUETTA TARVER, DIANA THOMAS, GLENESE THOMPSON, CRYSTAL TRUITT-BAILEY, JOYCE VanNORMAN, DEVON WATTS, ANDREA WILLIAMS, RONESHA WILLIAMS, TAWANNA WILLIS, STACY WOLSCHON, JILL YANNA, LaTARA YOUNG, SAMANTHA YOUNG, on behalf of the themselves and all others similarly situated,*

Case No. 05-73943
HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
MAG. JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

*Plaintiffs acknowledge the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Certify this case as a class action. Plaintiffs’ reassert those paragraphs in their First Amended Complaint alleging that this is a class action for the purpose of preserving this issue for appeal.

v

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 2 of 96 Pg ID 2477

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity, as Governor of the State of Michigan, PATRICIA CARUSO, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a state agency, NANCY ZANG, CLARICE STOVALL, SUSAN DAVIS, JOAN YUKINS, THOMAS DeSANTIS, WILLIS CHAPMAN, JERRY HOWELL, FIRAS AWAD, JODY NUNN, CARLTON CARTER, ART LANCASTER, CROSBY TALLEY, KIRK TOLLZEIN, WILLIAM MERROW, RODNEY MADDEN, jointly and severally,
Defendants. ____________________________________________________/

DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5620
PATRICIA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.222.0088
JOHN L. THURBER (P44989) DIANE M. SMITH (P32402) Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants Corrections Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517.335.7021

RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5600
MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 248.398.9800
DAVID A. KOTWICKI (P56070) Attorney for Defendant Carlton Carter 44825 Vandyke Utica, MI 48317 586.739.9888

MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 225 Whitmore Lake, MI 48189 734.449.9883
RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 248.691.4200
ROBERT R. STEARNS (P55188) Attorney for Defendant Chapman 28800 Van Dyke Ave., Ste. 101 Warren, MI 48093 586.751.0700

____________________________________________________________________________________

NOW COME Plaintiffs by and through their counsel and for their Complaint against the Defendants and each of them state as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs, Natheauleen Mason, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Tammy Lacross, Velvet Farley-Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade and Jill Flanders, Damika Abner, Amelia
2

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 3 of 96 Pg ID 2478
Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vicki Baldridge, Tracie Barlow-young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Bergren, Patricia Bigbee, Latrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Chesseboro, Annie Cole, Deborah Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kemeka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison, Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes-Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Linda Karow, Coretta King-Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, Lashunda Lewis, Latonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, Latasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt-Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, Latara Young and Samantha Young, are all former or current prisoners who have been subjected to discrimination, sexual abuse and degrading treatment by male prison staff, while under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections (hereinafter "MDOC").
The Plaintiffs who are now added and whose claims are more fully described below are all former or current prisoners who have been subjected to sexual assault, denial of equal protection of the law, invasion of privacy and such degrading treatment as
3

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 4 of 96 Pg ID 2479
to constitute cruel and unusual punishment by male prison staff while under the jurisdiction of the MDOC since March 10, 2000.
In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek: 1) Injunctive relief to prevent the Defendants’ continuing deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights; 2) Certification of Plaintiffs as a class; 3) A declaratory ruling that the policies, procedures and practices of the Michigan Department of Corrections and Defendants have and continue to deprive female prisoners of equal privileges and opportunities; and subject Plaintiffs to a pervasive risk of custodial sexual misconduct, including sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment and unnecessary viewing and touching by male employees of the MDOC; intimidate, punish and retaliate against Plaintiffs who report discrimination, custodial sexual misconduct and degrading treatment; and constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the Constitution, treaties and law of the United States; 4) A declaratory ruling that the March 10, 2000 amendment to Michigan’s Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. 37.2301, violates Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the law and deprives Plaintiffs of a remedy for actual wrongs; and 5) A monetary award to Plaintiffs to compensate for their injuries together with punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for themselves and all similarly-situated female prisoners.
JURISDICTION 2. This is a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981 et seq., seeking declaratory, injunctive relief and monetary damages against Defendants for purposeful discrimination and violation of the United States Constitution including the First, Fourth,
4

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 5 of 96 Pg ID 2480
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and violations of the laws, conventions, treaties and customary international law norms.
3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343(a)(3) and 1343(a)(4). Jurisdiction for declaratory relief is also premised on 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
4. The amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, excluding interest and costs.
VENUE 5. Venue lies in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(d). The majority of the events in controversy occurred in the counties of Wayne, Washtenaw, and Livingston, which are located within the jurisdiction of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS 6. Plaintiff Representatives are citizens of the United States and, at all relevant times, were under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all former, current and future female prisoners who from March 10, 2000, were subjected to sexual misconduct, sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment, gender discrimination and violation of their privacy rights by male employees of the MDOC and who suffered economic and non-economic injury as a result of the deprivation of their rights including intimidation and retaliation for reporting
5

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 6 of 96 Pg ID 2481
same. 7. Plaintiff Representative Natheauleen Mason was repeatedly sexually assaulted
by a male correctional officer and subjected to sexually degrading and harassing treatment beginning in 2002 while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan. Beginning in 2003, Plaintiff Mason was again sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to violations of her privacy, and retaliated against by correctional officers and staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. Plaintiff Mason is currently on parole under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
8. Plaintiff Representative Yolanda Limmitt was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment by male correctional officers beginning in September 2002 and continuing through 2003 while she was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan. In 2003, Plaintiff Limmitt was sexually harassed, subjected to privacy violations and retaliated against by corrections officers and staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. Plaintiff Limmitt is currently on parole under the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
9. Plaintiff Representative Davone Wilson was sexually assaulted in 2005 by a male correctional officer while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex, located in Washtenaw County, Michigan. In 2005, Plaintiff Wilson was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan.
6

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 7 of 96 Pg ID 2482
Plaintiff Wilson is currently on parole under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
10. Plaintiff Representative Helisha Bailey was sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment by two male correctional officers beginning in 2003 while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. Plaintiff Bailey was also subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations at Western Wayne Correctional Facility and the Huron Valley Women’s Complex located in Washtenaw County, Michigan. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
11. Plaintiff Representative Kandice Hall was sexually assaulted, sexually harassed, retaliated against and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male correctional officers while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
12. Plaintiff Representative Ebony Bates was sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male correctional officers while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex from April 2005 to present. Plaintiff Bates continues to be incarcerated in the Huron Valley Women’s Complex where she is subjected to ongoing sexual harassment, privacy violations and retaliation. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
13. Plaintiff Representative Renee Williams was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male correctional officers beginning in September or October of 2002 and continuing
7

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 8 of 96 Pg ID 2483
through February 2003. Plaintiff Williams was subjected to ongoing retaliation by staff while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. Plaintiff Williams is currently on parole under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
14. Plaintiff Representative Christina Schuster was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed, battered and subjected to privacy violations by male correctional officers and retaliated against by staff while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
15. Plaintiff Representative Tammy LaCross was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by a male assistant deputy warden and male correctional officers and staff beginning in 2000 and continuing until 2003 and retaliated against by staff while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. Plaintiff LaCross was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male correctional officers and staff and retaliated against by staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. Plaintiff LaCross is no longer under the jurisdiction of the MDOC and resides in the State of Michigan. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
16. Plaintiff Representative Velvet Farley-Johnson was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy
8

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 9 of 96 Pg ID 2484
violations by a male assistant deputy warden and male staff and correctional officers while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility from 2001 until 2002 and subjected to retaliation by staff and correctional officers. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male correctional officers and staff and retaliated against by staff at Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson is on parole under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
17. Plaintiff Representative Jill Flanders was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and privacy violations by male employees of the MDOC while incarcerated at Camp Branch located in Branch County, Michigan and subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations by male employees at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex located in Washtenaw County, Michigan. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
18. Plaintiff Representative Dyanna McDade was repeatedly sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and subjected to privacy violations by male employees of the MDOC and subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees while incarcerated at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, located in Wayne County, Michigan. Plaintiff McDade is currently incarcerated at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, where she continues to be subjected to sexual harassment, privacy violations and retaliatory acts. The specific facts of her claims are set forth below.
9

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 10 of 96 Pg ID 2485
DEFENDANTS 19. Defendant Jennifer Granholm is the Governor of the State of Michigan invested with executive power pursuant to Art. V §1 of the Michigan Constitution. Governor Granholm is sued in her official capacity for purposes of addressing Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief. Defendant Granholm is ultimately responsible for the care and custody of women prisoners in the State of Michigan, and has the authority and ability to remedy current and future conditions at facilities housing women and girl prisoners which have given rise to the custodial sexual abuse and degrading treatment set forth in this complaint. Defendant Granholm resides in Ingham County and the capitol of the State of Michigan is in Ingham County. 20. Defendant Patricia Caruso, as the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, is charged with the responsibility of developing and implementing policies and procedures for the management of the Michigan Department of Corrections and its employees, and is responsible for the care, custody and protection of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Defendant Caruso is being sued individually and in her official capacity. 21. Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections is an agency of the State of Michigan charged with the responsibility of caring for, protecting and rehabilitation prisoners and parolees under their jurisdiction. Defendant MDOC is sued for purposes of addressing Plaintiffs’ claims of injunctive relief. 22. Defendant Nancy Zang was, at all times relevant to this action, employed as
10

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 11 of 96 Pg ID 2486
an administrator for women prisoners’ affairs and responsible for developing, implementing and overseeing any policies or procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating custodial sexual misconduct and/or disciplining staff for sexual misconduct against female prisoners in Michigan. Defendant Zang was also responsible for the training of male staff working at female prisons, responding to complaints of custodial sexual misconduct and degrading treatment of female prisoners and for ensuring the promulgation and/or implementation of any MDOC rules, policies and procedures for preventing custodial sexual abuse of female prisoners. She is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
23. Defendant Clarice Stovall was, from the time it began to house women female prisoners until its closure, the Warden of the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, and responsible for overseeing its operations. Defendant Stovall is currently the Warden of the Robert Scott Correctional Facility. In her capacity as a Warden for female facilities, Defendant Stovall was responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation of correctional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at those facilities. Defendant Stovall, in her warden capacity, was at all relevant times, responsible for the custody, safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation of female prisoners at facilities housing female prisoners. Defendant Stovall was also, at all relevant times, responsible for ensuring that the facilities housing female prisoners were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff misconduct and treatment of victims of custodial sexual abuse. Defendant Stovall is being sued individually
11

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 12 of 96 Pg ID 2487
and in her official capacity. 24. Defendant Susan Davis is currently the Warden of the Huron Valley Complex
for Women and Camp Brighton, and responsible for overseeing their operation for female prisoners. In her capacity as Warden, Defendant Davis has at all times been responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation of correctional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex. Defendant Davis, during the time she was the warden, was responsible for the custody, safety, protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation of female prisoners at these facilities housing female prisoners. Defendant Davis was also, during the time she was the warden of Huron Valley Women’s Complex and Camp Brighton, responsible for ensuring that the facilities were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff misconduct and treatment of victims of custodial sexual abuse. Defendant Davis is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
25. Defendant Joan Yukins was the prior Warden of the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton, and responsible for overseeing its operation for female prisoners. Defendant Yukins, during the time she was the Warden of the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton, was responsible for the training, assignment, supervision, discipline and investigation of correctional officers and MDOC employees assigned to or working at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton. Defendant Yukins was, at all relevant times, responsible for the custody, ensuring the safety,
12

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 13 of 96 Pg ID 2488
protection, fair treatment and rehabilitation of female prisoners at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton. Defendant Yukins was also, at all relevant times, responsible for ensuring that the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and Camp Brighton were operated according to proper correctional standards, developing procedures for implementing policies and for ensuring an adequate and effective mechanism for safe reporting of staff misconduct and treatment of victims of custodial sexual abuse. Defendant Yukins is being sued individually and in her official capacity.
26. Defendant Thomas DeSantis was, at all times relevant to this action, the Site Supervisor of Camp Brighton, and in that capacity, responsible for the onsite training, assignment and supervision of correctional officers and staff at Camp Brighton. Defendant DeSantis was responsible for the safety, custody and protection of female prisoners at Camp Brighton and for ensuring the implementation of all rules, policies and procedures. Defendant DeSantis is being sued individually and in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Willis Chapman was, until August of 2004 and at all times relevant to this action, an Assistant Deputy Warden at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, responsible for the custody and security in the housing units, assignment and supervision of staff and investigations of staff misconduct. He is being sued individually and in his official capacity.
28. Defendants Firas Awad, Jody Nunn, Carlton Carter, Rodney Madden, William Merrow, Crosby Talley and Kirk Tollzein were, at all times relevant to this action, employed as correctional officers by the Michigan Department of Corrections and assigned to supervise
13

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 14 of 96 Pg ID 2489
female prisoners. 29. Defendant Art Lancaster, was at all times relevant to this action employed by
the Michigan Department of Corrections and assigned to work with female prisoners. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
30. Defendant supervisors and wardens assigned male officers and staff to supervise female prisoners at all facilities housing female prisoners without providing adequate training, oversight or mechanisms to ensure the safety and protection of female prisoners including Plaintiffs.
31. Defendants, without adequate procedures, training or supervision, assigned male officers and staff to supervise women prisoners, including Plaintiffs while in states of undress and performing basic bodily functions and required male staff to perform random and specific body searches of female prisoners including Plaintiffs which searches included male staff touching female breasts and genital areas.
32. Defendants assigned male officers to transport women prisoners including Plaintiffs to facilities, clinics and hospitals without ensuring the privacy and safety of female prisoners in states of undress and during intimate medical procedures.
33. Female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, were and are routinely subjected to offensive sex-based language, sexual harassment, offensive touching and requests for sexual acts and degrading treatment by male staff at all facilities housing women prisoners.
34. At all relevant times there existed a pattern and practice of male officers and male staff sexually assaulting women prisoners, including Plaintiffs, under the jurisdiction
14

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 15 of 96 Pg ID 2490
of the Michigan Department of Corrections, in contravention of law and policy. 35. At all relevant times there existed a pattern and practice of male officers
requesting sexual acts from women prisoners, including Plaintiffs, under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections as a condition of retaining good time credits, work details, educational and rehabilitative program opportunities, among other rights, privileges and benefits.
36. Plaintiffs have been subjected to intimidation, threats and retaliation upon refusal to participate in sexual activity with male staff, for reporting male staff sexual misconduct and as a mechanism to force and coerce women to remain silent about sexual misconduct of male staff in Michigan's women's facilities.
37. Defendants were aware, from reports by women prisoners, reports and findings of state and federal commissions, independent investigative agencies and human rights organizations, that there existed an endemic problem of custodial sexual abuse of female prisoners in Michigan prisons as a result of Defendants’ policies, procedures, acts and omissions.
38. The level of sexual abuse and degrading treatment of women prisoners by male employees from 2000 to the present was described as rampant by the United States Court of Appeals in its ruling in Everson v. Michigan Dep’t of Corrections, 391 F. 3d 737 (6th Cir. 2004). The Defendants and each of them were or should have been aware of the pervasive risk of sexual assault and abuse by male staff on Plaintiffs.
39. Defendants were aware of prior complaints by female prisoners against male 15

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 16 of 96 Pg ID 2491
staff, including Defendants, for sexual assaults, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and invasion of privacy including knowledge of the prosecutions of male staff for sexual assaults on female prisoners. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to take adequate steps to remedy the situation and/or deter such sexual misconduct against female prisoners and these Plaintiffs in particular including failure to properly train, assign, supervise, investigate and discipline.
40. Despite their knowledge of prior sexual assaults, misconduct, harassment and violation of privacy, Defendants failed to implement an effective mechanism to identify, investigate and prevent the widespread sexual, emotional and physical abuse and discriminatory treatment of women prisoners, including Plaintiffs.
41. Defendants knew or should have known that as a result of their acts and omissions there was a strong likelihood of further sexual misconduct and/or great bodily harm and injury to female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, by male staff of the MDOC.
42. Defendants' acts and omissions created a hostile environment and pervasive risk of harm to female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, and Defendants knew or should have known of the undue threats to Plaintiffs which have resulted from placing inadequately trained or supervised male staff on duty in areas where female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, are subjected to sexual misconduct and violation of their privacy rights.
43. Defendants in supervisory positions exhibited reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to the sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, assaults, degrading treatment and violations of the basic privacy rights of Plaintiffs by failing to take adequate steps to deter
16

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 17 of 96 Pg ID 2492
violations of Plaintiffs' rights, including but not limited to: failing to adequately investigate allegations of sexual assaults, harassment and degrading treatment of female prisoners, failing to provide adequate supervision of staff, failing to adequately discipline staff who violated Plaintiffs' rights and/or failing to adequately train and screen their staff, including investigators and supervisory staff.
44. Defendants failed to adequately screen employees prior to assignment to a women's facility and failed to provide adequate training to staff, investigators and supervisors, on issues of cross-gender supervision, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, reporting violations of work rules, privacy rights of women prisoners, despite their knowledge of incidents of sexual misconduct and incidents of sexual activity between male staff and women prisoners.
45. Defendants' acts and omissions regarding screening, training, supervision, investigation, discipline of staff and failures to protect women prisoners, including Plaintiffs, from retaliation, permitted, encouraged and ratified the discriminatory and sexually abusive and degrading treatment of Plaintiffs.
46. The management and supervisory practices, rules, procedures and acts of the Defendants were so deficient in their failure to limit the risks of sexual misconduct by male staff on female prisoners as to constitute deliberate indifference to the safety needs of female prisoners under their jurisdiction, including Plaintiffs.
47. The management and supervisory practices, rules, procedures and acts of the Defendants were so deficient in their failure to limit the risks and incidents of sexual
17

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 18 of 96 Pg ID 2493
misconduct by male staff on female prisoners as to constitute encouragement and aid to male staff who violated female prisoners’, including Plaintiffs’, rights to be free of sexual assault, harassment, degrading treatment and privacy violations.
48. Defendants, by their actions, aided and abetted the sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment and retaliation against female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, by giving assistance and encouragement to other Defendants who engaged in discriminatory and unlawful conduct, either affirmatively or by failing to report, investigate and discipline staff.
49. Defendants placed and housed women prisoners in facilities including Western Wayne Correctional Facility, Huron Valley Women’s Complex, Camp Brighton and SAI Boot Camp, without taking adequate steps to ensure Plaintiffs’ privacy, protect Plaintiffs from risk of custodial sexual abuse, and without adequate staff supervision and/or mechanisms for reporting abuse.
50. Defendants failed to identify, screen, treat or protect Plaintiffs with prior histories of abuse, rendering them particularly vulnerable to harm by male staff and failed to take adequate steps to identify, house, treat and protect Plaintiffs from further harm and exacerbation of their injuries.
51. Defendants’ placement of girls, including Plaintiffs under the age of 18 in areas where they were supervised by male staff and subjected to viewing in states of undress and while performing basic bodily functions without taking adequate steps to protect them from harm, constitutes deliberate indifference and reckless disregard of their safety and rights and
18

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 19 of 96 Pg ID 2494
rendered them particularly vulnerable to harm by male staff. 52. The failures, acts, and/or omissions of Defendants, as set forth above, were and
are a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. 53. The deprivation of constitutional rights alleged in this complaint are the direct
result of official policies, custom and practices of Defendants and each of them. EXHAUSTION OF ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
54. Plaintiffs have exhausted all ‘available’ administrative remedies, or alternately, have taken all available steps to bring these matters to Defendants’ attention and seek resolution prior to filing litigation.
55. The Michigan Department of Corrections, and Defendants do not allow female prisoners, including Plaintiffs, claiming staff sexual misconduct to exhaust their administrative remedies through the grievance procedure and do not provide an alternative administrative mechanism.
56. Plaintiffs were and are routinely discouraged from use of the grievance system by threats and intimidation by staff, including Defendants, procedural barriers created by Defendants and Defendants’ failure to ensure Plaintiffs are provided grievance forms, Defendants’ refusal to process grievances, and/or Defendants’ failure to ensure responses to grievances, rendering any administrative process for Plaintiffs unavailable or futile.
57. In addition to the above noted barriers, at all relevant times Plaintiffs were advised that a precondition to filing a grievance was consultation with the individual who was being grieved. Since complying with this requirement, in the context of Plaintiffs
19

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 20 of 96 Pg ID 2495
grieving staff criminal sexual conduct and staff abuse, would place Plaintiffs in danger, Defendants’ requirement rendered the grievance system unavailable to Plaintiffs.
58. Plaintiffs’ prior class action complaints, including Neal, et al. v MDOC, et al., File No. 96-6986-CZ and Anderson, et al. v MDOC, et al., File No. 03-162-MZ, have adequately advised Defendants, and each of them, of the existence of pervasive custodial sexual misconduct in Michigan’s women prisons, staff sexual assaults, privacy violations, degrading treatment and retaliation, to allow Defendants the opportunity to take remedial actions prior to Plaintiffs filing this action.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF’S FACTS NATHEAULEEN MASON
59. During her incarceration Plaintiff Natheauleen Mason was routinely subjected to sexually degrading comments and privacy violations by male staff including the officers assigned to her housing unit at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton located in Livingston County, Michigan.
60. Beginning in July 2002 Plaintiff Mason was forced to perform oral sex on Defendant Carlton Carter, a correctional officer employed by the MDOC and assigned to supervise her housing unit on the second shift at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
61. Defendant Carter entered Plaintiff Mason’s prison cell on at least three occasions between July and October, 2002, and threatened, coerced and forced Plaintiff Mason to perform oral sex. Defendant Carter also physically assaulted Plaintiff Mason and subjected her to sexually degrading treatment on multiple occasions.
20

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 21 of 96 Pg ID 2496
62. Defendant Carter, with the cooperation of other staff, including Defendant Madden, subjected Plaintiff Mason to ongoing sexual assaults, harassment and degrading treatment in such a manner that supervisory Defendants knew or should have known of the assaults.
63. Defendant Carter repeatedly threatened Plaintiff Mason physically and intimidated her with threats of future harm should she resist or report his assaults and criminal behavior.
64. Defendants failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff Mason’s complaints against Defendant Carter and by such actions both ratified the actions of Defendant Carter and endangered the safety of other Plaintiffs including Plaintiffs Yolanda Limmitt and Davone Wilson.
65. Plaintiff Mason was transferred to Camp Brighton located in Livingston County where she became the target for sexual assaults and degrading treatment by another male correctional officer, Defendant William Merrow, beginning in the fall of 2003.
66. Defendant Merrow began soliciting sex from Plaintiff Mason, touching her breasts and pressing his body against her on multiple occasions. Defendant Merrow routinely sexually harassed Plaintiff Mason by telling her what sexual acts he intended to do with her, using sexually offensive language and threatening her with physical harm if she reported his actions.
67. Defendant Merrow attempted to prevent Plaintiff Mason’s parole by writing her false misconduct reports and his actions continued until Plaintiff Mason was released
21

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 22 of 96 Pg ID 2497
from MDOC custody. 68. Defendants failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff Mason’s reports of abuse,
failed to adequately supervise, discipline or take steps to prevent ongoing assaults against Plaintiff Mason.
69. While at Camp Brighton, Plaintiff Mason was subjected to retaliation by staff for reporting sexual abuse by male staff and continues to fear retaliation while she remains under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
70. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Mason.
YOLANDA LIMMITT 71. In 2002, Plaintiff Yolanda Limmitt was a prisoner housed at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan, and was supervised in her housing unit by Defendant Carlton Carter on the second shift. 72. At the time Plaintiff Limmitt was supervised by Defendant Carter, Defendants Stovall, Chapman and Zang were aware of prior allegations of sexual assaults and sexually degrading treatment of female prisoners by Defendant Carlton Carter at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility and had failed to adequately investigate, discipline, supervise or assign Defendant Carter subsequent to these reports.
22

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 23 of 96 Pg ID 2498
73. On or about September 2002 Defendant Carlton Carter began sexually assaulting Plaintiff Limmitt in her cell, a tool room and in other areas at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
74. Defendant Carter’s sexual assaults included forced oral sex and genital touching and forced sexual exposure. In addition to the sexual assaults, abuse and degrading treatment, Defendant Carter kept Plaintiff Limmitt from reporting with a combination of coercion, threats, intimidation and mental abuse.
75. Defendant Carter’s sexual harassment and sexual abuse of Plaintiff Limmitt occurred with the knowledge and cooperation of other male officers, including Defendant Madden, who allowed Defendant Carter to remove Plaintiff Limmitt from her unit for purposes of sexually assaulting her and/or was aware that Defendant Carter was entering Plaintiff Limmitt’s cell for purposes of sexually assaulting and degrading treatment and failed to take any steps to report or stop Defendant Carlton Carter’s actions.
76. The actions of Defendant Carter were so open and obvious as to make Defendants aware of the sexual assaults and misconduct of the officer. However, Defendants failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff Limmitt.
77. Defendant Carlton Carter continued to sexually assault and/or sexually harass Plaintiff Limmitt up to and including the fall of 2003.
78. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Limmitt has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
23

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 24 of 96 Pg ID 2499
79. Plaintiff Limmitt was fearful of reporting Defendant Carlton Carter until she was transferred from the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. Plaintiff Limmitt reported on or about October, 2003, while incarcerated at Camp Brighton, where she was then subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees.
80. Defendants Stovall, Chapman, Caruso and Zang failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff Limmitt’s reports of abuse and failed to adequately discipline or supervise Defendant Carter. Defendant Carter continued to sexually assault and abuse Plaintiffs at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility until his transfer to the Huron Valley Women’s Complex.
81. Upon Defendant Carter’s transfer to the Huron Valley Women’s Complex, Defendants Davis, Zang and Caruso failed to properly train, assign, supervise or discipline this Defendant. Defendant Carter again sexually assaulted and sexually harassed female prisoners at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex until his transfer to a men’s facility in 2005.
82. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Limmitt.
DAVONE WILSON 83. Plaintiff Davone Wilson was twenty years old when she was incarcerated in
24

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 25 of 96 Pg ID 2500
the Huron Valley Women’s Complex in August of 2004. 84. Shortly after Plaintiff Wilson arrived, Defendant Carlton Carter began to stalk
her, exposing himself and groping her breasts and buttocks on multiple occasions. 85. Defendant Carter was assigned to supervise Plaintiff Wilson’s unit and used
his position to view her in states of undress, while showering, and to force physical contact and make sexually based comments and threats.
86. Plaintiff Wilson attempted to report Defendant Carter’s acts and threats on multiple occasions both verbally and in writing requesting to talk to her counselor who failed and refused to speak to her.
87. Plaintiff Wilson was made aware that Defendant Carter assaulted other women prisoners and that no discipline or other actions were taken as a result of those assaults.
88. On or about February, 2002 Defendant Carter entered Plaintiff Wilson’s cell after she had showered, exposed his penis and threatened her with a major misconduct ticket he claimed could cancel her pending parole and keep her in prison unless she performed oral sex. Defendant Carter then forced Plaintiff Wilson to perform oral sex on him in her cell.
89. Plaintiff Wilson was released on parole on or about July, 2005 and continues to fear retaliation while she remains under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
90. Defendants’ inadequate system and practices for reporting abuse, Defendants’ failure to adequately supervise, discipline and investigate Defendant Carter and Defendants’ policies and procedures with regard to cross-gender supervision were a proximate cause of
25

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 26 of 96 Pg ID 2501
Plaintiffs’ assault and abuse. RENEE WILLIAMS
91. Plaintiff Renee Williams was placed under the jurisdiction of the MDOC in 1999 and housed at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility and then Camp Branch.
92. In 2000, Plaintiff Williams was transferred to Western Wayne Correctional Facility where multiple male officers began making sexual comments to Plaintiff Williams and telling her they were going to have a lot of fun with her at that facility.
93. Plaintiff Williams was subjected to routine privacy violations, sexual harassment and touching including officers making obscene comments while they viewed her in states of nakedness.
94. Beginning the Fall of 2002, Plaintiff Williams was sexually assaulted again and again by a male correctional officer, Defendant Madden. The sexual assaults included vaginal intercourse and forced oral sex.
95. The sexual assaults and rapes occurred in Plaintiff Williams’ cell, a caustic closet in the prison, the staff bathroom, a porter’s closet and a counselor’s office.
96. The sexual abuse of Plaintiff Williams was so open and obvious that Defendant Supervisors were or should have been aware of Defendant Madden’s criminal actions yet took no steps to prevent further assaults and abuse.
97. The assaults and abuse occurred with the cooperation and/or knowledge of other staff and officers who failed to report or intervene.
98. Defendants’ failure to take any actions in light of the open and obvious abuse 26

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 27 of 96 Pg ID 2502
together with Defendant Madden’s threats of retaliation and Plaintiffs’ experience with retaliation by staff made any reporting futile and/or dangerous.
99. Defendants knew or should have known of Plaintiff Williams’ experience of childhood sexual abuse and her vulnerability to any coercive sex and/or sexual abuse by male staff. Defendants failed to take adequate steps to protect or treat Plaintiff Williams.
100. Plaintiff Williams has also been the recipient of other acts of sexual harassment by male staff including male correctional officers who watched Plaintiff Williams while she was naked and made lewd and threatening sexual comments to her. In the food service area and on her unit, a male correctional officer looked over her door cover to view her in a state of undress. A male correctional officer grabbed his penis and told Plaintiff Williams he wanted to perform sexual acts.
101. The custodial sexual abuse of Plaintiff Williams ended when she was paroled. Plaintiff Williams continues to fear retaliation while under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
102. Defendants’ continued failure to take adequate steps to deter the assaultive behavior of Defendant Madden and protect Plaintiffs, including inadequate investigations, assignments, reporting mechanisms, supervision and discipline, resulted in Defendant Madden continuing to assault women prisoners the Huron Valley Women’s Complex.
103. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for
27

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 28 of 96 Pg ID 2503
investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Williams.
VELVET FARLEY-JOHNSON 104. In 2001, Plaintiff Velvet Farley-Johnson was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. 105. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson had previously been subjected to sexually degrading treatment, sexual touching by male staff and routine viewing and sexual comments by male staff of the MDOC. 106. In the summer of 2001 Plaintiff Farley-Johnson was first approached for sex by the assistant deputy warden, Defendant Williams Chapman, at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. 107. Defendant Chapman used his position as assistant deputy warden to order Defendant Farley-Johnson to work in his office. 108. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson’s job detail in the prison was recreation aide assigned to the same building as Defendant Chapman. Defendant Chapman ordered that Plaintiff Farley-Johnson be assigned to paint his office and, at this time, while in his office, began to touch Plaintiff Farley-Johnson sexually. 109. Defendant Chapman ordered Plaintiff Farley-Johnson into an empty office and on three occasions sexually assaulted and raped Plaintiff Farley-Johnson by bending her over and penetrating her vaginally. 110. Plaintiff Farley-Johnson was subjected to retaliation by employees of the
28

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 29 of 96 Pg ID 2504
MDOC for reporting assaults and continues to fear retaliatory acts by Defendants while she is under t he jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
111. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Farley-Johnson.
TAMMY LACROSS 112. Plaintiff Tammy Lacross was seventeen years old when she was placed in an adult prison and subjected to supervision by male correctional officers who routinely touched her while performing body searches, viewed her while nude in showers and while dressing and undressing. 113. Shortly after her arrival at the Scott Correctional Facility, Plaintiff LaCross was, on a weekly basis, subjected to sexual overtures from male corrections officers, forced physical contact and sexually degrading language. Plaintiff LaCross was also made aware of sexual contact between female prisoners and male staff that was open and obvious and went undisciplined. 114. Plaintiff LaCross was also aware of incidents of retaliation against female prisoners who resisted or reported assaults by male staff. 115. In 2000, Plaintiff LaCross was transferred to the Western Wayne Correctional Facility which had recently been converted to a female prison.
29

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 30 of 96 Pg ID 2505
116. Defendant Willis Chapman was the Assistant Deputy Warden (ADW) for Custody and Housing at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility and acted as an investigator of complaints of staff misconduct. Within five (5) months of women arriving at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, ADW Chapman began sexually assaulting at least two female prisoners, including Plaintiff Farley-Johnson. By May of 2001, he began sexually harassing Plaintiff Tammy LaCross.
117. Defendant Chapman’s behavior was open and obvious to any supervisor concerned with ensuring the safety of female prisoners.
118. By July of 2001, Defendant Chapman had coerced Plaintiff LaCross into a sexual relationship with forced intercourse and touching on a weekly basis. These sexual assaults and coerced sex took place in multiple areas of the Western Wayne Correctional Facility and, including instances when Defendant Chapman ordered Plaintiff LaCross be brought to his assistant deputy warden’s office, the school building and other offices and closets for purposes of the coerced sex and assaults.
119. The physical assaults and coercive sex by Defendant Chapman against Plaintiff LaCross resulted in physical injury to Plaintiff LaCross, including but not limited to multiple bruises, scrapes and lacerations. In addition to the sexual assaults and abuse, Defendant Chapman mentally abused Plaintiff LaCross and kept her from reporting the abuse with a combination of threats and mental abuse.
120. Several employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections reported the sexual misconduct of Assistant Deputy Warden Chapman and his violations of facility rules,
30

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 31 of 96 Pg ID 2506
policies and procedures. 121. Defendant Stovall specifically directed that Defendant Chapman not be placed
on any restrictions. As a result, Defendant Chapman could and did intimidate and threaten Plaintiff LaCross to prevent her cooperating with any investigation or reporting the assaults. Further, Defendant Stovall did not reassign Defendant Chapman, did not report the alleged criminal activity to the Michigan State Police, did not adequately investigate the allegations and placed no restrictions on Defendant Chapman.
122. Defendant Chapman continued to sexually assault, degrade and intentionally inflict emotional distress on Plaintiff LaCross on a weekly basis, including acts of penetrative intercourse, forced oral sex, viewing Plaintiff LaCross in various states of undress and degrading treatment through 2003.
123. Defendant Chapman was not removed from his position until August, 2003. 124. Plaintiff LaCross was subjected to acts of retaliation by MDOC employees at both Western Wayne Correctional Facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and Camp Brighton, located in Livingston County, Michigan until her release. 125. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff LaCross.
31

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 32 of 96 Pg ID 2507
KANDICE HALL 126. Plaintiff Kandice Hall was incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex in March of 2005, when a male correctional officer on the midnight shift ordered her out of her cell and into another room of the housing unit. 127. The officer, Defendant Jody Nunn, then sexually assaulted Plaintiff Hall by grabbing her breasts and buttocks, digitally penetrating her and raping her from behind. 128. On the same date and time, Defendant Nunn forcibly removed Plaintiff Hall’s clothes, pushed her down and attempted forced oral sex. 129. Defendant Nunn then threatened Plaintiff Hall against reporting, said he knew where her family lived and reminded her that his wife was also an officer in the facility. 130. When Plaintiff Hall did report the assaults to prevent further abuse, she was retaliated against by staff, including Defendant Nunn, for reporting. 131. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Hall.
EBONY BATES 132. In April of 2005, Plaintiff Ebony Bates was incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women’s Facility when she was assaulted by a male correctional officer, Defendant Jody Nunn, while he worked the second shift supervising her in temporary segregation.
32

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 33 of 96 Pg ID 2508
133. Defendant Nunn routinely sexually harassed Plaintiff Bates by requesting she expose herself to him and using sexually offensive language.
134. Defendant Nunn ordered Plaintiff Bates to pull down her prison jumpsuit so he could view her. Defendant Nunn groped Plaintiff’s genital area and made sexually offensive and degrading statements to her.
135. Plaintiff Bates reported the assault and has been subjected to retaliatory acts by Defendant Nunn, his wife and other staff since reporting.
136. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Bates.
CHRISTINA SCHUSTER 137. Defendants knew of should have known that Plaintiff Christina Schuster was the victim of sexual and physical abuse throughout her adolescence, but failed to take any steps to protect her from further abuse. 138. While incarcerated in the Western Wayne Correctional Facility, Plaintiff Schuster was coerced into sex with a resident unit officer, Defendant Dallas Mesack. 139. Defendant Mesack routinely sexually harassed Plaintiff Schuster by requesting she expose herself to him and by using sexually offensive language. 140. Defendant Mesack entered Plaintiff Schuster’s cell at night, ordered her cell
33

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 34 of 96 Pg ID 2509
mate to face the wall and ordered Plaintiff to engage in acts of oral sex on multiple occasions during the Spring and Summer of 2003.
141. Plaintiff Schuster was subjected to retaliation by MDOC employees after reporting the sexual assaults.
142. The actions of Defendant Mesack were open and obvious. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Schuster.
DYANNA MCDADE 143. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Dyanna McDade has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 144. Plaintiff Dyanna McDade was 21 years old when she was placed in the Robert Scott Correctional Facility in 2002. 145. Beginning in the Spring of 2004, Defendant Crosby Talley, who is a corrections officer at the Robert Scott Correctional Facility, began sexually harassing Plaintiff McDade by using sexually degrading language aimed at her. 146. During the same time period, Defendant Talley sexually touched, pruriently viewed and leered at Plaintiff McDade. 147. On or about September, 2004 Defendant Talley coerced Plaintiff McDade into
34

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 35 of 96 Pg ID 2510
a restroom at the MSI factory and followed her into the restroom, blocking her exit. 148. Plaintiff McDade attempted to resist and, on the day in question, Defendant
Talley raped Plaintiff McDade and threatened her against reporting the assault. 149. Plaintiff McDade was fearful to report the assault in light of her knowledge of
the lack of adequate investigation, lack of discipline and incidents of retaliation against women who reported such assaults.
150. Defendant Talley continued to stalk Ms. McDade and she attempted suicide. She was sent to segregation and solitary confinement for unauthorized use of a razor blade.
151. On November 20, 2004, fearful that the assaults would continue, Plaintiff McDade did tell her cell mate that she had been raped and her cell mate reported the rape to Lieutenant Hockenhull, a member of the supervisory staff at Scott Correctional Facility.
152. MDOC’s Internal Affairs’ investigation into the sexual assault was inadequate and inconclusive and the investigator was hostile and aggressive. No action was taken against Defendant Talley.
153. Plaintiff McDade was forced to terminate all therapy and treatment because Defendant Talley remained assigned to the mental health unit.
154. On two occasions previous to this incident, Defendant Talley had been reported for sexually assaulting female prisoners
155. Plaintiff Dyanna McDade was sexually harassed and assaulted at Scott Correctional Facility by Food Service Supervisor Teron Gaines beginning in December, 2006.
35

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 36 of 96 Pg ID 2511
156. FSS Gaines made repeated requests to Plaintiff McDade that she engaged in sexual acts with him, touched her inappropriately, and made leering, sexually harassing looks and gestures.
157. Plaintiff McDade reported the sexual assaults and harassment by Gaines and was subsequently retaliated against by supervisory personnel at Scott Correctional Facility, who wrote retaliatory misconducts, took away bonuses, overtime and then her job.
158. Despite repeated reports of sexual assaults on female prisoners, Defendant Supervisors, including Defendants Yukins, Stovall, Zang and Caruso, have allowed Defendant Talley to remain employed by the MDOC with full access to female prisoners including working in the housing units.
159. Defendants were aware or should have been aware that Plaintiff McDade has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. The subsequent assault exacerbated Plaintiff McDade’s prior condition.
160. Defendants’, including Defendants Yukins and Stovall, failure to adequately supervise the staff at Robert Scott Correctional Facility resulted in retaliatory actions being taken against Plaintiff McDade in the form of loss of detail, time in segregation and major misconduct tickets.
161. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for
36

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 37 of 96 Pg ID 2512
investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff McDade.
HELISHA BAILEY 162. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Helisha Bailey has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 163. In 2003, Plaintiff Helisha Bailey was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility where she was assaulted by two male correctional officers. 164. On or about January 2003, Defendant Firas Awad ordered Plaintiff Bailey into a caustic closet and grabbed her breast and groped her vaginal area. Later that day, Defendant Awad again forced Plaintiff Bailey into a closet and grabbed her breasts and forced her hand onto his penis. On the same date, later in the evening, Defendant Awad ordered Plaintiff Bailey to come out of her cell. Plaintiff Bailey left her cell and walked to the officer’s station. At that time, Defendants Carter and Madden sent her into the laundry room where Defendant Awad forced Plaintiff to perform oral sex and digitally penetrated and raped her. 165. Defendant Awad threatened Plaintiff Bailey, with future sexual assaults and punishment if she did not keep her mouth shut. 166. Defendant Awad continued to threaten Ms. Bailey after this assault. 167. On or about March 2003, Defendant Kirk Tollzein began making sexual comments to Plaintiff Bailey and in April 2003 grabbed her breasts on several occasions.
37

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 38 of 96 Pg ID 2513
168. On multiple occasions Defendant Tollzein entered Plaintiff Bailey’s cell on the second shift and forced her to expose her body to him, grabbed her breasts, squeezed her nipples and digitally penetrated her.
169. Defendant Tollzien threatened Plaintiff Bailey against reporting the repeated sexual assaults.
170. As a result of these assaults Plaintiff Bailey asked to be taken off her prescribed medication so she could remain alert and safe from further assaults. She was taken off all medication and treatment.
171. Plaintiff Bailey continued to be subjected to abuse, assaults and privacy violations until her release from prison.
172. Defendant Tollzein’s and Defendant Awad’s actions were open and obvious and the assaults occurred with the cooperation and assistance of other staff including Defendants Madden and Carter.
173. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Bailey.
JILL FLANDERS 174. Plaintiff Jill Flanders was repeatedly sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by Defendant Arthur Lancaster, a school teacher at Camp Branch in Branch County,
38

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 39 of 96 Pg ID 2514
Michigan, while she worked as a tutor in the school under Lancaster’s supervision from November 1999 through July 2000.
175. The assaults were open and obvious to MDOC staff who failed to take adequate steps to investigate or discipline Defendant Lancaster and failed to assist or protect Plaintiff Flanders.
176. The physical assaults continued until Defendant Lancaster was allowed to resign in lieu of any investigation or discipline on September 4, 2000. Defendant Lancaster then continued to harass, threaten and stalk Plaintiff Flanders while she was on parole, impairing her rehabilitation and interfering with her parole status which resulted in a parole violation and incarceration at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex.
177. While incarcerated in the Huron Valley Women’s Complex through 2006, Plaintiff Flanders was subjected to ongoing harassment, retaliation and degrading treatment.
178. The Defendants’ policies and procedures of hiring and assigning male staff without adequate training or supervision; Defendants’ policies and procedures which deter and punish women prisoners from reporting; and Defendants’ policies and procedures for investigation and discipline of staff sexual misconduct were proximate causes of the harm to Plaintiff Flanders.
DAMIKA ABNER 179. Resident Unit Officer Richard Idemudia sexually assaulted Plaintiff Damika Abner on February 4, 2006 at Scott Correctional Facility. 180. RUO Idemudia sexually assaulted Plaintiff Abner by rubbing his erect penis
39

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 40 of 96 Pg ID 2515
up against her and threatened her with retaliation if she reported him. 181. Plaintiff Abner continued to be subjected to RUO Idemudia, sexual harassment,
degrading treatment and a hostile sexual environment during her incarceration at the Scott Correctional Facility.
TAMI BAUMGART 182. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Tami Baumgart has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 183. Plaintiff Tami Baumgart was first sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer John Jouppi at Scott Correctional Facility in November of 2000. 184. Officer Jouppi entered Plaintiff Baumgart’s cell where he sexually assaulted her, including penetrating her vagina and injuring her. 185. Plaintiff Baumgart was subsequently subjected to ongoing sexual abuse, sexual harassment and degrading treatment by Office Jouppi. 186. Plaintiff Baumgart continued to be subjected to degrading treatment and a sexually hostile environment and retaliation while incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the MDOC.
LATRINA BRAXTON 187. Plaintiff LaTrina Braxton was subject to retaliation at Scott Correctional Facility in October of 2001 for reporting privacy violations by male staff members. 188. Resident Unit Officer Andre’s Chappell retaliated against Plaintiff Braxton by
40

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 41 of 96 Pg ID 2516
issuing her misconduct tickets, resulting in a loss of good time and work and school details. 189. Plaintiff Braxton continued to be subjected to privacy violations, sexual
harassment, retaliation and a hostile sexual environment while incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the MDOC.
SANDRA BERGGREN 190. Nurse Jude Kucmiecrz sexually assaulted Plaintiff Sandra Berggren at Scott Correctional Facility approximately three or four times between January and July of 2005. 191. Nurse Kucmiecrz made sexual comments to Plaintiff, touched her breasts and vaginal area and forced her to feel his penis through his pants and told her to contact him when she is paroled. 192. Plaintiff Berggren continued to be subjected to ongoing sexual harassment, a sexually hostile and degrading environment while incarcerated at the Scott Correctional Facility.
ANNIE COLE 193. Plaintiff Annie Cole was been subjected to repeated retaliation by Deputy Warden Cornell Howard 2003 for reporting policy violations by male staff at Scott Correctional Facility, including sexual harassment. 194. Deputy Warden Howard harassed Plaintiff Cole, threatened to send her to segregation and issued her a misconduct tickets.
LISA DOLPH 195. Scott Correctional Facility Physician's Assistant Gopal Singhal sexually
41

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 42 of 96 Pg ID 2517
assaulted Plaintiff Lisa Dolph on May 11, 2005. 196. Plaintiff Dolph was called to Health Care for a gynecological exam to be
performed by P.A. Singhal. During the examination he tore the gown off her to exam her breasts and then performed an invasive and rough vaginal exam.
197. On January 27, 2006 Plaintiff Dolph was forced to see P.A. Singhal at Health Care at which time he attempted to force her to allow him to exam her in a room without anyone else present.
198. Plaintiff Dolph continues to be subjected to retaliation and degrading treatment at the Scott Correctional Facility.
KAMEKA DUREN 199. Plaintiff Kameka Duren was sexually harassed and retaliated against by Resident Unit Officer Donald Avery after she reported that this MDOC employee sexually harassed her. 200. In January of 2003, Plaintiff Duren informed RUO Avery that she was going to report his sexual harassment by filing a grievance. 201. RUO Avery retaliated against Plaintiff Duren by issuing her retaliatory misconduct tickets.
RUBY EARLY 202. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Ruby Early has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
42

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 43 of 96 Pg ID 2518
203. Plaintiff Ruby Early was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Kenneth Dobbins while at Scott Correctional Facility.
204. In May of 2000, Officer Dobbins forced Plaintiff Early to perform oral sex on him.
205. Plaintiff Early reported this sexual assault by filing a grievance on April 1, 2003, at which time she was retaliated against by staff at Scott Correctional Facility.
206. Plaintiff Early has been subjected to multiple instances of sexual harassment, degrading treatment, privacy violations and a sexually hostile environment through 2006 during her incarceration in MDOC facilities.
FELICIA EDISON 207. From June to August of 2005 Corrections Officer Kenneth Dobbins sexually harassed and assaulted Plaintiff Felicia Edison at Scott Correctional Facility. 208. Officer Dobbins made requests for sex acts and made other sexually degrading statements to Plaintiff Edison in addition, he groped her buttocks and asked her to contact him when she is paroled. 209. Plaintiff Edison was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment and degrading treatment while incarcerated at the Scott Correctional Facility.
REBECCA FACKLER 210. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Rebecca Fackler has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
43

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 44 of 96 Pg ID 2519
211. Plaintiff Fackler was at Scott Correctional Facility when she was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officers Ralph Johnson and Joseph Pennington and Sergeant Warrick Henry.
212. These three staff members sexually assaulted Plaintiff Fackler by ripping her clothes off, groping her breasts and vaginal area; additionally both Officers Johnson and Pennington penetrated her vagina with their hands.
213. Plaintiff Fackler reported this sexual assault and degrading treatment by filing a grievance on June 19, 2004 and then again in May of 2007.
214. On September 22, 2007, Plaintiff Fackler was pruriently viewed by Lieutenant Lee Gaston at Scott Correctional Facility when he did not announce his presence in the area and looked directly into her cell while she was using the restroom. Additionally, Plaintiff Fackler was denied a door cover, a device commonly provided to allow her privacy while engaging in basic and private body functions.
REBECCA GAMBURD 215. While at Scott Correctional Facility, Plaintiff Gamburd was first sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Kenneth Dobbins in January, 2001. 216. Officer Dobbins sexually assaulted Plaintiff Gamburd when he groped her and digitally penetrated her on the grounds of Scott Correctional Facility. 217. After this sexual assault, this guard continued to sexually abuse and harass Ms. Gamburd while she was at the Scott Correctional Facility. 218. Plaintiff Gamburd was subjected to ongoing sexual abuse, degrading
44

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 45 of 96 Pg ID 2520
treatment, sexual harassment and privacy violations while she was incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the MDOC.
LAURA GARLAND 219. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Laura Garland has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 220. Beginning in March of 2002 Special Activities Director Donald Lucas repeatedly sexually harassed and assaulted Plaintiff Laura Garland at the Scott Correctional Facility. 221. The assaults became increasingly egregious and Lucas forced Ms. Garland to perform sexual acts on numerous occasions until she was sent to segregation in August, 2005. 222. Activities Director Lucas made repeated sexual advances, touched her and forced her to pose for photographs in sexually degrading poses while partially clothed. 223. Plaintiff Garland reported this sexually abusive behavior to prison staff which resulted in retaliation by staff at the facility, who verbally abused her, wrote her misconduct tickets and sent her to segregation. 224. After the sexual assaults, Plaintiff Garland continued to be subjected to sexual harassment, abuse and a sexually degrading environment until she was released from prison.
45

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 46 of 96 Pg ID 2521
TANISHIA GRAVES 225. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Tanishia Graves has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 226. Beginning in May of 2004, and continuing through August of 2006, Scott Correctional Facility Corrections Officer Kenneth Dobbins sexually harassed Plaintiff Tanishia Graves by repeatedly subjecting her to sexual harassment and threats. He forced Plaintiff Graves to engage in oral sex and groped Plaintiff Graves on multiple occasions. 227. Plaintiff reported this sexual abuse by filing a grievance on September 24, 2006, after which time she has been constantly harassed and retaliated against by staff at this facility, who have written her misconduct tickets and otherwise interfered with her custody level. 228. The retaliation against Plaintiff Graves resulted in loss of parole and continued incarceration with the person who abused her. 229. Plaintiff Graves continued to be subjected to sexual abuse, threats, degrading treatment and a sexually hostile environment.
SONYA GRISSOM 230. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Sonya Grissom has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 231. Plaintiff Sonya Grissom was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer John
46

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 47 of 96 Pg ID 2522
Andrews at Scott Correctional Facility 232. Beginning in the fall of 2002, Officer Andrews entered Plaintiff Grissom’s
cell and sexually assaulted her by forcing her to have intercourse with him. 233. This guard continued to sexually assault, harass and abuse Plaintiff Grissom
until her release. 234. When Plaintiff reported the sexual assaults, she was subjected to retaliatory
actions by Officer Andrews and other staff at Scott Correctional Facility. 235. Plaintiff Grissom continued to be subjected to sexual harassment, degrading
treatment and a sexually hostile environment until her release in 2007. CAROLYN HAYES-ZEHNER
236. On April 16, 2003, Plaintiff Carolyn Hayes-Zehner was sexually assaulted at Western Wayne Correctional Facility by Resident Unit Officer Nathaniel Crosson when he grabbed and groped her on the buttocks.
237. After Plaintiff Hayes-Zehner reported this assault, she was subjected to ongoing harassment and degrading treatment during her incarceration.
EASTER JONES 238. Plaintiff Easter Jones was sexually harassed by Corrections Officer Warrick Henry at Scott Correctional Facility beginning in the fall of 2000. 239. After she reported the sexual harassment, this officer began a pattern of retaliation against Plaintiff Jones by issuing misconduct tickets and denial of other privileges until her transfer to the Huron Valley Women’s Complex.
47

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 48 of 96 Pg ID 2523
240. Plaintiff Jones continued to be subjected to harassment and a hostile sexual environment at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex.
LINDA KAROW 241. While at Scott Correctional Facility Plaintiff Linda Karow was sexually assaulted by Lieutenant Moore when he ripped her undergarments off and groped her vaginal area in the fall of 2003. 242. On September 21, 2005 Plaintiff Linda Karow was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officers Andre’s Chappell, Sergeant Willie Davis and Officer Green at Scott Correctional Facility when they groped and fondled her in her cell. 243. Plaintiff Karow continued to be subjected to sexual harassment and degrading treatment at both the Scott Correctional Facility and the Huron Valley Women’s Complex.
CORETTA KING-HOWE 244. In 2000, Plaintiff Coretta King-Howe reported that Corrections Officer Kendall Weaver sexually assaulted another female prisoner. 245. As a result, Plaintiff King-Howe was retaliated against with a series of misconducts and harassment. 246. Ms. King-Howe continued to be subjected to a sexually hostile environment and retaliatory acts at the Huron Valley Women’s Complex.
SHAMEKA LAYTON 247. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Shameka Layton
48

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 49 of 96 Pg ID 2524
has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
248. Plaintiff Shameka Layton was working in Food Service at Scott Correctional Facility in March of 2002 when a Food Service Supervisor began to sexually harm her.
249. Plaintiff Layton was sexually assaulted by Food Service Supervisor Dunbar when he groped Plaintiff Layton’s breasts and thighs and forced her to touch his penis.
250. Ms. Layton continued to be subjected to sexual abuse, sexual harassment and threats while she was at the Scott Correctional Facility.
251. When Plaintiff Layton was transferred to Huron Valley Women’s Complex she was subjected to a hostile sexual environment and degrading treatment.
ROBIN MCCARDLE 252. Plaintiff Robin McCardle has been severely retaliated against by staff at Western Wayne Correctional Facility and Scott Correctional Facility for reporting and testifying concerning the rampant nature of sexual abuse at MDOC facilities housing women prisoners. 253. From March through August of 2000, Plaintiff McCardle was issued a misconduct ticket for reporting sexual abuse by Corrections Officers McCombs and Simmons at Scott Correctional Facility; additionally, her phone privileges were disconnected for three months. 254. In February of 2001, Plaintiff McCardle testified in the federal case
49

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 50 of 96 Pg ID 2525
Everson v. MDOC; in the days after her testimony she was issued a misconduct ticket by Resident Unit Officer Richard Idemudia at Western Wayne Correctional Facility , who had been present in the courtroom for her testimony. The retaliation against Plaintiff McCardle continued until her discharged in the fall of 2003.
255. Plaintiff McCardle was also subject to sexual harassment, a sexually hostile environment and privacy violations while she was incarcerated in Michigan’s prisons.
SHAREE MILLER 256. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Sharee Miller has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 257. Beginning in April 2005, Plaintiff Sharee Miller was subjected to an escalating pattern of sexual abuse by Food Service Supervisor Clifton Richardson at Scott Correctional Facility. 258. FSS Richardson made sex-based statements to Plaintiff Miller, requested she engage in sex acts, groped and fondled and sexually assaulted her repeatedly for months. 259. The sexual abuse was open and obvious to staff and yet Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile sexual environment, degrading treatment, sexual harassment and abuse during her incarceration at the Scott Correctional Facility.
FELICIA MORGAN 260. Plaintiff Felicia Morgan was incarcerated at Scott Correctional Facility
50

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 51 of 96 Pg ID 2526
when she was first sexually assaulted by Corrections Officers Carlo Spear and Bradley Wellman in 2001 when they groped her breasts, buttocks and thighs.
261. Plaintiff Morgan continued to be subjected to degrading treatment, sexual abuse and harassment until her discharge in the fall of 2005.
CHRISTY NEFF 262. Plaintiff Christy Neff has been subjected to sexual harassment, privacy violations and degrading treatment from multiple male staff while incarcerated at the Scott Correctional Facility. 263. A supervisor, Mark Collins, sexually assaulted Plaintiff Neff when he groped and touched her and forced her to touch his genitals while she was working at the Michigan Industries factory. 264. When Plaintiff Neff reported this sexual assault on December 14, 2001, she was retaliated against for reporting with the issuance of a misconduct ticket and the abuse, harassment and degrading treatment continued.
LATASHA NICHOLS 265. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff LaTasha Nichols has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 266. On September 16, 2004, Plaintiff LaTasha Nichols reported that Officer Spangler violated her privacy by walking into the bathroom and seeing her engaged in basic bodily functions at Scott Correctional Facility.
51

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 52 of 96 Pg ID 2527
267. Plaintiff Nichols reported this prurient viewing by filing a grievance the same day.
268. After her report, Plaintiff was retaliated against by staff at Scott Correctional Facility, who issued her misconduct tickets and verbally harassed her.
AMY NOWAK 269. While at Scott Correctional Facility Plaintiff Amy Nowak was subjected to severe privacy violations, prurient viewings when Sergeant Henry, among other male staff, engaged in a pattern and practice of demanding to view Plaintiff's breasts and other body parts and talked about her body. 270. The degrading and humiliating conduct by Sergeant Henry had been ongoing for over a year when Plaintiff reported this conduct in the fall of 2002. 271. Plaintiff’s report did not stop the abuse and privacy violations which have continued along with the hostile sexual environment Plaintiff is subjected to at Scott Correctional Facility.
VICTORIA PAYNE 272. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Victoria Payne has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 273. While at Scott Correctional Facility Plaintiff Victoria Payne was sexually harassed and subjected to privacy violations by male staff, including Vic Nemec. 274. When Plaintiff Payne reported Officer Nemec’s harassment she was
52

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 53 of 96 Pg ID 2528
retaliated against by staff, resulting in misconduct tickets and restriction of privileges. 275. The harassment and retaliatory acts and degrading treatment continued
through 2006. BRENDA PHELPS
276. Plaintiff Brenda Phelps was at Scott Correctional Facility when she was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Johnson.
277. Officer Johnson sexually assaulted Plaintiff Phelps while she was at the hospital, groping her touching her improperly and then threatened to harm her and her unborn child if she reported.
278. The sexual harassment, threats, abuse and degrading treatment continued until Plaintiff Phelps was discharged in March 2003.
SHERRIE PIERCE 279. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Sherrie Pierce has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 280. While at Scott Correctional Facility Plaintiff Sherrie Pierce was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Ronald Brown. 281. Officer Brown forced Plaintiff Pierce to perform oral sex on him in her cell on December 21, 2002. 282. Despite Plaintiff Pierce reporting this sexual assault the abuse, sexual harassment and degrading treatment continued.
53

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 54 of 96 Pg ID 2529
283. Plaintiff Pierce had previously been sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Christopher Dekeyser at Crane Correctional Facility on May 25, 2000, when Officer DeKeyser groped her breasts, made lewd threats and comments.
284. When Plaintiff Pierce reported this sexual assault she was retaliated against. DIANA THOMAS
285. Beginning in May of 2000 Diana Thomas was sexually assaulted at Scott Correctional Facility by Corrections Officer Kendall Weaver.
286. Officer Weaver groped Plaintiff Thomas’ breasts and forced his mouth on hers.
287. Despite Plaintiff Thomas reporting this assault, she was subjected to ongoing abuse, sexual harassment and privacy violations until her discharge in April 2003.
GLENESE THOMPSON 288. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Glenese Thompson has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 289. Plaintiff Glenese Thompson was subjected demeaning sex-based language and a penetrative sexual assault in December, 2003 at Scott Correctional Facility by Food Service Supervisor Robert Spruill, who digitally penetrated and groped her. 290. Plaintiff Thompson was assaulted by Robert Spruill on other occasions when he groped her breasts and tried to force her to perform sexual acts.
54

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 55 of 96 Pg ID 2530
291. Despite Plaintiff reporting this sexual assault she was subjected to ongoing abuse, degrading treatment and a sexually hostile environment through 2004.
DEVON WATTS 292. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Devon Watts has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 293. Plaintiff Devon Watts was sexually assaulted at Scott Correctional Facility by Corrections Officer Dustyn Hall. 294. Beginning in January 2001, Officer Hall repeatedly forced Plaintiff to engage in sexual intercourse. 295. When Plaintiff Watts reported these sexual assaults on April 13, 2001, she was retaliated against by MDOC staff and the sexual abuse, harassment and degrading treatment continued during her incarceration at the Scott Correctional Facility.
ANDREA WILLIAMS 296. While at Scott Correctional Facility Plaintiff Andrea Williams was sexually harassed by Corrections Officer John Andrews and Sergeant Davis. 297. Beginning in 2000, Officer Andrew began making sexual comments, proposing she perform sexual acts and violating her privacy. These actions combined with threats and punishment for not responding continued and escalated to sexual abuse through 2003. 298. Sergeant Davis sexually harassed and continued to violate Plaintiff
55

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 56 of 96 Pg ID 2531
Williams’ privacy rights through 2006. 299. Plaintiff Williams continued to be retaliated against for resisting until she
was discharged in 2007. RONESHA WILLIAMS
300. While at Scott Correctional Facility, Plaintiff Ronesha Williams was subjected to invasive privacy violations beginning in August 2002.
301. After reporting the privacy violations by filing a grievance on August 11, 2002, Plaintiff was retaliated against by staff, who issued her misconduct tickets resulting in the loss of her job and continued violations of her privacy while incarcerated at the Scott Correction Facility through 2006.
SAMANTHA YOUNG 302. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Samantha Young has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 303. During his employment at the Scott Correctional Facility Correction Officer Nathaniel Carter has engaged in a pattern of degrading treatment, prurient viewing of women prisoners performing basic hygiene and engaging in basic bodily functions, intimidating requests to engage in sexual acts, and sexual assault. Defendant’s actions were not for any valid penalogical purpose, but rather for purposes of sexually harassing and degrading women prisoners. 304. Plaintiff Samantha Young was subjected to sexually degrading sex-based
56

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 57 of 96 Pg ID 2532
language, intimidating requests for sex acts and sexual harassment while incarcerated at the Scott Correctional Facility.
305. From January through March, 2004, Ms. Young was subjected to rapes, forced oral sex, sexual assaults and abuse by Officer Nathaniel Carter at Scott Correctional Facility.
306. Plaintiff Young reported these sexual assaults on March 30, 2004 and was retaliated against for her report by Defendant supervisors, who issued him a misconduct ticket for reporting and placed her in solitary confinement as a punishment for reporting.
307. The abuse continued after her release from confinement and in December 2004, Plaintiff Young attempted suicide.
308. From her release from the hospital until her discharged from prison in 2007, Ms. Young was subjected to a hostile sexual environment including sexual abuse, degrading treatment and retaliatory acts.
KIM AMYX 309. While at Western Wayne Correctional Facility Plaintiff Kim Amyx was sexually harassed by Maintenance Supervisor Michael Hester beginning in 2001. 310. The sexual abuse and harassment continued until Plaintiff Amyx reported his actions. 311. When Plaintiff reported Hester’s sexual harassment, she was terminated from her position, resulting in a loss of income and other losses. 312. Plaintiff Amyx continued to be subjected to retaliation, sexual abuse and
57

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 58 of 96 Pg ID 2533
sexual harassment while incarcerated at Western Wayne Correctional Facility. CARMALITA AYERS
313. Plaintiff Carmalita Ayers was sexually assaulted and retaliated against by Corrections Officer Joseph Durigon while at St. Mary’s Hospital to receive medical treatment.
314. In the fall of 2002, Officer Durigon first sexually assaulted Plaintiff Ayers by digitally penetrating her.
315. Plaintiff Ayers reported this sexual assault and was subjected to retaliation by Officer Durigon and other staff at Western Wayne Correctional Facility, including misconduct tickets.
316. The sexual harassment, abuse and retaliation continued while Plaintiff Ayers was incarcerated at Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
317. Plaintiff Ayers was subjected to ongoing sexual abuse, harassment and retaliation until her discharge in February, 2006.
VICKIE BALDRIDGE 318. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Vicki Baldridge has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 319. Plaintiff Baldridge was raped by Corrections Officer Michael O’Donnell in October 2000 and subjected to ongoing sexual abuse by this officer while he was employed by the MDOC.
58

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 59 of 96 Pg ID 2534
320. Plaintiff reported this assaults and she was retaliated against by denial of access to necessary medical equipment, misconduct tickets and other harassment.
321. The retaliation continued against Plaintiff Baldridge despite her reporting this retaliation on various occasions, including October 23, 2002 and January 15, 2003.
322. Plaintiff Baldridge continued to be subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation at the Scott Correctional Facility through 2006.
ALISON BARNES 323. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Alison Barnes has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 324. Beginning in January of 2003, Corrections Officer Dyral Williams repeatedly subjected Plaintiff Alison Barnes to sexual assaults and abuse, including ordering her to expose her body to his view and to engage in sexual acts. 325. This guard repeatedly sexually assaulted Plaintiff Barnes by groping her, shoving his hands down her pants and exposing his genitals. 326. Plaintiff Barnes was sexually harassed and had her privacy violated and subjected to continuing threats and abuse through 20066.
DENISE BUCHANAN 327. Food Service Supervisor Ronald Dickerson began sexually harassing Plaintiff Denise Buchanan while he was her supervisor at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
59

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 60 of 96 Pg ID 2535
328. Food Service Supervisor Ronald Dickerson sexually assaulted Plaintiff Denise Buchanan in September of 2003, by groping her vagina while making lewd comments and threatening her.
329. Supervisor Dickerson continued to sexually harass Plaintiff Buchanan for two years using graphic language, telling her to perform oral sex and retaliation against her when she refused to comply.
LINDA BYRD 330. Plaintiff Linda Byrd was sexually assaulted while at Western Wayne Correctional Facility by Corrections Officers John Sahl and Michael Sexton and Defendant Willis Chapman 331. Beginning in 2001, Plaintiff Byrd was sexually assaulted by ADW Willis Chapman when he rubbed his penis against her. These assaults and sexual harassment continued to 2002. 332. Beginning in the Fall of 2001, Plaintiff Byrd was repeatedly raped by Officers Sahl and Sexton. These assaults began at Western Wayne Correctional Facility and continued until 2002, while Plaintiff Byrd was under the jurisdiction of the MDOC.
ROSLYN CHEESEBORO 333. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Roslyn Cheeseboro has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 334. Plaintiff Roslyn Cheeseboro worked at Food Service at Western Wayne
60

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 61 of 96 Pg ID 2536
Correctional Facility where she was subjected to sexual abuse and assaults Food Service Supervisor Ronald Dickerson.
335. On October 9, 2003 FSS Dickerson made sexual statements to her, groped her buttocks and subjected her to degrading treatment.
336. When Plaintiff Cheeseboro reported this sexual assault, she was retaliated against by Supervisor Dickerson by further sexual harassment, abuse, issuance of a major misconduct and the loss of her position in Food Service.
DEBORAH COLLINS 337. While at Western Wayne Correctional Facility, Plaintiff Deborah Collins was subjected to sexual harassment and abuse by Corrections Officer Rodney Madden. In the fall of 2002 Madden groped Ms. Collins and solicited her for sex. 338. Officer Madden continued to sexually harass Ms. Collins, telling her to perform sexual acts and subjected her to degrading treatment while she was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. 339. Plaintiff Collins was subjected to a sexually hostile environment and abuse until her discharge in 2006.
AMECA COPPY 340. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Ameca Coppy has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 341. Plaintiff Ameca Coppy was in the segregation unit at Western Wayne
61

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 62 of 96 Pg ID 2537
Correctional Facility when she was sexually harassed and degraded by Sergeant Michael Davis.
342. From November to December of 2003, Sergeant Davis repeatedly made sex-based statements to Plaintiff Coppy and asked her to engage in sexual acts; he ordered her to expose her breasts to him, masturbated in front of her while making sexually degrading statements and attempted to force her to touch his penis.
343. While Plaintiff Coppy reported this sexual abuse and degrading treatment by filing a grievance of February 24, 2005, the sexual harassment and abuse continued until her release in 2006.
JENNIFER DAVENPORT 344. Corrections Officer Dallas Mesack sexually harassed and degraded Plaintiff Jennifer Davenport while she was incarcerated at Western Wayne Correctional Facility. 345. Officer Mesack continued to abuse Plaintiff Davenport and punish her for reporting his actions until he was removed from the facility. 346. Plaintiff Davenport continued to be subjected to privacy violations, abuse and degrading treatment during her incarceration through 2006.
LAWANDA GAYLES 347. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Lawanda Gayles has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 348. While at Western Wayne Correctional Facility Corrections Officer Keith
62

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 63 of 96 Pg ID 2538
Smith sexually assaulted Plaintiff Lawanda Gayles beginning in November of 2000 and continuing while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
349. Officer Smith repeatedly groped, fondled and raped Plaintiff Gayles which she reported in the fall of 2004.
350. Plaintiff Gayles was subjected to ongoing abuse, degrading treatment and privacy violations until her release in 2005.
DEBRA GENTRY 351. Plaintiff Debra Gentry was subjected to sexual harassment by a Food Service Supervisor Williams Moore. 352. After complaining about the abuse, FSS Moore terminated Plaintiff from her position in Food Service in January 2002. 353. Plaintiff Gentry was reinstated to her position and FSS Moore continued his pattern of sexual harassment, abuse and degrading treatment. 354. FSS Moore also retaliated against Ms. Gentry by issuing or having other staff issue twenty major misconduct tickets. While all of these were eventually dismissed, Plaintiff was subjected to punishment, threats and harassment and loss of freedom until her discharge in 2007.
TAMEKA HEWITT 355. Plaintiff Tameka Hewitt was subjected to a sexually hostile environment while incarcerated at Western Wayne Correctional Facility. 356. Plaintiff Hewitt had her privacy violated and was subjected to harassment
63

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 64 of 96 Pg ID 2539
until her discharge in 2005. 357. Plaintiff Hewitt was also assaulted by Dr. Paul Piper who exceeded the
scope of medical necessity in performing a breast exam and spent an excessive amount of time groping Plaintiff's breasts.
VICKIE HOSKINS 358. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Vickie Hoskins has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 359. On April 7, 2004 Plaintiff Vickie Hoskins was sexually assaulted by Dr. Nichols at Western Wayne Correctional Facility during a gynecological exam. Dr. Nichols simulated sex on Plaintiff Hoskins with the speculum, while making sex-based comments to Plaintiff, causing injury and bleeding. 360. This assault was reported when Plaintiff Hoskins wrote a grievance on April 8, 2004.
IRENE HOUSTON 361. Plaintiff Irene Houston was subjected to sexual harassment and degrading treatment while at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility. 362. Officer Roberts began sexually harassing, groping and abusing Plaintiff Houston while she was at Western Wayne Correctional Facility. 363. Upon her parole in 2006, while she was under the jurisdiction of the MDOC, Officer Roberts raped her and forced her to engage in other sexual acts.
64

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 65 of 96 Pg ID 2540
364. Officer Roberts threatened Plaintiff Houston with loss of parole and return to prison.
JAMIE JENKINS 365. Plaintiff Jamie Jenkins was sexually assaulted at Western Wayne Correctional Facility in April of 2003 and continued through June when Corrections Officer Rodney Madden repeatedly sexually assaulted her, including forced sex and groping. 366. Plaintiff Jenkins was subjected to ongoing threats and abuse should she refuse or report the assaults. 367. These assaults were reported in May of 2003, and then again by Plaintiff Jenkins in August of 2005.
JANISE LEONARD 368. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Janise Leonard has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 369. Plaintiff Janise Leonard was sexually assaulted by a number of staff members at Western Wayne Correctional Facility and subjected to degrading treatment and privacy violations. 370. In March of 2003, Food Service Supervisor Ronald Dickerson sexually assaulted Plaintiff Leonard when he ordered her to pull her pants down and groped her buttocks.
65

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 66 of 96 Pg ID 2541
371. On the night of February 8, 2003, at Western Wayne Correctional Facility Corrections Officer Mikal Aktab entered Plaintiff Leonard’s cell and exposed his penis to her while using sexually degrading and intimidating language.
372. Despite Plaintiff Leonard reporting this abuse, the officers continued to threaten Plaintiff, harass Plaintiff and engage in hostile and sexually abusive conduct.
TAMARA MARSHALL 373. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Tamara Marshall has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 374. Plaintiff Tamara Marshall was at Western Wayne Correctional Facility in March of 2001 when Defendant Chapman began sexually harassing her and sexually assaulted her. 375. Defendant forced Plaintiff Marshall to engage in oral sex in order to be allowed to receive a visit from her children. These assaults and abuse continued until Plaintiff Marshall was transferred in December of 2001 to Camp Brighton. 376. Plaintiff Marshall continued to be subjected to sexual abuse, threats, privacy violations and harassment at Camp Brighton until her discharge in 2005.
CAROLYN MOSS 377. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Carolyn Moss has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
66

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 67 of 96 Pg ID 2542
378. In September 2003, Plaintiff Carolyn Moss was in solitary confinement at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility when Sergeant Davis began sexually harassing Plaintiff Moss when he forced her to allow him to view her in a state of undress for his own prurient interests, and sexually assaulted her by forcing her to perform oral sex on approximately six occasions.
379. When Plaintiff Moss reported these sexual assaults in April 2004, she was harassed, retaliated against and subjected to threats and degradation through 2004.
380. Plaintiff Moss was subjected to a sexually hostile environment and privacy violations until her discharge in 2006.
DONNA MURRY 381. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Donna Murry has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 382. Beginning in January 2001, Plaintiff Donna Murry was subjected to repeated sexual assaults, including rapes, by Defendant Assistant Deputy Warden Willis Chapman at Western Wayne Correctional Facility. 383. The sexual assaults and abuse continued through 2002 until she was transferred to Camp Brighton where Plaintiff Murry was subjected to privacy violations and harassment. 384. After Plaintiff Murry reported these sexual assaults in July of 2003, she was subjected to retaliation, harassment, privacy violations and abuse until her discharge in
67

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 68 of 96 Pg ID 2543
2004. CHRISTINA SPENCER
385. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Christina Spencer has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
386. Plaintiff Christina Spencer has been repeatedly sexually assaulted by male staff of the MDOC.
387. Beginning in January of 2002, Plaintiff Spencer was sexually assaulted by Defendant Carlton Carter, who entered her cell after she has showered, viewed her naked and groped her buttocks.
388. While Plaintiff Spencer reported this sexual assault by filing a grievance in February of 2002, the sexual abuse, harassment and privacy violations by Defendant Carlton Carter continued through 2003.
389. In the fall of 2002, Plaintiff Spencer was at St. Mary Hospital recovering for in-patient mental health care when she was sexually assaulted by Officer Joseph Durigon who groped Plaintiff Spencer’s breasts and attempted to digitally penetrate her.
390. Plaintiff Spencer reported this abuse by filing a grievance and was retaliated against, including being given misconduct tickets.
391. In July, 2003, Lt. Richardson began calling Ms. Spencer sexually degrading names and sexually harassing her and propositioning her for sex.
392. Plaintiff Christina Spencer was subjected to ongoing sexual abuse, sexual 68

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 69 of 96 Pg ID 2544
harassment and retaliation until her release from prison. TRACEY STUCKEY
393. In February of 2003, Corrections Officer Silas Osuji-Eboh used sex-based degrading and humiliating language while sexually assaulting Plaintiff Tracey Stuckey at Western Wayne Correctional Facility
394. Officer Osuji-Eboh entered Plaintiff Stuckey’s cell while she was sleeping and groped her buttocks and thighs.
395. While Plaintiff Stuckey reported this assault, she continued to be sexually harassed and abused by male staff until her release in 2007.
JOYCE VANNORMAN 396. Plaintiff Joyce VanNorman was housed at Western Wayne Correctional Facility when she witnessed evidence that Assistant Deputy Warden Willis Chapman was sexually assaulting female prisoners. 397. Plaintiff VanNorman reported Assistant Deputy Warden’s sexual assault to corrections staff and was retaliated against by supervisory personnel at Western Wayne Correctional Facility, receiving a misconduct ticket and loss of privileges in October, 2002.
TAWANNA WILLIS 398. Plaintiff Tawanna Willis was at Western Wayne Correctional Facility when she was sexually assaulted by ARUS Joe Wade. 399. ARUS Wade began sexually assaulting Plaintiff Willis in October of 2003,
69

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 70 of 96 Pg ID 2545
by groping her breasts and buttocks and continued to sexually harass and abuse Plaintiff Willis throughout 2003.
400. Plaintiff Willis was subjected to privacy violations and sexual harassment while incarcerated at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
JILL YANNA 401. While at Western Wayne Correctional Facility, Plaintiff Jill Yanna was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Crouch. 402. In 2004, Officer Crouch forced Plaintiff Yanna to perform oral sex on him and threatened her with retaliation if she did not comply. 403. Plaintiff Yanna was subjected to sexual harassment and threats throughout her incarceration at Western Wayne Correctional Facility.
LATARA YOUNG 404. Plaintiff LaTara Young was sexually assaulted by Classification Director John Jeffries at Western Wayne Correctional Facility in 2004. 405. Classification Director Jeffries kissed and groped Plaintiff Young while she was under his direct supervision.
JANE ESHENRODER 406. Plaintiff Jane Eshenroder was at Huron Valley Complex-Women's when she was subjected to prurient viewing and privacy violations by male staff in 2005. 407. Plaintiff Eshenroder was issued a major misconduct ticket in retaliation for reporting the privacy violations and degrading treatment.
70

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 71 of 96 Pg ID 2546
KELLY HITT 408. At Western Wayne Correctional Facility, in August of 2003, Corrections Officer Firas Awad sexually assaulted and degraded Plaintiff Kelly Hitt by groping her buttocks and making sexually degrading comments. 409. Plaintiff Hitt was sexually harassed by Nurse William Banks at Huron Valley Complex-Women's in September of 2006. 410. In the days prior to Plaintiff's parole, Nurse Banks ordered Plaintiff Hitt to health care to engage in a number of parole related health care issues. Knowing she was on the verge of parole, he ordered her to ordered her to come to health care to sexually harass and humiliate her, attempted to solicit her home contact information from her and then performed an unnecessary medical procedure which required Plaintiff to remove her shirt and proceeded to sexually assault her.
LARITA LEWIS 411. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff LaRita Lewis has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 412. Plaintiff LaRita Lewis was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Victor New at Huron Valley Complex-Women’s on March 1, 2005 when he groped Plaintiff’s breasts and sexually harassed her.
BEVERLY PARSEL 413. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Beverly Parsel
71

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 72 of 96 Pg ID 2547
has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
414. Plaintiff Beverly Parsel was sexually assaulted by Physician’s Assistant Gopal Singhal at Huron Valley Complex-Women’s.
415. P.A. Singhal performed an invasive gynecological exam on Plaintiff Parsel on June 29, 2005 groping and injuring her.
MARQUETTA TARVER 416. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Marquetta Tarver has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 417. From June 2004 through December 2004 Plaintiff Tarver’s supervisor, Mr. Hester, began to sexually assault and harass her, grabbing her breasts and buttocks and rubbing his penis on her. 418. Mr. Hester also exposed his penis while making sexually degrading comments. 419. In January of 2005, Mr. Hester ordered Plaintiff Tarver into a room at Huron Valley Women’s Complex where Maintenance Supervisor, Clarence Gray, was waiting and raped her. 420. Plaintiff Tarver reported this sexual assault in February 2005, and was subsequently retaliated against by staff harassment and misconduct tickets. 421. Plaintiff Tarver, as a result of the ongoing abuse and retaliation attempted
72

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 73 of 96 Pg ID 2548
suicide on three occasions. 422. The abuse of Plaintiff continued until her release in 2006. 423. Plaintiff Tarver was returned to prison and she continues to suffer
retaliation. CRYSTAL TRUITT-BAILEY
424. Plaintiff Crystal Truitt-Bailey was sexually assaulted at Huron Valley Complex-Women’s by Maintenance Supervisor Michael Hester beginning in September of 2005.
425. MS Hester groped Ms. Truitt-Bailey and forced her to perform oral sex while threatening her if she reported.
426. The abuse continued through March of 2006 when Hester raped Ms. TruittBailey on more than one occasion.
AMELIA ABRAHAM 427. Plaintiff Amelia Abraham was transported from Camp Brighton to Duane Waters Hospital over a period of weeks in September 2006, where she was sexually assaulted and harassed by the Physical Therapist, Mark Fleming. 428. P.T. Fleming sexually harassed Ms. Abraham, made repeated sexual and threatening comments about Plaintiff Abraham’s body and engaged in sexual acts with her, forced her to touch his penis, forced his mouth on hers and groped her. 429. Plaintiff Abraham reported this sexual assault and harassment on September 24, 2006 by filing a grievance and Fleming retaliated against Plaintiff Abraham by
73

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 74 of 96 Pg ID 2549
issuing her a retaliatory ticket for interference with administrative rules. LISA AUBUCHON
430. Plaintiff Lisa Aubuchon was subjected to sexual harassment, threats and coercive sexual conduct and privacy violations while incarcerated at Camp Brighton.
431. From November 2002, until she left Camp Brighton, Plaintiff Aubuchon was raped repeatedly by a correctional officer, Steven Babbitt. These assaults continued after Plaintiff Aubuchon was paroled in March of 2003 where this officer threatened to have her parole revoked.
432. Plaintiff Aubuchon reported the sexual contact to her parole agent in May of 2004.
433. As a result of her report, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to enter the Diversion program at Camp Brighton, which resulted in her spending additional time in prison.
KATESHIA BROWN 434. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Kateshia Brown has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 435. On October 27, 2003 Plaintiff Kateshia Brown was sexually harassed and assaulted by Corrections Officer William Merrow at Camp Brighton. 436. Officer Merrow made sexually degrading statements to Plaintiff Brown and groped her breast.
74

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 75 of 96 Pg ID 2550
437. Plaintiff was also subjected to privacy violations and a hostile sexual environment at Camp Brighton.
438. When Plaintiff Brown reported the assaults in 2003, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Brown by issuing her a major misconduct for reporting this assault.
ORALIA DONALD 439. Plaintiff Oralia Donald was subjected to privacy violations and sexual harassment while housed at Camp Brighton until her discharge in December 2004. 440. Corrections Officer Wayne Gibson began to sexually harass Ms. Donald and tried to coerce her to perform sex beginning in 2002 and continuing until her parole. 441. After Plaintiff Donald was paroled in 2004, Officer Gibson continued to stalk her and make attempts to coerce her. 442. Officer Gibson did, in fact, force Plaintiff Donald to perform sexual acts while she was under the jurisdiction of the MDOC.
LINDA FLOWERS 443. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Linda Flowers has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 444. Plaintiff Flowers was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations while incarcerated at Camp Brighton. 445. In December of 2004, while incarcerated at Camp Brighton, the Public Works Supervisor Thomas Clark sexually assaulted Plaintiff Linda Flowers.
75

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 76 of 96 Pg ID 2551
446. This Supervisor grabbed Ms. Flowers and forced and pressed his penis against her buttocks while rotating his hips against her and making sexually harassing comments.
447. Supervisor Clark attempted to coerce Plaintiff Flowers into not reporting this sexual assault by attempting to bribe her with money and threatening her.
448. When Plaintiff Flowers reported Supervisor Clark’s assault, the staff at Camp Brighton retaliated against Plaintiff Flowers for reporting this assault by collectively issuing Plaintiff eight misconduct tickets in a three-day time period, resulting in severe sanctions.
WENDY GARAGIOLA 449. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Wendy Garagiola has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 450. While at Camp Brighton, Plaintiff Garagiola was subject to a sexually hostile environment, privacy violations and degrading treatment. 451. Plaintiff Garagiola was sexually harassed by Corrections Officer Daniel Kokx while at Camp Brighton in January of 2003 and Officer Kokx attempted to force her to perform sexual acts. 452. Upon Ms. Garagiola’s parole, Officer Kokx forced Plaintiff to engage in sexual intercourse under threat of losing her parole status and returning to prison.
76

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 77 of 96 Pg ID 2552
DEBORAH PATINO 453. Plaintiff Deborah Patino was subjected to sexual harassment and privacy violations while incarcerated at Camp Brighton. 454. From September of 2002 through January of 2003, Corrections Officer Thomas Clark engaged in a campaign of sexual harassment and assaults against Plaintiff Patino at Camp Brighton. 455. Officer Clark stroked Plaintiff’s hair, grabbed her waist and legs, groped her vaginal area and forced his penis against her. On other occasions, he forced his mouth on her and told her to perform sex acts.
STACY WOLSCHON 456. While incarcerated at Camp Brighton, Plaintiff Stacy Wolschon was sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, had her privacy routinely violated and was threatened and retaliated against for resisting. 457. Beginning in June, 2005, Officer Thomas Clark forced Plaintiff Wolschon to perform oral sex on him over eight times. 458. Thomas Clark, as a supervisor, exposed his penis to her and groped and molested her repeatedly over three months, while , threatening that her parole eligibility would be at risk if she reported him and otherwise extorted her not to report his sexual assaults. 459. Eventually, Thomas Clark raped Stacy Wolschon. 460. When Plaintiff Wolschon reported the sexual abuse to prison officials in
77

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 78 of 96 Pg ID 2553
August of 2005, she was retaliated against by staff at Camp Brighton and lost her Public Works position, while this staff member continued to work and harass her.
JENNIFER CHAMPAGNE 461. Plaintiff Champagne was subjected to numerous privacy violations while housed at Grand Rapids Correctional Center, including being required to perform basic private bodily functions in an area observable via camera to male staff. 462. While at Grand Rapids Correctional Facility, Plaintiff Jennifer Champagne was repeatedly sexually assaulted and abused by Corrections Officer John Dutcher. 463. From November 2006 through January 2007, Officer Dutcher sexually harassed and groped Plaintiff Dutcher on multiple occasions. 464. Officer Dutcher then forced Ms. Champagne to perform oral sex and ultimately raped her on three occasions. 465. The assaults typically occurred in the state van Officer Dutcher used in the course of monitoring prisoners who were part of the work release program. 466. When Plaintiff Champagne attempted to refuse further sexual contact with Officer Dutcher despite his threats that she would return to prison, he began retaliating against her, resulting in the loss of her work release and her return to prison.
MARCELLA LITTLE 467. Plaintiff Marcella Little was at Grand Rapids Correctional Center when she was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Roger Pate on January 24, 2007 when he performed a search of her body, in violation of policy and procedure.
78

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 79 of 96 Pg ID 2554
PATRICIA BIGBEE 468. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Patricia Bigbee has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 469. While incarcerated at Camp Branch, Plaintiff Patricia Bigbee was sexually assaulted by Quartermaster Steven Davis. 470. Beginning in May of 2000, Quartermaster Davis groped Plaintiff Bigbee, exposed himself, masturbated in front of her and forced her to perform oral sex. 471. When Plaintiff Bigbee reported these sexual assaults she was retaliated against which effected her job and parole. 472. Subsequently, Plaintiff Bigbee was sent to Camp Brighton where she was again abused, subjected to privacy violations, sexual harassment and degrading treatment until her release in 2003.
DARLENE GRECO 473. While working at an MDOC warehouse, Plaintiff Darlene Greco was sexually assaulted by Quartermaster Steven Davis. 474. Beginning in May of 2000, Quartermaster Davis groped Plaintiff Greco, exposed himself and masturbated in front of her. 475. Ms. Greco was subsequently transferred to TRV where she continued to be subject to sexual harassment, privacy violations and abuse.
79

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 80 of 96 Pg ID 2555
LATONYA LEWIS 476. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff LaTonya Lewis has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 477. While Plaintiff LaTonya Lewis was incarcerated at Camp Branch, she was assigned work at a warehouse operated by the MDOC and run by Storekeeper/Quartermaster Steven Davis. 478. Beginning in March of 2000, Storekeeper Davis began sexually harassing Plaintiff Lewis and groping her. 479. After months of abuse he began masturbating in front of Ms. Lewis and telling her what he wanted to do to her and making threats. In May of that year, he forced her to perform oral sex on him. 480. When Plaintiff Lewis reported this sexual assault to inspectors in June of 2000, she was retaliated against. When Camp Branch closed, Plaintiff was transferred to Western Wayne and then Camp Brighton where she was sexually harassed and abused by Thomas Clark. 481. Plaintiff Lewis continued to be subjected to abuse, sexual touchings, harassment and privacy violations until her release from prison in 2005.
LASHUNDA LEWIS 482. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff LaShunda Lewis has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and
80

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 81 of 96 Pg ID 2556
they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 483. Plaintiff LaShunda Lewis was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Storekeeper
Dennis Iford while working at an MDOC warehouse. 484. In June of 2001, Storekeeper Iford assaulted Plaintiff L. Lewis by fondling
her breasts, forcing her to touch his penis and digitally penetrating her. 485. Plaintiff L. Lewis reported these sexual assaults in June of 2001, was
retaliated against for her report by supervisory personnel by the issuance of the misconduct ticket and the abusive and sexual misconduct against Ms. Lewis continued until her release in April, 2006.
HEATHER SMITH 486. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Heather Smith has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 487. While at Camp Gilman TRV, Plaintiff Heather Smith was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Robertson when he began to sexually harass her in August, 2001. 488. When Plaintiff reported these sexual assaults in September of 2001, the officer was moved temporarily then continued to assault and abuse Plaintiff Smith until she was released on parole in 2003.
JANUARY ESTRADA 489. Sergeant Brian Johnson sexually assaulted Plaintiff January Estrada at
81

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 82 of 96 Pg ID 2557
Camp Gilman TRV beginning in October 2000, by groping, pinching and fondling her breasts and buttocks while performing a pat down search of her.
490. Sgt. Johnson continued to grope and harass Plaintiff Estrada until she left TRV.
491. Plaintiff Estrada reported this sexual assault by filing a grievance in 2000 and was retaliated against.
492. When Ms. Estrada was transferred to Western Wayne Correctional Facility, she was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment, abuse, sexual touching and degrading treatment and privacy violations through 2006.
CHARMAINE HARRIS 493. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Charmaine Harris has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 494. Plaintiff Charmaine Harris was subjected to sexual harassment and sexually assaulted by Corporal Hector Hernandez at the Special Alternative Incarceration facility, commonly known as Boot Camp. 495. In the fall of 2002, Corporal Hernandez began sexually assaulting Plaintiff Harris by rubbing against her breasts, groping her inner thigh and vaginal area and made sexually degrading statements and violated Plaintiffs’ privacy while she was incarcerated in the Boot Camp. 496. Plaintiff continued to be subjected to sexual harassment, privacy violations
82

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 83 of 96 Pg ID 2558
and a sexually hostile environment until her release in August of 2003. ZETTA MALLETT
497. Plaintiff Zetta Mallett was sexually assaulted while at the Special Alternative Incarceration program, commonly known as Boot Camp, in June 2000 by a Corporal Peete.
498. Corporal Peete ordered Plaintiff Mallett into a boiler room at the Boot Camp and raped her. Corporal Peete threatened her against reporting, stating he would make sure she stayed in prison and was hurt.
499. As a result of the rape and to avoid further assaults, Plaintiff Mallett requested she be returned to prison.
500. Ms. Mallett was incarcerated in the Scott Correctional Facility where she was subjected to privacy violations and degrading treatment and sexual harassment and extended incarceration until her release in October 2004.
JAYNE SCHWERIN 501. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Jane Schwerin has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 502. While participating in the Special Alternative Incarceration program, commonly known as Boot Camp, Plaintiff Jane Schwerin was sexually assaulted by Corporal Steven Sampier, who groped and bruised her breasts. 503. Corporal Sampier threatened to prevent Plaintiff’s completion of the
83

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 84 of 96 Pg ID 2559
program and parole is she reported his assaults. 504. When Plaintiff did report on August 10, 2002, she was retaliated against for
reporting, given a major misconduct and suffered increased incarceration and loss of parole.
505. Plaintiff Schwerin was returned to a prison when she was subjected to sexual harassment, privacy violations and degrading treatment until her release in 2004.
PAMELA BRIGGS 506. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Pamela Briggs has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff. 507. Plaintiff Pamela Briggs was incarcerated in the Benton Harbor Correctional Center when Ellis Johnson began sexually harassing her. 508. When Plaintiff Pamela Briggs was released on parole, Johnson stalked her and began to sexually harm her. When Plaintiff Briggs returned to the center for three days, upon release, Defendant Johnson picked her up, took her to his house and raped her. Ellis Johnson repeatedly assaulted her through December, 2002. 509. Plaintiff Briggs reported these sexual assaults on February 24, 2003.
PATRICIA MINNER 510. Defendants were or should have been aware that Plaintiff Patricia Minner has a prior history of sexual trauma and abuse that makes her particularly vulnerable and they failed to take adequate steps to protect Plaintiff.
84

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 85 of 96 Pg ID 2560
511. While at Woodward Correctional Center, Plaintiff Patricia Minner was sexually assaulted by Corrections Officer Purry beginning in March of 2000.
512. Officer Purry repeatedly groped and fondled Plaintiff Minner’s breasts and vaginal areas, entered her cell while she was in bed, and forced her to touch his penis
513. Plaintiff Minner attempted to report these sexual assaults in June of 2000 and was retaliated against resulted in her continued incarceration and abuse until her release in November, 2002.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 514. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of all women prisoners similarly situated who, since March of 2000, have been, are now or will be hereafter incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections correctional system. Plaintiffs seek class action status pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b). 515. The number of female prisoners who have alleged they have been subjected to custodial sexual abuse while under the jurisdiction of the MDOC since March of 2000, exceeds two hundred women. Class action status is the most practical method for Plaintiffs to challenge the policies, procedures and practices of the MDOC which are a proximate cause of the ongoing custodial sexual misconduct in Michigan’s women prisons. 516. There are common questions of law and fact in the action that relate to and effect the rights of each member of the class. The Plaintiffs as women prisoners have all
85

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 86 of 96 Pg ID 2561
been subjected to Defendants’ policies, procedures and failures to provide for proper screening, training and supervision of male staff at the various facilities where they have been housed. The policies and procedures with regard to reporting, investigating and disciplining of custodial sexual misconduct apply to all facilities and Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief and damages for themselves and class members for the injuries caused by Defendants’ acts and omissions.
517. The claims of Plaintiffs who are representatives of the class herein are typical of the claims of the class of women prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections that are subjected to custodial sexual misconduct and degrading treatment by male employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections, while incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the MDOC.
518. All women prisoners have been subjected to Defendants’ assignment of male staff to unsupervised positions in women’s housing units, all women have been housed under the inadequate policies and procedures for training, assignment, supervision, investigation and discipline of its male employees assigned to Michigan women’s prisons. All have been deterred from reporting by Defendants’ inadequate and unusable policies. As a result, all Plaintiffs have been incarcerated in a hostile and unsafe sexual environment which has resulted in a pervasive risk of harm to their safety.
519. The named Plaintiffs are the representative parties of the class, and are able to and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The attorneys for Plaintiffs are experienced and capable litigants in the field of civil rights and prison
86

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 87 of 96 Pg ID 2562
litigation and have successfully represented claimants in other litigation of this nature.
520. The class consists of all former, current and future female prisoners under
the jurisdiction of the MDOC who suffered and who will suffer damages and injuries as a
result of sexual assaults, sexual harassment, degrading treatment, violation of their
privacy and retaliation for reporting same, and deprivation of their constitutional and
statutory rights to fully and equally utilize prison programs and facilities and who seek
injunctive and remedial relief.
521. This action meets the requirements of F.R.C.P. 23(a) and (b) because:
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
B. Additionally, the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications or adjudications with respect to individual members of the class where as a practical matter it would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or the court finds that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
522. Further, Plaintiffs constitute a sub-class of a previously certified class
action in the state action of Neal, et al. v MDOC, et al., No. 96-6986-CZ, who are
87

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 88 of 96 Pg ID 2563
prevented from pursuing their claims for violations of their statutory rights under the state civil rights act.
Accordingly, this action meets all the requirements for a class action under F.R.C.P. 23(a) and F.R.C.P. 23(b)(1), (2) or (3).
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 523. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 522 as if set forth fully herein. 524. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual assaults, harassment, degrading treatment and privacy violations by Defendants and employees of MDOC upon the Plaintiffs, constitutes an official policy, custom, pattern or practice that has deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to bodily integrity and right to privacy without due process of law in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. 525. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male officers and subjection of Plaintiffs to unnecessary viewing and touching by male officers violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated prisoners of the equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male
88

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 89 of 96 Pg ID 2564
officers and subjection of Plaintiffs to verbal and physical sexual harassment and unnecessary viewing and touching by male officers also violate the customary international law norm prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
526. The deprivation of constitutional rights alleged in this complaint are the direct result of official policy, custom and practices of Defendants and each of them.
527. The supervision of Plaintiffs by male officers, subjecting Plaintiffs to unnecessary viewing and touching by male staff and the sexual assaults and degrading treatment, deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated female prisoners of the right to humane treatment, the right to privacy, and the right to equal treatment under the law and equal protection against discrimination in violation of customary international law and articles 7, 10, 17 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and articles 1, 2 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (BODILY INTEGRITY)
528. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 527 above as if set forth fully herein.
529. The above described acts constitute unreasonable searches and seizures, deprivations of liberty and invasions of privacy and bodily integrity, without adequate penalogical justification and without due process of law in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. '1983.
89

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 90 of 96 Pg ID 2565
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT) 530. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 529 above as if set forth fully herein. 531. The above-described acts of the Defendants constitute the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and suffering and emotional distress on the Plaintiffs, without penalogical justification. 532. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual assaults, abuse, harassment, degrading treatment and retaliatory acts which Plaintiffs have been and are subjected constitutes deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' medical, psychological and emotional needs and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983, and constitutes cruel and degrading treatment or punishment in derogation of Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (EQUAL PROTECTION)
533. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 532 above as if set forth fully herein.
534. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual abuse, harassment, degrading treatment, retaliation and ongoing violations of Plaintiffs' privacy violates Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and customary international law standards.
90

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 91 of 96 Pg ID 2566
535. Defendants' employment and assignment of male officers and other male employees in the women's prisons, in positions where they commonly observe women in states of undress and performing basic bodily functions and Defendants’ failure to remedy the resultant sexual assaults and sexual harassment of women prisoners and ratification of the hostile conditions and treatment for women prisoners constitutes discrimination based on sex. This inferior treatment is not substantially related to an important and legitimate governmental interest and violates Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the law and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
536. The denial of Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, of the right to equal opportunity for rehabilitation and the subjection of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to a hostile prison environment constitutes prohibited discrimination based on their sex in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and customary international law standards.
537. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants and each of them were acting under color of law and, in doing so, deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated female prisoners of the equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and under customary international law and articles 2, 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (RETALIATION AND INTIMIDATION) 538. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 537 above as if set
91

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 92 of 96 Pg ID 2567
forth fully herein. 539. Defendants' retaliation and failure to prevent or remedy retaliation against
Plaintiffs for reporting staff misconduct constitutes a violation of their rights to freedom of speech and association guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DECLARATION THAT THE ELCRA'S MARCH 10, 2000
AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL) 540. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 539 above as if set forth fully herein. 541. Prior to March 10, 2000, the facilities, camps and centers housing Plaintiffs were recognized as a"public service" facility within the meaning of the ELCRA, MCL 37.2301(b). Neal, et al. v MDOC, et al, 232 Mich App 730 (1998). (Dkt. 2, Exhibit 2) 542. On December 20, 1999, the State of Michigan amended the ELCRA's definition of "public service" by excluding from the definition "a state or county correctional facility with respect to actions and decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment." Michigan Public Act No. 202 of 1999. (Dkt. 2, M.C.L. 37.2301). The amendment took effect on March 10, 2000. The stated purpose of the amendment was to target Plaintiffs who were and are part of a class of prisoners in Neal, et al. v MDOC, et al., No. 96-6986-CZ (Dkt. 2, Exhibit 1, Enactment Language). 543. The amendment of the ELCRA deprives Plaintiffs, and all those similarlysituated, of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, because
92

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 93 of 96 Pg ID 2568
the amendment targeted deprivation of a single class of persons (Michigan female prisoners) for all state statutory protection from unconstitutional discrimination. This deprivation of protection lacks any rational relationship to any legitimate state purpose.
544. The amendment to the ELCRA subsequent to the limitations contained in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, deprives Plaintiffs of an effective remedy or redress for serious deprivations of their rights under customary international law and in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 2, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, article 14.
545. The Amendment to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act is a violation of the federal due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BILL OF ATTAINDER)
546. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 545 above as if set forth fully herein.
547. The amendment to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, precluding Plaintiffs from the protection of the Civil Rights Act and its protection against sexual discrimination in Michigan, constitutes a Bill of Attainder in violation of Article I, §10 of the United States Constitution.
548. This amendment punishes Plaintiffs based upon their gender and status as a
93

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 94 of 96 Pg ID 2569
prisoner. 549. The amendment disqualifies Plaintiffs from the protections of their rights as
women, allows for sexual harassment and discriminatory treatment based on their gender without recourse under state laws.
550. The amendment does not serve any purpose of the Civil Rights Act but instead its sole purpose is to punish Plaintiffs.
DAMAGES 551. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 550 above as if set forth fully herein. 552. The acts and omissions of Defendants constituting violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory and common law rights were and are a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' damages. 553. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs, individually and as a class, have suffered emotional and physical injuries and damages, loss of freedom and rehabilitation opportunities. 554. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered the following injuries and damages, among others: physical injuries; increased levels and length of incarceration, loss of freedom and rehabilitation opportunities; loss of wages and income; loss of educational and training opportunities; severe psychological injuries and damages; exacerbation of prior medical conditions and injuries; exacerbation of prior pyschological conditions and emotional harm; interference with re-entry to society; and interference with
94

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 95 of 96 Pg ID 2570
family and intimate relationships.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment against the Defendants and each of
them and requests that this Court:
a. Issue a declaratory judgment that the policies, practice, acts and omissions complained of herein violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights guaranteed by the specified sections of the United States Constitution, statutory law, customary international law and treaties;
b. Certify this case as a class action;
c. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants' practices, acts and omissions complained of herein;
d. Order remedial action to remedy Defendants' unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions and to deter future violations;
e. Issue a declaratory judgment that the amendment to the ELCRA is unconstitutional as violative of Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection and constitutes a bill of attainder, and violates Plaintiffs’ rights under customary international law and treaties;
f. Retain jurisdiction over this action until such time as the Court is satisfied that the unlawful policies, practices, rules, acts and omissions complained of herein have been satisfactorily rectified;
g. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs for injuries incurred;
h. Award punitive and exemplary damages;
i. Award Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs;
j. Award such other and further relief as seems just and proper.
95

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 255 Filed 11/21/07 Pg 96 of 96 Pg ID 2571

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

NOW COME Plaintiffs by and through their counsel and hereby demand a trial by

jury as to all those issues so triable as of right.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: November 20, 2007

_________________________________ DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 996-5620
RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5600
MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 769-0077
PATRICIA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 222-0088
MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 248.398.9800
RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 248.691.4200

96

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 05-73943

v. JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

Defendant. __________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the court is a motion for summary judgment submitted by Defendants Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stoval, Rodney Madden, and Kirk Tollzein, filed on March 12, 2008. Defendants ask that this court grant them summary judgment because the claims alleged against them by Plaintiff Velvet Farley-Johnson are barred by the statute of limitations.1 Plaintiffs responded, and Defendants have replied to the response. The court rules as set forth below.
Farley-Johnson alleges that Defendant Willis Chapman sexually assaulted and harassed her at the Western Wayne Correctional Facility from the Summer of 2001 through October 2001. She was paroled on January 2, 2002 and has not had any contact with Chapman since. Since the complaint is a civil rights action, the statute of limitations is three years. See M.C.L. § 60.5805(10); Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 45 (6th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff Farley-Johnson filed the action on October 13, 2005, almost a year after the statute of limitations period. Plaintiff’s only response to this argument is to rely on the response brief submitted by Plaintiff Jill Flanders in a Motion for Summary Judgment filed on May 17, 2007 by Defendant Sally Langley. In an

1Patricia Caruso was Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections from September 8, 2002 to June 30, 2003, and the Director of the MDOC from September 8, 2002 to June 30, 2003; Nancy Zang is the Special Administrator for Female Programs in the MDOC; Clarice Stovall was the Warden of the Western Wayne Correctional Facility (WCF) from March 1994 through June 2004; she is currently the Warden of the Scott Correctional Facility; Defendants Rodney Madden and Kirk Tollzein worked at the WCF during the time Plaintiff Velvet FarleyJohnson was incarcerated in the WCF.

order filed on August 31, 2007, this court rejected Plaintiff’s arguments and granted Summary Judgement. As a result, this court grants the motion for summary judgment.
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED,

Date: June 20, 2008

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, June 20, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 05-73943

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT HOWELL AND LANGLEY'S MOTIONS TO TAX COSTS

Before the court is Defendants Jerry Howell and Sally Langley's motions to tax costs

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, filed September 18, 2007. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this

motion on September 25, 2007. For the reasons stated below, I DENY Defendants’ motions to

tax costs.

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “[u]nless a federal

statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs-other than attorney's fees-should be

allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The Sixth Circuit has held that Rule

54(d)(1) “creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs, but allows denial of costs at the

discretion of the trial court.” White & White, Inc. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 786 F.2d 728,

730 (6th Cir. 1986); see also Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534, 539 (6th Cir. 2001).

The court notes the general difficulty of bringing good faith sexual abuse cases to the public's attention, and specifically the difficulty faced by current and former female prisoners. It is a humiliating process wrought with fear of retribution. The court has a serious concern that

taxing the costs of these types of suits could have a chilling effect on the willingness of others to bring similar claims. As such, the presumption of an award of costs in this case is overcome by the concern that taxing these costs would deter potential victims from pursuing litigation against their attackers.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants' motions to tax costs are DENIED.

SO ORDERED. Date: July 2, 2008

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, July 2, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 05-73943

v. JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

Defendant. __________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the court is a motion for summary judgment submitted by Defendants filed on June 30, 2008.1 Defendants ask that this court grant them summary judgment on the claims alleged against them under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Punishment (CAT), and the Fifth Amendment.
In their first, third, and fourth causes of action, Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to damages under the ICCPR and CAT. Both the ICCPR and the CAT are international treaties that are cognizable in this court only if they are self-executing or if Congress has passed appropriate enabling legislation. See Jocham v. Tuscola County, 239 F.Supp.2d 714, 730 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The ICCPR is neither self-executing nor is it enabled by legislation from Congress. See Bannerman v. Snyder, 325 F.3d 722, 724 (6th Cir. 2003); Buell v. Mitchell, 274 F.3d 337, 372 (6th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the ICCPR is not binding on this court, nor is CAT.2 Finally, Plaintiffs concur with Defendant’s request to delete references to the Fifth Amendment, but agrees with Plaintiffs that

1Defendants include Jennifer Granholm, Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, and Rodney Madden.
2Other circuits aside from the Sixth Circuit have also affirmed this position. De La Rosa v. United States, 32 F.3d 8, 10 n.1 (1st Cir. 1994); Guaylupo-Moya v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 121, 133 (2nd Cir. 2005); Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2001); United States ex rel Perez v. Warden FMC Rochester, 286 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Duarte-Acero, 296 F.3d 1277, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002).

summary judgment or an amended complaint are not necessary to achieve this end
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as it pertains to Plaintiff’s claims under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Punishment (CAT), and reference to the Fifth Amendment relief are deleted.

Date: August 12, 2008

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, August 12, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 05-73943

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court are sixteen motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants. Defendants contend that the claims of certain Plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs submitted a combined response on September 5, 2008. Defendants filed a combined reply brief on September 19, 2008. The court heard oral argument on September 24, 2008, and granted Defendants’ motions as to Kimberly Amyx, LaTrina Braxton, Darlene Greco, Lynda Byrd, Charmaine Harris, Zetta Mallett, Brenda Phelps, Jayne Schwerin, Patricia Minner, and Robin McCardle. The court denied Defendants’ motions as to Patricia Bigbee, Debra Patino, Diana Thomas, Tawanna Willis, Joyce VanNorman, and Heather Smith, as explained below.
BACKGROUND FACTS Plaintiffs are female former and current Michigan prisoners who allege that they have been subjected to privacy violations, sexual harassment, degrading treatment, sexual abuse, and retaliation by male prison staff. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants’ failure to prevent and

remedy sexual abuse has violated their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs filed this case on October 13, 2005, as a putative class action; however, this court denied class certification on August 31, 2007. On September 28, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add as named plaintiffs the individuals who would have been members of the class. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion on November 8, 2007; Plaintiffs timely filed a (second) amended complaint on November 21, 2007.
In August 2008, Defendants filed sixteen motions for summary judgment against sixteen of the added Plaintiffs. Defendants contend that these Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The court has already ruled that claims that arose prior to October 13, 2002, are barred by the three-year statute of limitations. See Order dated August 31, 2007 (docket no. 239). Defendants now assert that the claims of the recently added Plaintiffs that arose before November 21, 2004, (three years before the second amended complaint) are barred.
LAW AND ANALYSIS Defendants’ argument rests on the theory that the newly added Plaintiffs and claims do not “relate back” to the filing of the initial complaint. The court need not consider whether Plaintiffs’ claims “relate back,” however, because the statute of limitations was tolled from the filing of the initial complaint until class certification was denied. See Cowles v. Bank West, 476 Mich. 1, 31-32 (2006) (“Tolling . . . is conceptually distinct from relation back. . . .”). Courts look to state law to determine both the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims and whether the statute is tolled. See Board of Regents of the Univ. of the State of New York v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1980). Under Michigan law, the statute of limitations is tolled with regard to all class members upon the filing of a complaint “asserting a class action.” M.C.R.
-2-

3.501(F)(1). The statute resumes running upon “entry of an order denying certification of the action as a class action.” M.C.R. 3.501(F)(2)(c). Thus, in a putative class action, the statute of limitations is tolled for all class members until class certification is denied. See Cowles, 476 Mich. at 20-21 (“[A] class action complaint tolls the period of limitations for a class member’s claim that arises out of the same factual and legal nexus as long as the defendant has notice of the class member’s claim and the number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs.”); see also American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 552-53 (1974); Crown, Cork Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350-52 (1983).
Here, each of the added Plaintiffs asserts the same type of claims that were initially raised in the putative class action complaint: sexual abuse, sexual harassment, privacy violations, and retaliation. Plaintiffs claim a pattern and practice of sexual abuse, a hostile environment, and other constitutional violations that the Michigan Department of Corrections failed to remedy. The claims of the recently named Plaintiffs share a common factual and legal nexus with the claims asserted in the putative class complaint; certainly, “there can be no doubt that [Defendants] received sufficient notice of the contours of potential claims to toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Cowles, 476 Mich. at 22-23 (citation omitted). Cf. Crown, Cork & Seal, 462 U.S. at 353-54 (suggesting that “different or peripheral” claims would not afford a defendant sufficient notice and should not benefit from tolling) (Powell, J., concurring).
Finding tolling in this case also consistent with the goals of class action litigation. If the court were to hold that the statute was not tolled with respect to Plaintiffs’ individual claims, it would encourage future class members to intervene early in the litigation to preserve their claims, and “one of the major goals of class action litigation – to simplify litigation involving a
-3-

large number of class members with similar claims – would be defeated.” Cowles, 476 Mich. at 26 (citation omitted). It is of no moment that the court ultimately declined to certify a class here; Michigan law only requires the “assert[ion]” of a class action to trigger tolling. “[T]he class members should be able to fully rely on the ‘asserting’ of the class action, without having to independently determine whether the person ‘asserting’ it possesses standing, whether he has brought claims that are not time-barred, or whether he has set forth every single legal argument that could conceivably have been made.” Id. at 26 n.10.
Because the statute of limitations was tolled for the individual Plaintiffs by the filing of the class action complaint, these Plaintiffs’ claims are barred if they arose prior to October 13, 2002 (three years prior to the filing of the initial complaint). Based upon the allegations in the second amended complaint, several Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred, as set forth below.
1. Kimberly Amyx Kimberly Amyx alleges that she was sexually harassed and abused while she was at
Western Wayne Correctional Facility (“WCF”). According to Defendants, Amyx was incarcerated from October 16, 2000, to August 14, 2002. Although she has returned to prison since, she has not returned to WCF. Since her claim arose prior to October 13, 2002, it is time barred.
2. Latrina Braxton Latrina Braxton was incarcerated at the Scott Correctional Facility (“SCF”) from December 12, 1997, to February 12, 1998, and from March 5, 1998, to March 29, 2002. She has not been in prison since March 29, 2002. Her claim arose prior to October 13, 2002, and is time barred.
-4-

3. Darlene Greco Darlene Greco alleges that she was sexually harassed while at Camp Branch (“CDW”) and at Camp Gilman Technical Rule Violator Center (“PPV”). Greco was incarcerated at CDW from May 2, 2000, to June 22, 2000. She was housed at PPV from August 25, 2000, to November 16, 2000, and again from January 18, 2001, to April 12, 2001. Her claims arose prior to October 13, 2002, and are time barred. 4. Linda Byrd Linda Byrd alleges that she was sexually assaulted while incarcerated at WCF. Byrd was incarcerated there from February 2, 2001, to August 6, 2002. Accordingly, her claims arose prior to October 13, 2002, and are time barred. 5. Patricia Bigbee Patricia Bigbee alleges that she was sexually assaulted while at CDW and Camp Brighton. Bigbee was incarcerated at CDW from March 23, 1999, to August 22, 2000, and from May 23, 2001, to July 25, 2001. She was housed at Camp Brighton from July 25, 2001 to August 27, 2002, and again from April 10, 2003, to September 10, 2003. Bigbee alleges that she was sexually assaulted beginning in 2000 and that she was retaliated against when she reported the assaults. She claims that she was subject to abuse, privacy violations, sexual harassment, and degrading treatment at Camp Brighton until her release in 2003. Because Bigbee alleges ongoing violations until 2003, her claims are not time barred.1 6. Charmaine Harris
1 Moreover, the continuing violations doctrine may apply here. See generally Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 268-69 (6th Cir. 2003) (discussing category of continuing violations involving a “longstanding and demonstrable policy of discrimination”).
-5-

Charmaine Harris alleges that in the fall of 2002 she was sexually assaulted while at the Cassidy Lake Special Alternative Incarceration Facility. Harris claims that she was subjected to sexual harassment, privacy violations, and a hostile environment until her release in August 2003. MDOC records show that Harris was at Cassidy Lake from April 26, 2002, to July 24, 2002. Harris was apparently out of prison until she returned to SCF on August 22, 2003. Harris was at various facilities until she was paroled on October 2, 2005. Because the complaint only references Harris’s time at Cassidy Lake, however, it appears that her claims are time barred.
7. Debra Patino Debra Patino alleges that she was sexually assaulted while at CBI from September 2002, to January 2003. Her claims are not time barred. 8. Diana Thomas Diana Thomas was at SCF from September 18, 1998, to April 27, 2003. She claims she was sexually assaulted beginning in May 2000 and that the abuse continued until she was discharged in April 2003. Her claims are not time barred. 9. Tawanna Willis Tawanna Willis was incarcerated at WCF and alleges that she was sexually assaulted beginning in October 2003. Her claims are not time barred. 10. Zetta Mallett Zetta Mallett alleges that she was sexually assaulted while at Cassidy Lake in 2000. She also alleges that she was sexually harassed while at SCF. Mallet was at Cassidy Lake from May 18, 2000, to June 6, 2000. She was incarcerated at SCF from November 1, 2000, to November 3, 2000. She was then transferred to WCF and was there from November 3, 2000, to July 11, 2002.
-6-

She was at Camp Brighton from July 11, 2002, to October 16, 2002, when she was released on parole. Her claims arose before October 13, 2002, and are time barred.
11. Brenda Phelps Brenda Phelps alleges she was sexually assaulted while at SCF. She was incarcerated at SCF from March 10, 1999, to April 15, 1999, and again from June 28, 2000, to November 10, 2000, when she was released on parole. Her claims arose before October 13, 2002, and are time barred. 12. Jayne Schwerin Jayne Schwerin alleges she was sexually assaulted while at Cassidy Lake. Schwerin was at Cassidy Lake from May 24, 2002, to August 21, 2002. She also alleges that she suffered from sexual harassment, privacy violations, and degrading treatment while at SCF and WCF. She was at SCF from August 21, 2002, to August 27, 2002; she was at WCF from August 27, 2002, to November 1, 2002, when she was released on parole. Defendants assert that Schwerin’s claims are not saved by tolling because the statute began to run again on August 31, 2007 (the date class certification was denied) until Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend the complaint on September 28, 2007, thus “using up” the nineteen days from October 13, 2002, to November 1, 2002, which would have otherwise been within the statute. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the statute began to run again from August 31, 2007, to September 28, 2007; accordingly, Schwerin’s claims are time barred. 13. Joyce VanNorman Joyce VanNorman alleges that she was retaliated against for reporting sexual assaults in October 2002. She was incarcerated after that date in 2002 and 2003. VanNorman’s claims are
-7-

not clearly time barred. 14. Heather Smith Heather Smith alleges that she was first sexually assaulted by an officer at PPV in August
2001. She was paroled from PPV on October 30, 2001, but returned to SCF on February 22, 2002. She then transferred to WCF on April 19, 2002, and was paroled on December 10, 2003. She alleges that when she reported the sexual assault in September 2001, the officer was temporarily moved and then continued to assault and abuse Smith until she was released on parole on December 10, 2003. Based upon these allegations, Smith’s claims are not time barred.
15. Patricia Minner Patricia Minner alleges she was sexually assaulted beginning in March 2000 at Woodward Corrections Center (“FDA”); she also alleges she was retaliated against until her release in “November 2002.” According to MDOC records, Minner was at FDA until August 25, 2000; she then was transferred to a different facility until November 18, 2000, when she was released on parole. She did not return to prison. Accordingly, her claims are time barred. 16. Robin McCardle Robin McCardle alleges that she was retaliated against for reporting sexual abuse. She was incarcerated at SCF from March 3, 2000, to October 5, 2000; she transferred to WCF on October 5, 2000. She was released on parole on March 23, 2001, and never returned to prison (although it appears she subsequently returned to Camp Gilman). Her claims appear to be time barred, since the complaint references only her time at SCF and WCF, not her subsequent time at Camp Gilman.
-8-

ORDER Consistent with the above opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment against the following Plaintiffs are GRANTED: Kimberly Amyx [docket no. 307], LaTrina Braxton [no. 313], Darlene Greco [no. 314], Lynda Byrd [no. 315], Charmaine Harris [no. 319], Zetta Mallett [no. 325], Brenda Phelps [no. 326], Jayne Schwerin [no. 327], Patricia Minner [no. 331], and Robin McCardle [no. 332]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions against the following Plaintiffs are DENIED: Patricia Bigbee [docket no. 317], Debra Patino [no. 320], Diana Thomas [no. 323], Tawanna Willis [no. 324], Joyce VanNorman [no. 328], and Heather Smith [no. 329].

Date: September 25, 2008

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, September 25, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager

-9-

 
 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 379 Filed 01/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3848

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MASON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v
GRANHOLM, et al., jointly and severally,

Case No. 05-73943
HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

Defendants. /

DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5620
RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5600
MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 248.398.9800
MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.449.9883

RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368) RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 248.691.4200
PATRICIA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.222.0088
JOHN L. THURBER (P44989) CORI E. BARKMAN (P61470) Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants Corrections Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517.335.7021

DAVID A. KOTWICKI (P56070) Attorney for Defendant Carlton Carter 20 S. Main St., Ste. 115 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 586.468.9850
J. RICHARD COLBECK (P12036) Attorney for Defendant Lancaster 53 E. Chicago Street Coldwater, MI 49036 517.279.8029
WILLIS CHAPMAN, Defendant In Pro Per 46959 Mornington Canton, MI 48188 734.981.1969

______________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The parties, by and through their counsel, after the filing of Defendant Caruso’s affidavit

of December 1, 2008 (Dkt. 372), and in light of the Director’s deposition of November 20, 2008,

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 379 Filed 01/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3849

and the State Defendants’ agreement of the opportunity to review and discuss Plaintiffs’ remaining concerns related to the operation of the Women’s Correctional Facilities;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief be dismissed without prejudice. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees relating to this claim. This dismissal without prejudice means that no party is a prevailing party on this claim as referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1988.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 08, 2009

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

Approved as to form and content:
/s/Richard A. Soble RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/John L. Thurber JOHN L. THURBER (P44989) Counsel for Defendants

2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 05-73943

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, filed February 13, 2009.

Defendants seek reconsideration of the court’s February 3, 2009 order denying their motion for

mental examinations of Plaintiffs. The court denied Defendants’ motion for mental

examinations primarily based upon the timing of that request – approximately a month before

trial was to begin. Since that time, however, the court has adjourned the trial date to allow the

parties to complete outstanding discovery. In light of these changed circumstances, the court

will grant Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED

and that Defendants may proceed with mental examinations of the Plaintiffs as proposed in their

January 23, 2009 motion, that is, not in the presence of attorneys or recorded.

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 5, 2009

s/John Corbett O’Meara United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, March 5, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz Case Manager

 
 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 1 of 17 Pg ID 4388

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JUL 3 0 2009

MASON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v
GRANHOLM, et al., jointly and severally,

Case No. 05-73943

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COUHI
ANN ARBOR. Ml

HON. JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

Defendants.

DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 734.996.5620
RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 200 Ann Arbor, MI 481 04 734.996.5600
MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 248.398.9800
MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.449.9883

RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368) RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 248.691.4200
PATRICIA A. STREETER (P30022) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.222.0088
JOl-IN L. THURBER (P44989) COIU E. BARKMAN (P61470) Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants Corrections Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517.335.7021

DAVID A. KOTWICKI (1'56070) Attorney for Defendant Carlton Carter 20 S. Main St., Ste. 115 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 586.468.9850
J. RICHARD COLBECK (Pl2036) Attorney for Defendant Lancaster 53 E. Chicago Street Coldwater, MI 49036 517.279.8029
WILLIS CHAPMAN, Defendant In Pro Per 46959 Momington Canton, MI 48188 734.981.1969

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING SETTLEMENT

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 2 of 17 Pg ID 4389
Before this Court is the parties' proposed order staying proceedings pending settlement, and with the Court being fully advised in the premises;
On July 15, 2009, an order was issued tentatively approving a settlement agreement reached between the Plaintiff classes and Defendants in the cases of Neal, et al. v. MDOC, et al.,
Washtenaw County Circuit Court, File No. 96-6986-CZ, and Anderson, et al. v. MDOC, eta!.,
Michigan Court of Claims, File No. 03-162-MZ. (Exhibit 1). In consideration of the monetary and equitable relief to all members of the Plaintiff classes, provided for in the settlement
agreement, the above parties agreed to the dismissal of the remaining claims in Mason, et al. v. Granholm, et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District, File No. 05-73943 and LaCross, et al. v. Zang, et al., Washtenaw County Circuit Court, File No. 05-944-CZ.
The settlement agreement further provides for finalization of this Court's January 23, 2007 Order (Dkt. 171), Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, by the entry of a final declaratory judgment which would be subject to appeal. (Exhibit 1, p. 7, ~6).
The settlement agreement and the provisions therein shall become a final order if, after a fairness hearing scheduled for August 20, 2009, it is approved by the Honorable Timothy P. Connors after review and consideration of objections, if any.
The parties have requested that this Court stay all proceedings in this matter until August 20, 2009, the date the Court will decide on final approval of the attached settlement agreement which resolves all claims between the parties before this Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter be stayed until August 20, 2009.
2

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 3 of 17 Pg ID 4390

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should the settlement be approved on August 20, 2009, the parties shall submit proposed orders for ts issal within thirty (30) days.

~00 Date:

1 7 0 0{

HN CORBETT O'MEARA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Approved as to Form and Substance:
S/Deborah Labelle DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs
S/John Thurber JOHN THURBER (P44989) Attorney for Defendants

1-~~~~~-------------

- - - - ----

3
-----------------

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 4 of 17 Pg ID 4391
Exhibit 1
4

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 5 of 17 Pg ID 4392
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHTENAW

TRACY NEAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v

Case No. 96w6986-CZ Hon. Timothy P. Connors

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------'

NICOLE ANDERSON, et al,
Plaintiffs,
v

Court of Claims Case No. 03-162~MZ

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants.

-=-ru-=-c=H-=A-=RD-=--A:--.-=-so-=-s=-L-=E-(=-P2-:0--.76:--6,-)- - - - - : : - pA-T=RI-----CI-=A-=s-=TRE=E=T=E=R--:-(3=-o-=-02:-:2,...-)- - - - - - - - - : : - 1.-=ru-=-c=HA-::-:-::RD~c=-o=-L:-:I:-:BECK

Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St, Ste. 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.996.5600

Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.222.0088

( 12036) Attorney for Defendant Tate 53 E. Chicago Street Coldwater, MI 49036

DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 734.996.5620

JOHN L. THURBER (P44989) Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants P.O.Box30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517.335.7021

517.279.8021
RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635) RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368)

MOLLY RENO (P28997) Counsel for Plaintiffs P.O. Box225 Whitmore Lake, MI 48189 734.449.9883

MICHAEL L. PIIT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITI (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200

Counsel for Plaintiffs 23880 Woodward Ave. PleasantRidge,MI48069 248.691.4200

Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804

248.398.9800

CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 6 of 17 Pg ID 4393
I. RECITALS 1. Introduction The Parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations through the facilitation process that were conducted in good faith and at arms length. Through these settlement negotiations, the Parties have reached agreement on a proposed settlement of Tracy Neal, et al v Michigan Department of Corrections, eta/, Washtenaw County Circuit Court no. 96-6986-CZ, in joinder with Nicole Anderson, eta/, v Michigan Department ofCorrections, Court of Claims No. 03-162-MZ, ("Class Action"), and Tammy LaCross, eta/ v Nancy Zang, et al, Washtenaw County Circuit Court No. 05944-CZ and Natheau/een Mason, et al v Granholm, eta/, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan No. 05-cv-73943 ("Related Cases") that they believe to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs, the members of the Settlement Class, and the Defendants. This Settlement Agreement memorializes the terms of the final settlement between the Parties at the conclusion of the settlement negotiations. Pursuant to the terms set forth below, and the Parties' belief that settlement is in their best interests, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants enter into this Settlement Agreement to bring about a full, complete and final resolution of all claims which are or could have been raised in the Class Action and the Related Cases.
II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Effective Date
As used in this Settlement Agreement, "Effective Date" means the date on which this
2

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 7 of 17 Pg ID 4394
Settlement Agreement is finally approved by the Court and the Order approving the Settlement Agreement becomes final. For the purposes of this paragraph, the Order approving the Settlement Agreement "becomes final" upon the later of (a) the expiration of the time for filing an appeal from that Order or otherwise seeking appellate review; or (b) if an appeal is timely filed or other appellate review sought from that Order, the date the decision affirming the settlement approval becomes final and all other means of appellate review are exhausted or expire.
2. Dismissal Of Class Action And Related Cases And General Release In consideration of the payments set forth below in section II (3) and the equitable relief described in section II (8), the Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class hereby completely release and forever discharge Defendants, their employees, agents, predecessors, successors and indemnors, heirs and assigns, from any and all claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, wrongful death claims, judgments, rights, damages, costs, losses of services, expenses and compensation of any nature whatsoev(fr, whether based on a tort, contract or other theory of recovery, which the Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class now have, or which may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, on account of, or may in any way grow out of, or which are the subject of the Class Action complaints, all related pleadings, and any judgments entered in the Class Action, including, without limitation, any and all known or unknown claims for bodily and personal injuries or any future wrongful death claim, which have resulted or may result from the alleged acts or omissions described in the Class Action and Related Cases prior to August 14, 2009.
3

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 8 of 17 Pg ID 4395
The Plaintiffs acknowledge that they are solely responsible for the Plan of Allocation and Distribution and Defendants have no responsibilities, involvement or liability arising out of that Plan or the distribution of proceeds.
This release shall be a fully binding and a complete settlement among the Parties, their employees, attorneys, agents, predecessors, successors, indemnors, heirs and assigns.
The Plaintiffs and the members of the Settlement Class acknowledge and agree the release and discharge set forth above is a general release. The Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class expressly waive, and assume the risk of, any and all of their claims for damages which exist as of August 14, 2009 arising out of any incidents which are the subject of the above-captioned and Related Cases, but of which they do not know or suspect to exist whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence, or otherwise, and which, if known, would materially affect their decision to enter into this Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class further agree to accept payment of the sums specified herein as a complete compromise of matters involving disputed issues of law and fact. The Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class assume the risk that the facts or law may be other than as believed. It is understood and agreed to by the Parties that this Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims, and the payment is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of any Defendant, the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Corrections or its employees or agents, by whom liability is expressly denied.
4

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 9 of 17 Pg ID 4396

Payments

In consideration of the release set forth above, and in settlement of all claims, including

attorney fees, costs and interest, in the Class Action and Related Cases, the Michigan Department of

Corrections shall pay the sum of One Hundred Million ($100,000,000.00) Dollars. This amount

shall be paid via electronic funds transfer made by the Michigan Department of Treasury to an

escrow account to be identified by the Plaintiffs, in accordance with the following schedule:

October 15, 2009:

$10,000,000.00

October 15, 2010:

$10,000,000.00

October 15,2011:

$15,000,000.00

October 15, 2012:

$20,000,000.00

October 15, 2013:

$20,000,000.00

October 15, 2014:

$25,000,000.00

The amounts paid as described shall be held in Plaintiffs' identified escrow account pending

distribution in accordance with the Court's approved Plan of Allocation. If this Settlement

Agreement is nullified as described in Section IV, any undistributed funds shall be returned to the

Michigan Department of Corrections. If an appeal from the Order approving the Settlement

Agreement is filed, distributions from this escrow account shall be suspended until conclusion of

that appeal. If the Order approving the Settlement Agreement is reversed, any undistributed funds

shall be returned to the Michigan Department of Corrections.

In the event the Michigan Department of Corrections fails to make a payment on the due dates set forth above, the Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class may, at their option, terminate this Settlement Agreement in accordance with the following tenns and those set forth in

5

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 10 of 17 Pg ID 4397
Section IV of this Settlement Agreement. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may, at their discretion, enforce the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the terms set forth in Section V (2).
In the event Plaintiffs decide to terminate this Settlement Agreement, the Parties shall be returned to their respective status as of the date and time immediately prior to its effective date and the Parties shall proceed in all respects as if this Settlement Agreement had not been executed and effected, including the reinstatement of the Class Action and Related Cases in the trial courts.
If the Plaintiffs terminate this Settlement Agreement based on the Michigan Department of Corrections' failure to make a payment on the due dates as set forth above, all judgments obtained before or thereafter shall be offset by any amounts previously paid by the Michigan Department of Corrections and disbursed according to the Court's approved Plan of Allocation. If this Settlement Agreement is terminated by the Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class prior to completion
of all payments identified in paragraph II(3) above, the Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement
Class shall provide the Defendants with all necessary records showing the distributions, including the amounts and to whom made, through the date of termination.
4. Waiver Of State Reimbursement Under The State Correctional Reimbursement Act
In further consideration of the release set forth above, Defendants agree that the payments to the named Plaintiffs and settlement class members and interest thereon, will not be subject to the State Correctional Facility Reimbursement Act, MCL 800.401.
5. Waiver Of Prohibition Against Personal Bank Accounts In further consideration of the release set forth above, Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections agrees to waive the prohibition on prisoners maintaining accounts at financial institutions outside of their Department of Corrections institutional account as set forth in Michigan
6

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 11 of 17 Pg ID 4398
Department of Corrections Policy Directive 04.02.1 05. The waiver will cover those incarcerated individuals that receive settlement funds under the terms of this Settlement Agreement, and shall be in effect until the individual is no longer incarcerated. Further, this waiver shall be subject to the following four conditions: (i) There will not be more than four quarterly disbursals (i.e. one
withdrawal every three months) from the accounts; (ii) The dispersals will be to the prisoner's
Department of Corrections institutional account only; (iii) The only money deposited in the account will be the settlement proceeds and; (iv) The Department of Corrections may promptly obtain a statement of the account at any time, including any deposits or withdrawals for any or no reason.
6. Delivery Of Dismissals With Prejudice Concurrent with the effective date of this Settlement Agreement, counsel for the Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class shall deliver to counsel for Defendants mutually agreed upon, executed Orders dismissing the Class Action and Related Cases with prejudice, except as set forth below. Plaintiffs hereby authorize defense counsel to file said dismissals with the respective courts and enter them as a matter of record. The Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class further agree that all monetary judgments entered in the Class Action shall be set aside or vacated concurrent with the filing of the Order dismissing the Class Action with prejudice. The Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class do not agree to set aside or vacate the January 23, 2007 Order granting them partial summary judgment entered in Mason, eta/ v Granholm, et al, US District Court Case No. 05-73943. The Parties, however, stipulate to dismiss all remaining claims in Mason eta/ v Granholm, eta!, with prejudice, and, in the same Order, to enter a declaratory judgment from the court's January 23, 2007 Order, that will be entered as a final judgment, which would then be subject to an appeal by right.
7

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 12 of 17 Pg ID 4399
7. Dismissal Of Appeals In consideration of the Release described above, Defendants shall move to dismiss all appeals arising from the Class Action and the related state court case Tammy LaCross, et al v Nancy
Zang, et al, within five (5) business days after the effective date of this Settlement Agreement.
8. Equitable Relief Defendant MDOC believes it has implemented policy and training changes to improve its investigations of grievances and complaints related to sexual assaults and sexual harassment by male MDOC staff against female prisoners over the course of several years, beginning in 2000. Most particularly, beginning in 2006, under this administration, Defendant MDOC made significant changes in the staffing of the housing units in female correctional facilities to specifically address and reduce sexual assaults and sexual harassment by male staff toward female prisoners. In addition to steps already taken by the MDOC to address past alleged sexual assaults and sexual harassment by male staff toward female prisoners, the MDOC further agrees to implement the following action: A. MDOC shall inform the complainant female prisoners of the results of its investigations of a complaint of all sexual assault or sexual harassment, whether the prisoner has been transferred or released from custody. B. Upon a female prisoner's release from custody from a correctional facility, the MDOC shall advise the female prisoner that any claims of alleged sexual assault or sexual harassment that may have occurred during the female prisoner's incarceration, may be filed with the Michigan State Police. C. The MDOC shall establish a Retaliation Review Committee at each female correctional facility, consisting of the Grievance Coordinator, and at least one person in the position
8

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 13 of 17 Pg ID 4400
of Assistant Deputy Warden, Inspector or Deputy Warden, which shall be maintained for one year from the date of the preliminary approval of this Settlement. Within five (5) days of receipt of an allegation of retaliation from a prisoner who has reported sexual misconduct or sexual harassment, the Review Committee shall begin review of the allegations, including major and minor misconduct tickets issued against the prisoner. Factors which may be considered by the committee shall include, but not be limited to: 1) the connection between the staff who issued the ticket and the staff accused of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment; 2) any evidence or witness statements submitted by the prisoner alleging retaliation; 3) critical incident reports, grievances, kites and any other documents related to the prisoner's report of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment; 4) the prisoner's prior allegations of retaliation; 5) the amount of time between the reporting and the misconduct ticket; and 6) the prisoner's prior misconduct history.
Within ten (10) days, unless a one time extension of not more than two weeks is granted by the warden, the Review Committee shall report its findings to the w~rden with an explanation of the factual basis for its finding. The warden or designee shall promptly notify the prisoner of the review results. Findings or recommendations of the Review Committee are advisory only, and shall not have any bearing upon the hearings process for prisoner misconduct or grievances established by statute, administrative rule and policy directive unless the hearings officer, hearings administrator or grievance coordinator chooses to consider the information gathered. If the warden determines that there is evidence of retaliation, the warden shall take appropriate action which may include withdrawing a ticket pursuant to PD 03.03.105(K)(3), bringing it to the attention of the hearing officer or requesting a rehearing if the ticket has already been heard.
D. Female prisoners will not be issued a misconduct for filing a complaint of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, or retaliation which is not sustained, unless it is shown by a
9

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 14 of 17 Pg ID 4401

preponderance of evidence that the complaint was intentionally false.

E. The MDOC will facilitate outside, ongoing independent counseling/psychological

treatment paid for by the Plaintiffs as approved consistent with PD 04.06.135.

F. The MDOC agrees to create a counseling group to provide group counseling, at a

minimum of once per year, for female prisoners who are victims of custodial sexual abuse.

G. The MDOC will refer grievances that allege sexual abuse or sexual misconduct to

the MDOC's Internal Affairs for review and action, notwithstanding the rejection or denial of the

grievance for technical reasons.

H. The MDOC's Internal Affairs shall conduct semi-annual reviews of complaints

alleging staff sexual misconduct toward female prisoners.

I.

The Director ofthe MDOC agrees to appoint a member ofher staff to review and

analyze the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Report and Recommended Standards for reducing

rape and sexual misconduct in correctional facilities in relation to issues related to the grievance

process, investigation process, treatment, monitoring process, and training. The appointed member

will prepare a report recommending changes to MDOC policy, if any, and the adoption of any

suggested Standards, if any, to continue to improve the MDOC's response to sexual misconduct of

staff toward prisoners by February 15, 2010. The MDOC Director shall review and authorize the

adoption of any staff recommendation within thirty (30) days after issuance of that report. The

MDOC shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a copy of the report and the Director's decisions

related to the report.

10

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 15 of 17 Pg ID 4402
III.
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION The Parties agree to provide a Notice of Class Action to potential class members who were sexually assaulted, sexually harassed, or had their privacy rights violated by male staff of the MDOC for the first time, after September 1, 2004, who had not previously had an opportunity to opt out of this class. action.
IV. NULLIFICATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT In the event that: (i) the Court does not enter an Order approving the Notice of Settlement of Class Action, or; (ii) the Court does not approve the Settlement Agreement and enter a final Order accordingly, or; (iii) the respective Courts do not enter dismissal Orders incorporating the Parties' agreed terms, or; (iv) the Settlement does not become final for any other reason, the Settlement Agreement shall be null and void and the Class Action and Related Cases shall be reinstated. The Parties agree that prior to terminating the Settlement Agreement on the grounds set forth above, the issues causing termination will first be submitted to facilitation for attempted resolution. In the event that final approval of the Settlement is not achieved, or the Settlement Agreement is terminated as provided herein, the Parties and their counsel agree that, as required by law, everything contained in the pleadings, papers, or verbal statements submitted during or related to the settlement negotiations or the settlement approval proceedings, other than those documents filed with the court, will be kept confidential, will not be disclosed to others, and will not be used, quoted, referenced, proffered or admitted in the lawsuit or any other litigation as evidence or for any other purpose.
11

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 16 of 17 Pg ID 4403
v.
SCOPE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. Exclusive Agreement This Settlement Agreement, the Notice of Class Settlement, and Plan of Allocation, incorporated by reference into this document shall together comprise a full and exclusive agreement ofthe Parties with respect to the matters discussed herein. There have been and are no representations or inducements to compromise these actions other than those recited or referenced in this Settlement Agreement. 2. Exclusive Enforcement Nothing in this Settlement Agreement is expressly or impliedly intended to confer any rights upon any person other than the Parties hereto. The right to seek judicial enforcement of this Settlement Agreement is vested exclusively in the Parties. Enforcement of this Settlement Agreement is governed by the applicable laws and court rules of the State of Michigan. The Parties agree that this court has full authority to enforce the terms and conditions of this agreement and
12

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 430 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 17 of 17 Pg ID 4404 issue any orders of compliance, costs, or fees, related to the enforcement of the provisions of the

HN L. THURBER (P44989)

Assistant Attorney General

Counsel r Defendants

Dated:

S , 2009

)u) Dated:(

1£ ,2009

13

 
 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 432 Filed 09/28/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 4408

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MASON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Case No. 05-73943

Plaintiffs, v

HON. JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA MAG. JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

GRANHOLM, et al., jointly and severally,

Defendants.

DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595)

RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368)

DAVID A. KOTWICKI (P56070)

Counsel for Plaintiffs

RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635)

Attorney for Defendant Carlton Carter

221 N. Main St., Ste. 300

Counsel for Plaintiffs

20 S. Main St., Ste. 115

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

23880 Woodward Ave.

Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

734.996.5620

Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133

586.468.9850

248.691.4200

RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766)

J. RICHARD COLBECK (P12036)

Counsel for Plaintiffs

PATRICIA A. STREETER (P30022)

Attorney for Defendant Lancaster

221 N. Main St., Ste. 200

Counsel for Plaintiffs

53 E. Chicago Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

221 N. Main St., Ste. 300

Coldwater, MI 49036

734.996.5600

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

517.279.8029

734.222.0088

MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200

JOHN L. THURBER (P44989) CORI E. BARKMAN (P44989) Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants

WILLIS CHAPMAN, Defendant In Pro Per 46959 Mornington Canton, MI 48188 734.981.1969

Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804

Corrections Division

248.398.9800

P.O. Box 30217

Lansing, MI 48909

MOLLY RENO (P28997)

517.335.7021

Counsel for Plaintiffs

221 N. Main St., Ste. 300

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

7_3_4_.4_4_9_.9_8_8_3_____________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 432 Filed 09/28/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 4409

The parties stipulate that the District Court’s January 23, 2007 Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, shall constitute a final declaratory judgment, which will be subject to an appeal of right.
The parties further stipulate that all remaining claims and all Defendants shall be dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees to any party.
Consistent with this stipulation, the parties have agreed to entry of the attached declaratory judgment and order dismissing remaining claims in this matter.

STIPULATED:
/s/Deborah LaBelle DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/John Thurber JOHN THURBER (P44989) Attorney for Defendants

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 432 Filed 09/28/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 4410

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MASON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Case No. 05-73943

Plaintiffs, v

HON. JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA MAG. JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

GRANHOLM, et al., jointly and severally,

Defendants.

DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595)

RONALD J. REOSTI (P19368)

DAVID A. KOTWICKI (P56070)

Counsel for Plaintiffs

RALPH J. SIRLIN (P24635)

Attorney for Defendant Carlton Carter

221 N. Main St., Ste. 300

Counsel for Plaintiffs

20 S. Main St., Ste. 115

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

23880 Woodward Ave.

Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

734.996.5620

Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133

586.468.9850

248.691.4200

RICHARD A. SOBLE (P20766)

J. RICHARD COLBECK (P12036)

Counsel for Plaintiffs

PATRICIA A. STREETER (P30022)

Attorney for Defendant Lancaster

221 N. Main St., Ste. 200

Counsel for Plaintiffs

53 E. Chicago Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

221 N. Main St., Ste. 300

Coldwater, MI 49036

734.996.5600

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

517.279.8029

734.222.0088

MICHAEL L. PITT (P24429) PEGGY GOLDBERG PITT (P41407) CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318) Counsel for Plaintiffs 117 W. Fourth St., Ste. 200

JOHN L. THURBER (P44989) CORI E. BARKMAN (P44989) Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants

WILLIS CHAPMAN, Defendant In Pro Per 46959 Mornington Canton, MI 48188 734.981.1969

Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804

Corrections Division

248.398.9800

P.O. Box 30217

Lansing, MI 48909

MOLLY RENO (P28997)

517.335.7021

Counsel for Plaintiffs

221 N. Main St., Ste. 300

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

7_3_4_.4_4_9_.9_8_8_3_____________________________________________________________________

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS This matter having come before the Court upon the Stipulation of the parties: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court’s January 23, 2007 Opinion and Order

5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS Doc # 432 Filed 09/28/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 4411

Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, is entered as a final declaratory judgment;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all other remaining claims and Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs to any party.

Date: September 28, 2009 United

s/John Corbett O’Meara States District Judge

Approved as to Form and Content:
/s/ Deborah LaBelle DEBORAH LaBELLE (P31595) Attorney for Plaintiffs
/s/John Thurber JOHN THURBER (P44989) Attorney for Defendants

2

 
 Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 1 of 75
CLOSED, APPEAL, STAYED, reassigned
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Ann Arbor) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:05−cv−73943−JCO−DAS

Mason et al v. Caruso et al Assigned to: District Judge John Corbett O'Meara Referred to: Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer
Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer (Settlement) Cause: No cause code entered
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/13/2005 Date Terminated: 09/28/2009 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Natheauleen Mason

represented by Cary S. McGehee Pitt, McGehee, 117 W. Fourth Street Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067−3804 248−398−9800 Email: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle 221 N. Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734−996−5620 Email: deblabelle@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE Reosti, James, 23880 Woodward Avenue Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069−1133 248−691−4200 Fax: 248−691−4207 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt Pitt, McGehee, 117 W. Fourth Street Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067−3804 248−398−9800 Email: mpitt@pittlawpc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno P.O. Box 225 Whitmore Lake, MI 48189 734−449−9883 Fax: 734−527−6005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter 221 N. Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734−222−0088

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 2 of 75

Email: pas@patstreeter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin Reosti &Sirlin, P.C. 23880 Woodward Avenue Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069−1133 248−691−4200 Fax: 248−691−4207 Email: rsirlin@rjslawoffice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti Reosti &Sirlin, P.C. 23880 Woodward Avenue Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069−1133 248−691−4200 Fax: 248−691−4207 Email: rjs@rjslawoffice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Renee Williams

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 3 of 75

Plaintiff Yolanda Limmitt
Plaintiff Helisha Bailey

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly H. Reno

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 4 of 75

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

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tammy LaCross

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Velvet Farley−Johnson

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 5 of 75

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ebony Bates

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 6 of 75

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

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kandice Hall

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Davone Wilson

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 7 of 75

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christina Schuster

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 8 of 75

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

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dyanna McDade

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jill Flanders

represented by Cary S. McGehee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis D. James − INACTIVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 9 of 75

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L. Pitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly H. Reno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph J. Sirlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Damika Abner

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Amelia Abraham

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kim Amyx

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 10 of 75

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Barbara Anderson

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lisa Aubuchon

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carmalita Ayers

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Vickie Baldridge

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tracie Barlow−Young

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 11 of 75

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Alison Barnes

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tami Baumgart

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sandra Berggren

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patricia Bigbee

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LaTrina Braxton

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 12 of 75

Plaintiff Pamela Briggs
Plaintiff Kateshia Brown
Plaintiff Denise Buchanan
Plaintiff Linda Byrd
Plaintiff

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 13 of 75

Jennifer Champagne

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Roslyn Cheeseboro

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Annie Cole

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Debra Collins

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ameca Coppy

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 14 of 75

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jennifer Davenport

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Oralia Donald

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lisa Dolph

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kameka Duren

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ruby Early

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 15 of 75

Plaintiff Felicia Edison
Plaintiff Jane Eshenroder
Plaintiff January Estrada
Plaintiff Rebecca Fackler
Plaintiff Linda Flowers

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 16 of 75

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rebecca Gamburd

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wendy Garagiola

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Laura Garland

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lawanda Gayles

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Debra Gentry

represented by

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 17 of 75

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tanishia Graves

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Darlene Greco

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sonya Grissom

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Charmaine Harris

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 18 of 75

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carolyn Hayes−Zehner

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tameka Hewitt

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kelly Hitt

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Vickie Hoskins

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Irene Houston

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 19 of 75

Plaintiff Jamie Jenkins
Plaintiff Easter Jones
Plaintiff Linda Karow
Plaintiff Coretta King−Howe
Plaintiff Shameka Layton

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 20 of 75

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Janise Leonard

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Larita Lewis

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LaShunda Lewis

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LaTonya Lewis

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Marcella Little

represented by

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 21 of 75

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Zetta Mallett

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tamara Marshall

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robin McCardle

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sharee Miller

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 22 of 75

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patricia Minner

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Felicia Morgan

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carolyn Moss

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Donna Murry

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christy Neff

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 23 of 75

Plaintiff LaTasha Nichols
Plaintiff Amy Nowak
Plaintiff Beverly Parsel
Plaintiff Deborah Patino
Plaintiff Brenda Phelps

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 24 of 75

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sherrie Pierce

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jayne Schwerin

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Heather Smith

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christina Spencer

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tracey Stuckey

represented by

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 25 of 75

Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Marquetta Tarver

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Diana Thomas

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Glenese Thompson

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Crystal Truitt−Bailey

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 26 of 75

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joyce VanNorman

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Devon Watts

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Andrea Williams

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ronesha Williams

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tawanna Willis

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 27 of 75

Plaintiff Stacy Wolschon
Plaintiff Jill Yanna
Plaintiff LaTara Young
Plaintiff Samantha Young
Plaintiff Mason

Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 28 of 75
Ronald J. Reosti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Patricia Caruso
Defendant Nancy Zang

represented by Diane M. Smith MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division P. O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517−335−7021 Email: ag−corrections@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
A. Peter Govorchin Michigan Department of Attorney General 525 West Ottawa Street Suite 4th Floor, G. Mennen Williams Building P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517−335−7021 Email: govorchinp@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cori E. Barkman MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division P. O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517−355−7021 Email: BarkmanC@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dawn C.M. Jack MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division PO Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909−8236 517−335−7021 Fax: 517−335−7157 Email: ag−corrections@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John L. Thurber MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division P. O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517−335−7021 Email: thurberj@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
A. Peter Govorchin

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 29 of 75

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Clarice Stovall

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Susan Davis

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Joan Yukins

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 30 of 75

LEAD ATTORNEY

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sally Langley

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

John L. Thurber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Thomas Desantis

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Willis Chapman

represented by Robert R. Stearns Stearns &Coppins 12434 E. Twelve Mile Rd. Suite 102 Warren, MI 48093 586−751−0700 Fax: 586−349−3088

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 31 of 75

Email: rstearns@scmilaw.com TERMINATED: 05/02/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jerry Howell

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Firas Awad

Defendant Jody Nunn

Defendant Carlton Carter

represented by David A. Kotwicki David A. Kotwicki PLC 48000 Van Dyke Shelby Township, MI 48317 586−739−9888 Fax: 586−739−9892 Email: DK@MICHEMPLAW.COM TERMINATED: 03/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Art Lancaster

represented by J. Richard Colbeck Colbeck, McAlhany, 53 E. Chicago Street Coldwater, MI 49036 517−279−8021 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Crosby Talley

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

John L. Thurber

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 32 of 75

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

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kirk Tollzein

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

John L. Thurber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant William Merrow

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

John L. Thurber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 33 of 75

Rodney Madden

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

John L. Thurber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Michigan, Governor of

represented by Diane M. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cori E. Barkman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn C.M. Jack (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections

represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Thurber MI Dept of Atty Gen P. O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517−335−7021 Email: thurberj@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections

represented by Cori E. Barkman MI Dept of Atty Gen P. O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517−355−7021

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 34 of 75
Email: BarkmanC@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan
Movant Women Lawyers Association of Michigan
Interested Party Michigan State Police
Interested Party Michael Davis
ThirdParty Defendant Tammy LaCross TERMINATED: 09/11/2006 ThirdParty Defendant Velvet Farley−Johnson TERMINATED: 09/11/2006 Counter Claimant Elvira Chapman

represented by Bryan J. Anderson Dykema Gossett 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 313−568−5439 Fax: 313−568−6701 Email: banderson@dykema.com TERMINATED: 03/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bryan J. Anderson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Michigan State Police P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335−3922 Fax: (517) 241−7987 PRO SE
Brenda E. Turner Michigan Department of Attorney General Public Administration Division P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 517−335−3922 Fax: 517−241−7987 Email: habeasdivision@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert R. Stearns (See above for address)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 35 of 75

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant Willis Chapman

represented by Robert R. Stearns (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Counter Defendant Tammy LaCross TERMINATED: 09/11/2006
Counter Defendant Velvet Farley−Johnson TERMINATED: 09/11/2006

Date Filed 10/13/2005 10/20/2005 11/16/2005 11/16/2005 11/16/2005
11/16/2005
11/16/2005 11/16/2005
11/16/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by all plaintiffs against all defendants, Receipt No: 5824−AA − Fee: $ 250. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation)(KGeha, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
2 AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by all plaintiffs against all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation)(KGeha, ) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
3 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Jennifer Granholm.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Jennifer Granholm.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: John L. Thurber appearing on behalf of Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Jennifer Granholm with Certificate of Service.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
6 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Diane M. Smith appearing on behalf of Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Jennifer Granholm with Certificate of Service.(Smith, Diane) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
7 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Jennifer Granholm.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Jennifer Granholm re 4 Affirmative Defenses, 6 Attorney Appearance, 7 Jury Demand, 3 Answer to Amended Complaint, 5 Attorney Appearance showing that Deborah LaBelle was served via first class mail. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Jennifer Granholm re 4 Affirmative Defenses, 6 Attorney Appearance, 7 Jury Demand, 3 Answer to Amended Complaint, 5 Attorney Appearance AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE showing that Deborah LaBelle was served the above documents via first class mail. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/16/2005)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 36 of 75

11/17/2005
11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 12/01/2005
12/05/2005
12/05/2005

10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 Effective Date 12/19/03# 3 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 Effective Date 4/28/03# 4 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 Effective Date 11/1/00# 5 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 Effective Date 10/11/99)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Patricia Caruso; Jerry Howell and Jennifer Granholm served on 10/27/2005, answer due 11/16/2005. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Nancy Zang; Joan Yukins and Thomas Desantis served on 10/27/2005, answer due 11/16/2005. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Carlton Carter and Kirk Tollzein served on 11/15/2005, answer due 12/5/2005. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Crosby Talley served on 11/9/2005, answer due 11/29/2005 (KGeha, ) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Clarice Stovall; Susan Davis and Rodney Madden served on 10/28/2005, answer due 11/17/2005. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
16 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: David A. Kotwicki appearing on behalf of Carlton Carter.(KGeha, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
17 MOTION for More Definite Statement by Carlton Carter. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Carlton Carter re 16 Attorney Appearance, 17 MOTION for More Definite Statement. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
19 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Certificate of Service by Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
20 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
21 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
22 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: John L. Thurber appearing on behalf of Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein with Certificate of Service.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
23 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Diane M. Smith appearing on behalf of Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein with Certificate of Service.(Smith, Diane) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon by Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 − PD 03.02.130# 3 Exhibit 2 − PD 03.02.130 old version# 4 Exhibit 3 − PD 03.02.130 old version# 5 Exhibit 4 − PD 03.02.130 old version)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
25 EXHIBIT Number 5 − inadvertenly omitted from original filing re 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MDOC PD 03.03.140)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
26 EXHIBIT Number 5 − inadvertenly omitted from original filing re 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MDOC PD 03.03.140)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/05/2005)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 37 of 75

12/08/2005 12/08/2005 12/09/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/14/2005
12/14/2005
12/22/2005 12/23/2005 12/28/2005
01/04/2006 01/09/2006

27 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: John L. Thurber appearing on behalf of Rodney Madden with Certificate of Service.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
28 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Diane M. Smith appearing on behalf of Rodney Madden with Certificate of Service.(Smith, Diane) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
29 NOTICE of hearing on 17 MOTION for More Definite Statement. Responses due by 12/30/2005. Replies due by 1/17/2006. Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable Paul D Borman. (RMcG, ) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
30 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Certificate of Service by Rodney Madden.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
31 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Rodney Madden.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
32 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Rodney Madden.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
33 RESPONSE to 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 Bazzetta v. McGinnis, Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees# 3 Exhibit 2 Neal v. Dept. of Corrections, Order and Opinion, 02/10/2005# 4 Exhibit 3 Email from Defendant Zang to Grievance Coordinator# 5 Exhibit 4 Deposition Transcript of Grievance Coordinator, pgs. 99−100# 6 Exhibit 5 Defendants' Response to Plaintiff Renee Williams' Grievance# 7 Exhibit 6 Defendants' Response to Caroline Davis' Grievance# 8 Exhibit 7 Defendants' Response to Alison Barnes' Grievance# 9 Exhibit 8 Plaintiff Natheauleen Mason's Grievance dated July 24, 2003# 10 Exhibit 9 Director's Office Response to Plaintiff Mason's Grievance dated August 18, 2003# 11 Exhibit 10 Plaintiff Tammy LaCross' Complaint dated May 15, 2003# 12 Exhibit 11 Plaintiff Helisah Bailey's Complaint dated February 12, 2004# 13 Exhibit 12 Plaintiff Ebony Bates' Complaint dated April 24, 2005# 14 Exhibit 13 Plaintiff Kandice Hall's Complaints dated May 28 and 29, 2005 and Notification of Prisoner/Plaintiff Interview# 15 Exhibit 14 Plaintiff Dyanna McDade Complaint dated July 15, 2005# 16 Exhibit 15 Plaintiff Yolanda Limmitt's Complaint dated October 1, 2003)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 Effective 12/19/2003# 3 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 Effective 4/28/2003# 4 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 Effective 11/1/2000# 5 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 Effective 10/11/1999# 6 Exhibit MDOC Policy Directive 03.03.140 Effective 12/11/2000)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
35 RESPONSE to 17 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by all plaintiffs. (Pitt, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
36 RESPONSE to 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
37 REPLY to Response re 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
38 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Scheer: 17 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Carlton Carter,. Signed by Honorable Paul D Borman. (JPar, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
39 NOTICE of hearing on 17 MOTION for More Definite Statement. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 1/20/2006. Motion Hearing set for 1/24/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 38 of 75

01/18/2006
01/24/2006 02/02/2006 02/02/2006 02/03/2006 02/03/2006 02/07/2006 02/07/2006 02/07/2006 02/07/2006 02/07/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/13/2006
02/14/2006 02/14/2006
02/14/2006 02/14/2006

40 NOTICE of hearing on 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service. Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable Paul D Borman. (JPar, ) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 1/24/2006 re 17 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Carlton Carter, before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Motion Denied (Tape #DAS 06−007) (MLan, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
43 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Willis Chapman served on 1/27/2006, answer due 2/16/2006 (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
44 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 issued to attorney Deborah A. LaBelle re 43 Summons Returned Executed (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
41 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Jury Demand by Carlton Carter.(KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
42 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 issued to attorney David A. Kotwicki − NOT ADMITTED re 41 Answer to Amended Complaint (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
45 SCHEDULING ORDER: Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 8/7/2006 Discovery due by 7/6/2006. Signed by Honorable Paul D Borman. (Refer to image for additional dates)(RMcG, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 41 Answer to Amended Complaint. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
47 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 issued to attorney David A. Kotwicki − NOT ADMITTED re 46 Certificate of Service (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
48 SUMMONS Returned Executed. William Merrow served on 2/1/2006, answer due 2/21/2006 (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
49 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 issued to attorney Deborah A. LaBelle re 48 Summons Returned Executed (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
50 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Art Lancaster served on 2/3/2006, answer due 2/23/2006 (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
51 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Sally Langley served on 2/3/2006, answer due 2/23/2006 (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
52 MOTION TO EXTEND Summons for Defendants Nunn and Awad by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit Ex. 1, Affidavit of Nick Helton, Jr.# 3 Exhibit Ex. 2, Correspondence dated January 31, 2006 from Allan J. Soros, Assistant Attorney General, Corrections Division)(LaBelle, Deborah) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/23/2006 (KGeha, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 2/23/2006 (KGeha, ). (Entered: 02/13/2006)
53 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Diane M. Smith appearing on behalf of Sally Langley with Certificate of Service.(Smith, Diane) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
54 [FILING ERROR. FILED UNDER WRONG LOGIN (SHOULD BE JOHN THURBER). IMAGE IS CORRECT.]ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Diane M. Smith appearing on behalf of Sally Langley with Certificate of Service.(Smith, Diane) Modified on 2/14/2006 (KClark, ). Modified on 2/14/2006 (KClark, ). (Entered: 02/14/2006)
55 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Sally Langley.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
56 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Sally Langley.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 39 of 75

02/15/2006 02/16/2006 02/16/2006 02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006
02/23/2006 02/23/2006 02/24/2006 02/24/2006
02/24/2006 02/24/2006 02/24/2006 03/01/2006
03/08/2006

57 ORDER granting 52 MOTION TO EXTEND Summons for Defendants Nunn and Awad.− Signed by Honorable Paul D Borman. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
58 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: John L. Thurber appearing on behalf of William Merrow with Certificate of Service.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
59 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Diane M. Smith appearing on behalf of William Merrow with Certificate of Service.(Smith, Diane) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
60 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by William Merrow.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
61 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by William Merrow.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
62 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Certificate of Service by Sally Langley.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
63 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Certificate of Service by William Merrow.(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
64 STIPULATION and Order for Seal of Documents by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Willis Chapman, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stipulation &Order with actual signatures)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
65 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 52 MOTION TO EXTEND Summons for Defendants Nunn and Awad. Exhibits are to be removed and sealed. Signed by Honorable Paul D Borman. (KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
66 Sealed Matter.(KGeha, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
67 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon by Sally Langley. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
68 STIPULATION re 52 MOTION TO EXTEND Summons for Defendants Nunn and Awad by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Willis Chapman, Jerry Howell, Firas Awad, Jody Nunn, Art Lancaster, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm, Velvet Farley−Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
69 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: J. Richard Colbeck appearing on behalf of Art Lancaster.(DWor, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
70 ANSWER to Complaint by Art Lancaster.(DWor, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
71 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 issued to attorney J. Richard Colbeck re 69 Attorney Appearance, 70 Answer to Complaint. (DWor, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
72 MOTION to Amend/Correct 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit Madden's Amended Brief# 3 Exhibit Talley &Tollzein's Amended Brief# 4 Exhibit Granholm, Caruso, Zang, Stovall, Davis, Yukins, DeSantis, and Howell's Amended Brief)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
73 STIPULATION to Amend Briefs by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit Stipulation to Amend Briefs with actual signature)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/08/2006)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 40 of 75

03/08/2006 03/09/2006 03/10/2006
03/17/2006
03/21/2006 03/21/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/23/2006 03/27/2006
03/27/2006 03/27/2006 04/03/2006

74 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE from Judge Paul D Borman in Detroit to Judge John Corbett O'Meara in Ann Arbor. Signed by Honorable Paul D Borman. (DEld, ) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
75 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Amend/Correct− Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (DGoo, ) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
76 NOTICE of hearing on 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 67 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon. Motion Hearing set for 4/13/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (DGoo, ) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
77 RESPONSE to 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 67 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Director's Office Memorandum 1999−40/2000−33# 3 Exhibit 2, Director's Office Memorandum 1999−40A/2000−33A# 4 Exhibit Prisoner Guide Book# 5 Exhibit 4, MDOC Internal Affairs Case Review Form Regarding Dallas Mesack dated July 25, 2002# 6 Exhibit 5, MDOC Memorandum to Plaintiff Dyanna McDade dated July 15, 2005# 7 Exhibit 6, MDOC Memorandum to Stephen Marschke Regarding Plaintiff Helisha Bailey and Defendant Tollzein dated September 3, 2003# 8 Exhibit 7, Greivance filed by Alison Barnes, January 12, 2003)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
78 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Jody Nunn served on 2/28/2006, answer due 3/20/2006 (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
79 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Firas Awad served on 2/28/2006, answer due 3/20/2006 (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
80 REQUEST FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Firas Awad by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
81 REQUEST FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Jody Nunn by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
82 CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Firas Awad (THal, ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
83 CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Jody Nunn (THal, ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
84 REQUEST FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Willis Chapman by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
85 CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Natheauleen Mason. (DWor, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
86 REPLY to Response re 67 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon with Proof of Service thereon filed by Sally Langley. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 − Rinard v. Louma# 3 Exhibit 2 − PD 03.02.130)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
87 MOTION for More Definite Statement by Willis Chapman. (PMil, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
88 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 issued to attorney Robert R. Stearns re 87 MOTION for More Definite Statement. (DWor, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
89 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 87 MOTION for More Definite Statement, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 67 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon. Motion Hearing set for 5/11/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (DGoo, ) (Entered:

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 41 of 75

04/03/2006 04/23/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2006 05/01/2006
05/11/2006
05/11/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006
05/16/2006

04/03/2006)
90 RESPONSE to 87 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Clerk's Entry of Default of Defendant Willis Chapman# 3 Exhibit 2, Notice of Activity dated January 25, 2006 re; denial of Defendant Carter's Motion for More Definite Statement# 4 Exhibit 3, Cooper Insurance Agency Center, L.L.C. v. Mourer−Foster, Inc., 2005 WL 3289345 (W.D.Mich.))(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
91 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information by Robert R. Stearns on behalf of Willis Chapman. (Stearns, Robert) (Entered: 04/23/2006)
92 MOTION to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default by Willis Chapman. (Stearns, Robert) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
93 [FILING ERROR R.18 − EXHIBITS NOT IDENTIFIED] INDEX of Exhibits re 92 MOTION to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default by Willis Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Summons &Return of Service as to Chapman# 2 Exhibit Motion Hearing Transcript (excerpts)# 3 Exhibit Department of Corrections Grievance Decision)(Stearns, Robert) Modified on 5/1/2006 (DTyle, ). (Entered: 04/28/2006)
94 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 92 MOTION to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 87 MOTION for More Definite Statement, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 17 MOTION for More Definite Statement, 67 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon. Motion Hearing set for 5/11/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (DGoo, ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 5/11/2006 re 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon filed by Crosby Talley,, Kirk Tollzein,, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Rodney Madden,, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Clarice Stovall,, Joan Yukins,, Patricia Caruso,, Thomas Desantis,, Jennifer Granholm,, Susan Davis,, Jerry Howell,, Nancy Zang,, 67 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon filed by Sally Langley,, 87 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Willis Chapman,, 72 MOTION to Amend/Correct 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certifi filed by Clarice Stovall,, Joan Yukins,, Patricia Caruso,, Thomas Desantis,, Jennifer Granholm,, Susan Davis,, Jerry Howell,, Nancy Zang,, Crosby Talley,, Kirk Tollzein,, Rodney Madden, before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: DENIED(Court Reporter Wabeke) (DGoo, ) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 5/11/2006 re 92 MOTION to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default filed by Willis Chapman, before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: GRANTED(Court Reporter Wabeke) (DGoo, ) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
95 ORDER DENYING re 87 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Willis Chapman,. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (DGoo, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
96 ORDER DENYING re 24 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service thereon filed by Crosby Talley,, Kirk Tollzein,, 10 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Clarice Stovall,, Joan Yukins,, Patricia Caruso,, Thomas Desantis,, Jennifer Granholm,, Susan Davis,, Jerry Howell,, Nancy Zang,, 67 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon filed by Sally Langley,, 34 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Rodney Madden,. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (DGoo, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
97 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/11/06 of Motion Hearing (THal, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 42 of 75

05/30/2006 05/30/2006
06/02/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006 06/12/2006
06/13/2006 06/15/2006
06/15/2006 06/16/2006
06/29/2006
06/29/2006

98 AMENDED ORDER re 96 Order,,. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (DGoo, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
99 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits List of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1 − May 11 hearing transcript)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
100 RESPONSE to 99 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon filed by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
101 Plaintiffs' WITNESS LIST by Natheauleen Mason (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
102 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT filed by Elvira Chapman, Willis Chapman against Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, COUNTERCLAIM filed by Elvira Chapman, Willis Chapman against Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson by Elvira Chapman, Willis Chapman.(Stearns, Robert) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
103 MOTION Hold current Scheduling Order in Abeyance re 99 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
104 MOTION to Strike 102 Answer to Amended Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,,, by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
105 RESPONSE to 103 MOTION Hold current Scheduling Order in Abeyance re 99 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, February 14, 2006 Correspondence from LaBelle to Thurber# 3 Exhibit 2, February 15, 2006 Correspondence from Thurber to LaBelle# 4 Exhibit 3, May 16, 2006 Correspondence from LaBelle to Thurber# 5 Exhibit 4, May 22, 2006 Correspondence from Thurber to LaBelle# 6 Exhibit 5, June 7, 2006 Correspondence from Thurber to LaBelle# 7 Exhibit 6, June 8, 2006 Correspondence from LaBelle to Thurber# 8 Exhibit 7, June 8, 2006 Correspondence from Thurber to LaBelle)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Cause Upon Which Relief May Be Granted by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
107 REPLY to Response re 99 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon , with Proof of Service thereon filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
108 REPLY to Response re 103 MOTION Hold current Scheduling Order in Abeyance re 99 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability with Brief in Support and Proof of Service thereon with Proof of Service thereon filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1 − Transcript p.31# 3 Exhibit 2 − Pltfs Discovery Requests)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
109 MOTION for Order Compelling Production of Documents by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Defendants)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 43 of 75

06/29/2006 07/07/2006 07/08/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006 08/09/2006
08/09/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006

110 ORDER denying 99 Motion for Certificate of Appealability, denying 103 Motion to Hold Scheduling Order in Abeyance− Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
111 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/28/2007 at 02:00 PM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 12/26/2006 Trailing Trial Docket set for 3/6/2007. Discovery due by 11/27/2006. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (Refer to image for additional dates)(WBar, ) (Entered: 07/08/2006)
112 NOTICE of hearing on 104 MOTION to Strike 102 Third Party Complaint,, 106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Cause Upon Which Relief May Be Granted. Responses due by 7/17/2006. Replies due by 7/24/2006. Motion Hearing set for 8/3/2006 at 02:00 PM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 07/08/2006)
113 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Department of Civil Rights Letter, 04/06/01# 3 Exhibit 2, Deputy Attorney General William J. Richards Letter, 12/08/99)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
114 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 109 MOTION for Order Compelling Production of Documents Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
115 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 104 MOTION to Strike Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,, 113 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim. Motion Hearing set for 8/17/2006 10:00 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
116 MOTION for Summary Judgment together with Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Attachment) Renkel v USA)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
117 [FILING ERROR: RULE 9, SIGNATURE BLOCK] AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM filed by Elvira Chapman, Willis Chapman against Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson (Stearns, Robert) Modified on 8/7/2006 (NHoll, ). (Entered: 08/04/2006)
118 MOTION for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae by American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Women Lawyers Association of Michigan. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit A − Human Rights Watch Press Release# 3 Exhibit B − Detroit Free Press Editorial# 4 Exhibit C − The New York Times Editorial# 5 Exhibit D − House Legislative Analysis# 6 Exhibit E − Letter from Gary Torgow to Gov. John Engler# 7 Exhibit F − Defendants' Motion for Summary Disposition in Neal v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.# 8 Exhibit G − United Nations Human Rights Committee Report (July 28, 2006)# 9 Exhibit H − United Nations Human Rights Committee Report re: Women's Human Rights (July 2006)# 10 Exhibit I − Letter from Deval L. Patrick to Gov. John Engler# 11 Exhibit J − Detroit News Article re: Prisoner Complaints in Michigan)(Anderson, Bryan) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
119 RESPONSE to 113 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) filed by Elvira Chapman, Willis Chapman. (Stearns, Robert) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
120 RESPONSE to 106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Cause Upon Which Relief May Be Granted filed by Elvira Chapman, Willis Chapman. (Stearns, Robert) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
121 RESPONSE to 104 MOTION to Strike 102 Answer to Amended Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,,, filed by Elvira Chapman, Willis Chapman. (Stearns, Robert) (Entered: 08/09/2006)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 44 of 75

08/10/2006 08/10/2006 08/11/2006 08/11/2006 08/11/2006 08/14/2006
08/17/2006 08/23/2006
08/29/2006 08/30/2006 08/31/2006

122 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 104 MOTION to Strike 102 Answer to Amended Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,, 113 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim. Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2006 at 10:00 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
123 ORDER granting 118 Motion for Leave to File amici curiae brief− Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
124 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 104 MOTION to Strike 102 Answer to Amended Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,, 106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim. Motion Hearing reset for 8/17/2006 at 10:00 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
125 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 113 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing reset for 8/31/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
126 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Diane M. Smith by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Smith, Diane) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
127 REPLY to Response re 104 MOTION to Strike 102 Answer to Amended Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,,,, 106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Cause Upon Which Relief May Be Granted filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Case Review Forms of Internal Affairs Division of the Michigan Department of Corrections)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
Reset Deadlines as to 104 MOTION to Strike 102 Answer to Amended Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,,,, 106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim. Motion Hearing set for 8/31/2006 at 02:00 PM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
128 RESPONSE to 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment together with Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 113 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, HB 4476, as passed House, December 2, 1999# 3 Exhibit 2, Journal of the Senate, December 8, 1999# 4 Exhibit 3, Journal of the House, December 2, 1999)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
129 REPLY to Response re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment together with Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Proof of Service thereon filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
130 REPLY to Response re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment together with Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (CORRECTED) WITH Proof of Serviece thereon filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 8/31/2006 re 106 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Chapman's &Elvira Chapman's Counterclaim for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,, 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment,, 113 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a),, 104 MOTION to Strike 102 Answer to Amended Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,, before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: Granted (#106), Denied as

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 45 of 75

09/01/2006
09/11/2006 09/18/2006
09/19/2006 10/04/2006 10/16/2006 10/16/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/25/2006 10/27/2006 11/02/2006

Moot (#104), Taken Under Advisement (#113, #116)(Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (WBar, ) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
131 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order for Discovery Production and for Sanctions by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Correspondence, August 10, 2006# 3 Exhibit 2, Correspondence, July 24, 2006# 4 Exhibit 3, Correspondence, August 7, 2006# 5 Exhibit 4, Defendants' Second Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
132 ORDER Dismissing Defendant Willis Chapman's Counterclaims and Striking Elvira Chapman's Third−Party Complaint and Counterclaims− Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (JJoh, ) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
133 RESPONSE to 131 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order for Discovery Production and for Sanctions with Proof of Service thereon filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 Dfts Rsps to Plts 1st POD request# 3 Exhibit 2 Dfts request for more time# 4 Exhibit 3 July 6 ltr from Plts Counsel# 5 Exhibit 4 Dfts 2nd request for more time# 6 Exhibit 5 July 7 letter from Pltfs Counsel# 7 Exhibit 6 Dfts Rsps to Pltfs Discovery Rqsts)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
134 REPLY to Response re 131 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order for Discovery Production and for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
135 NOTICE of Appearance by Cori E. Barkman on behalf of Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
136 WITNESS LIST by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm (Thurber, John) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
137 PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED WITNESS LIST by Jill Flanders, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
138 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Scheer: 131 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order for Discovery Production and for Sanctions, Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
139 NOTICE of hearing on 131 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order for Discovery Production and for Sanctions. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 10/27/2006. Motion Hearing set for 10/31/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
140 WITNESS LIST by Carlton Carter (NHoll, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
Reset Deadlines as to 131 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order for Discovery Production and for Sanctions. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 10/31/2006. Motion Hearing set for 11/2/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 11/2/2006 re 131 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order for Discovery Production and for Sanctions filed by Christina Schuster,, Natheauleen Mason,, Renee Williams,, Yolanda Limmitt,, Helisha Bailey,, Tammy LaCross,, Velvet Farley−Johnson,, Ebony Bates,, Kandice Hall,, Davone Wilson,, Dyanna McDade,, Jill Flanders, before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Granted in Part − No sanctions awarded (Tape #DAS 06−110) (MLan, ) (Entered: 11/02/2006)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 46 of 75

11/17/2006 11/22/2006 11/27/2006
11/27/2006 11/29/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/05/2006 12/06/2006
12/07/2006
12/08/2006
12/08/2006

141 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/2/06 of Discovery Motions (LHack, ) (DTyl). (Entered: 11/17/2006)
142 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 131 Motion to Compel− Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
143 MOTION TO EXTEND Time to Provide Discovery Responses with brief in support and proof of service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits List of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1 ltr from Dfts to Pltfs# 3 Exhibit 2 ltr from Pltfs to Dfts)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
144 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Scheer: 143 MOTION TO EXTEND Time to Provide Discovery Responses. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
145 NOTICE of hearing on 143 MOTION TO EXTEND Time to Provide Discovery Responses with brief in support and proof of service thereon. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 12/8/2006. Motion Hearing set for 12/12/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
Reset Deadlines as to 143 MOTION TO EXTEND Time to Provide Discovery Responses with brief in support and proof of service thereon. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 12/5/2006. Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2006 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
146 RESPONSE to 143 MOTION TO EXTEND Time to Provide Discovery Responses with brief in support and proof of service thereon PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY RESPONSES filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1, Correspondence)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
147 REPLY to Response re 143 MOTION TO EXTEND Time to Provide Discovery Responses with brief in support and proof of service thereon filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
148 MOTION to Quash the Depositions of Dominique Richmond, Kirk Tollzein, and Rodney Madden, with Proof of Service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − correspondence)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 12/7/2006 re 143 MOTION TO EXTEND Time to Provide Discovery Responses with brief in support and proof of service thereon filed by Clarice Stovall,, Joan Yukins,, Sally Langley,, Patricia Caruso,, Thomas Desantis,, Jennifer Granholm,, Susan Davis,, Jerry Howell,, Nancy Zang,, Crosby Talley,, Kirk Tollzein,, William Merrow,, Rodney Madden, before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Motion Granted (Tape #DAS 06−122) (MLan, ) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
149 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Scheer: 148 MOTION to Quash the Depositions of Dominique Richmond, Kirk Tollzein, and Rodney Madden, filed by Clarice Stovall,, Joan Yukins,, Sally Langley,, Patricia Caruso,, Thomas Desantis,, Jennifer Granholm,, Susan Davis,, Jerry Howell,, Nancy Zang,, Kirk Tollzein,, William Merrow,, Rodney Madden,. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
150 RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel with Proof of Service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proof of

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 47 of 75

12/12/2006 12/12/2006
12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/18/2006 12/18/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006
12/27/2006 12/27/2006 01/03/2007 01/03/2007 01/04/2007

Service)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
151 NOTICE of hearing on 148 MOTION to Quash the Depositions of Dominique Richmond, Kirk Tollzein, and Rodney Madden, with Proof of Service thereon. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 1/16/2007. Motion Hearing set for 1/18/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
152 NOTICE by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm of withdrawal of 148 MOTION to Quash the Depositions of Dominique Richmond, Kirk Tollzein, and Rodney Madden, with Proof of Service thereon. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
153 PROTECTIVE ORDER re: document disclosure Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
154 ORDER granting 143 Motion to Extend − Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
155 RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
156 RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel with Proof of Service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
157 MOTION for Sanctions DISCOVERY by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
158 MOTION to Certify Class by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 2 Laird Memo# 3 Exhibit 3 Rodger Memo# 4 Exhibit 4 Wendry Report# 5 Exhibit 5 Overton Memo# 6 Exhibit 7 Caruso Memo# 7 Exhibit 8 Marshke Report# 8 Exhibit 9 IA Case Review# 9 Exhibit 10 IA Case Review# 10 Exhibit 11 IA Case Review# 11 Exhibit IA Case Review# 12 Exhibit 13 IA Case Review# 13 Exhibit 14 Employee Disciplinary Report)(Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
159 INDEX of Exhibits re 158 MOTION to Certify Class by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Memo from Stephen Marschke# 2 Exhibit 6 Report from Steven Wendry)(Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
160 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jill Flanders, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade re 159 Exhibit Index.(Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
161 RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proof of Service)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
162 RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proof of Service)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
163 [FILING ERROR: EXHIBITS NOT PROPERLY LABELED] RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel with Proof of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 48 of 75

01/08/2007
01/08/2007
01/09/2007 01/10/2007 01/12/2007
01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/23/2007 01/24/2007 01/24/2007
01/24/2007
01/25/2007 01/26/2007 01/26/2007

Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment)(Thurber, John) Modified on 1/4/2007 (JJoh, ). (Entered: 01/04/2007)
164 RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proof of Service)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
165 RESPONSE to 157 MOTION for Sanctions DISCOVERY with Proof of Service thereon filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
166 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Scheer: 157 MOTION for Discovery Sanctions. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
167 STIPULATION AND ORDER Set Motion Deadlines as to 158 MOTION to Certify Class Certification: Responses due by 1/26/2007 − Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (LBar, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
168 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Discovery by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1 − Defts 011007 Letter# 3 Exhibit 2 − Plts 011107 Letter# 4 Exhibit 3 − Defts 011107 Letter# 5 Exhibit 4 − Plts 121506 Discovery Requests)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
169 NOTICE of hearing on 157 MOTION for Sanctions DISCOVERY. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 2/2/2007. Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
170 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
171 OPINION AND ORDER granting 113 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, denying 116 Motion for Summary Judgment− Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
172 ORDER REFERRING MOTIONS to Magistrate Judge Scheer: 170 MOTION for Protective Order,, 168 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Discovery. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar, ) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
173 NOTICE of hearing on 170 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 168 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Discovery. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 2/9/2007. Motion Hearing set for 2/13/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
174 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm re 171 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
175 Certificate of Service re 174 Notice of Appeal. (NHoll, ) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
176 RESPONSE to 168 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
177 RESPONSE to 158 MOTION to Certify Class with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 49 of 75

01/29/2007 01/30/2007 01/31/2007
01/31/2007 02/01/2007 02/02/2007 02/06/2007
02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/12/2007

# 2 Exhibit A−−Summary of Plaintiffs' Complaint)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
178 FEE Received in the amount of $455.00 for appeal by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm − Receipt No. 6436−AA (RHutc, ) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
179 RESPONSE to 170 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Attorney General Memorandum, April 20, 2005# 3 Exhibit 2, Correspondence to John Thurber, August 16, 2006)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
180 MOTION to Stay re 171 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment with Proof of Service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Neal v MDOC unpublished opinion)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
181 RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proof of Service)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
182 RESPONSE to 142 Order on Motion to Compel with Proof of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Proof of Service)(Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
183 STATEMENT of Resolved and Unresolved Issues by Jill Flanders, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade.(Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 2/6/2007 re 157 MOTION for Sanctions DISCOVERY filed by Christina Schuster,, Natheauleen Mason,, Renee Williams,, Yolanda Limmitt,, Helisha Bailey,, Tammy LaCross,, Velvet Farley−Johnson,, Ebony Bates,, Kandice Hall,, Davone Wilson,, Dyanna McDade,, Jill Flanders, before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Granted in Part (Tape #DAS 07−009) (MLan, ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
184 REPLY to 176 Response to Motion named as State Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Their Motion for an Extension of Time by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
185 REPLY to Response re 158 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Natheauleen Mason. (Pitt, Michael) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
186 RESPONSE to 180 MOTION to Stay re 171 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment with Proof of Service thereon filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, February 8, 2007, Correspondence to Sixth Circuit)(LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
187 REPLY to Response re 170 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
188 REPLY to Response re 180 MOTION to Stay re 171 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment with Proof of Service thereon filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley,

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 50 of 75

02/13/2007
02/14/2007 02/26/2007 02/26/2007 02/28/2007 03/05/2007
03/06/2007 03/07/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/19/2007 03/20/2007
03/26/2007 03/27/2007

Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 2/13/2007 re 170 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso,, 168 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Discovery filed by Clarice Stovall,, Joan Yukins,, Sally Langley,, Patricia Caruso,, Thomas Desantis,, Jennifer Granholm,, Susan Davis,, Jerry Howell,, Nancy Zang,, Crosby Talley,, Kirk Tollzein,, William Merrow,, Rodney Madden, before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Motions Granted (Tape #DAS 07−015) (MLan, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
189 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 157 Motion for Sanctions− Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
190 ORDER granting 170 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
191 ORDER granting 168 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
192 NOTICE of hearing on 158 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2007 10:15 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
193 MOTION for Protective Order regarding the Deposition of Jerry Howell with Proof of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index# 2 Exhibit A − 021407 letter# 3 Exhibit B − 022207 letter# 4 Exhibit C − 022607 letter# 5 Exhibit D − 022707 letter# 6 Exhibit E − Affidavit of Jody Washington# 7 Exhibit F − Lomax v Sears) (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
194 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 193 MOTION for Protective Order regarding the Deposition of Jerry Howell. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
195 ORDER denying 180 Motion to Stay. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
196 NOTICE of hearing on 193 MOTION for Protective Order regarding the Deposition of Jerry Howell with Proof of Service. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 3/30/2007. Motion Hearing set for 4/3/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
197 OBJECTION to 190 Order on Motion for Protective Order by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 Order Granting Protective Order 2/26/07# 3 Exhibit 2 Attorney General Memorandum# 4 Exhibit 3 Correspondence to John Thurber 2/16/06) (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
198 REPLY to 197 Objection, with Proof of Service thereon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
199 NOTICE by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm of withdrawal of 193 MOTION for Protective Order regarding the Deposition of Jerry Howell with Proof of Service. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
200 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 158 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing set for 4/12/2007 10:30 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
201 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 11, 2006 of Motion Hearing (DEld) (TMcg). (Entered: 03/28/2007)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 51 of 75

03/28/2007 03/30/2007 04/20/2007 04/23/2007
04/26/2007
05/01/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007 05/09/2007
05/10/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/15/2007 05/16/2007

202 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Bryan J. Anderson by American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Women Lawyers Association of Michigan. (Anderson, Bryan) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
203 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Jerry Howell. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index# 2 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Jerry Howell# 3 Exhibit 2 − Chart − Pltf Allegations in 1st Amended Comp) (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
204 RESPONSE to 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit) (Pitt, Peggy) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
205 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. [EXHIBITS 2−7 STRICKEN] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Langley# 3 Exhibit 2 − 7.26.00 memo from Clemens# 4 Exhibit 3 − Request for Inspection# 5 Exhibit 4 − Resignation of Lancaster# 6 Exhibit 5 − Letter from Flanders to IA# 7 Exhibit 6 − IA Investigation# 8 Exhibit 7 − Order of Probation) (Thurber, John) Modified on 6/26/2007 (Greer, A.). (Entered: 04/23/2007)
206 MOTION to Take Deposition from Helisha Bailey, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, and Dyanna McDade by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
207 REPLY to Response re 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jerry Howell. (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
208 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 206 MOTION to Take Deposition. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
209 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 158 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing set for 6/21/2007 10:00 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
210 RESPONSE to 206 MOTION to Take Deposition from Helisha Bailey, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, and Dyanna McDade filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Correspondence from John Thurber, March 30, 2007.# 3 Exhibit 2, Proposed Stipulation for Taking Depositions.) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
211 NOTICE of hearing on 206 MOTION to Take Deposition from Helisha Bailey, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, and Dyanna McDade. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 5/24/2007 Motion Hearing set for 5/29/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer (MLan) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
212 ORDER Overruling 197 Plaintiffs' Objections to Magistrate's Order, Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
Reset Deadlines as to 158 MOTION to Certify Class, 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2007 10:30 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
213 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment by all plaintiffs. (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
214 ORDER granting 213 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Response due by 5/21/2007. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
215 MOTION to Compel by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Memorandum to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests# 2 Exhibit 1 Defendants' "Departure Report" (deleted per order on 07/11/07) # 3 Exhibit 2 Defendants'

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 52 of 75

05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007
05/17/2007
05/25/2007 05/29/2007
05/31/2007
05/31/2007 05/31/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/18/2007 06/20/2007
06/20/2007

Redacted Report# 4 Exhibit 3 Pages 10 − 12 of Nunn, et al v MDOC Settlement Agreement Regarding Injunctive Relief) (Reosti, Ronald) Modified on 7/12/2007 (Peruski, D.). (Entered: 05/16/2007)
216 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 215 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
217 INDEX of Exhibits re 215 MOTION to Compel by all plaintiffs (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
218 RESPONSE to 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment By Defendant Sally Langley filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1996 Class Certification Order in Neal v. MDOC# 3 Exhibit 2003 Second Amended Complaint in Neal v. MDOC# 4 Exhibit Opinion in Neal v MDOC, Neal v. DOC, 2005 WL 326883) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
219 REPLY to Response re 206 MOTION to Take Deposition from Helisha Bailey, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, and Dyanna McDade filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
220 NOTICE of hearing on 215 MOTION to Compel.Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 6/15/2007, Motion Hearing set for 6/19/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 5/29/2007 re 206 MOTION to Take Deposition from Helisha Bailey, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, and Dyanna McDade filed by Patricia Caruso, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Nancy Zang, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Susan Davis, Crosby Talley, Jerry Howell before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Granted (Tape #DAS 07−056) (MLan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
221 MOTION to Strike 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits Two Through Seven Only by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
222 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Sally Langley. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
223 REPLY to Response re 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Sally Langley. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
224 ORDER granting 206 Motion to Take Depositions. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
225 PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS' SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
Reset Deadlines as to 215 MOTION to Compel. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 7/24/2007 Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer (MLan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
226 STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING STATE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUESTS TO ADMIT, AMENDED FIRST INTERROGATORIESAND SECOND REQUEST TO PRODUCE. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
227 STIPULATED ORDER re 215 MOTION to Compel, Extending Defendants' Response Time − Response due: 6/26/2007. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 06/20/2007)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 53 of 75

06/25/2007
06/25/2007 06/26/2007
06/26/2007
07/09/2007 07/11/2007 07/18/2007 07/24/2007 07/26/2007 07/31/2007 08/02/2007
08/16/2007 08/23/2007
08/31/2007 08/31/2007 08/31/2007 09/13/2007

228 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 158 MOTION to Certify Class, 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 8/23/2007 10:00 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
229 ORDER granting 221 Motion to Strike Exhibits. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (AGre) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
230 BILL OF COSTS by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits List of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1 − Notice of Deposition (BOC)# 3 Exhibit 2 − Court Reporter Invoice (BOC)) (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
231 RESPONSE to 215 MOTION to Compel filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1a − Rsps to First Interogs and Second Docs (compel rsps) Pages from 1 to 28# 3 Exhibit 1b − Rsps to First Interogs and Second Docs (compel rsps) Pages from 29−57# 4 Exhibit 2 − Settlement Agreement (compel rsps)# 5 Exhibit 3 − First Request for Docs (compel rsps)# 6 Exhibit 4 − PD 02.01.140 (compel rsps)) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
232 COSTS not taxed re 230 Bill of Costs. (JPur) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
233 STIPULATION AND ORDER removing exhibit 1 from document 215 . Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (DPer) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
234 REPLY to Response re 215 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
235 Ex Parte MOTION for Alternate Service on Deponent Eunice Nunn by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1, Affidavit for Alternate Service by N. Helton) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
236 ORDER from USCA [Appeal Case Number 07−1114] (DEld) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
237 ORDER granting 235 Motion for Alternate Service. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (PPau) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 8/2/2007 re 215 MOTION to Compel filed by Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Tammy LaCross, Jill Flanders, Ebony Bates, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Dyanna McDade, Natheauleen Mason, Kandice Hall, Velvet Farley−Johnson before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Granted in Part (Tape #DAS 07−076) (MLan) Modified on 8/3/2007 (Lang, M.). (Entered: 08/03/2007)
238 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 215 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 8/23/2007 re 158 MOTION to Certify Class, 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: Taken Under Advisement(Court Reporter: Andrea Wabeke) (WBar) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
239 ORDER granting 203 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 205 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
240 OPINION AND ORDER denying 158 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/3/2007 10:30 AM before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
241 MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, regarding Defendant Langley by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 54 of 75

09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/19/2007 09/25/2007 09/27/2007
09/27/2007
09/28/2007 09/28/2007 10/03/2007 10/22/2007 10/23/2007 10/30/2007 11/08/2007 11/19/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 12/04/2007

# 2 Exhibit 1. Neal v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, COA 253543, February 10, 2005 (Unpublished)) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
242 MOTION for Costs by Jerry Howell. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
243 MOTION for Costs by Sally Langley. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
244 ORDER Requiring Response to 241 Motion for Reconsideration. Response due: 10/1/2007. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
245 RESPONSE to 242 MOTION for Costs, 243 MOTION for Costs filed by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
246 RESPONSE to 241 MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, regarding Defendant Langley MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, regarding Defendant Langley filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
247 REPLY to Response re 242 MOTION for Costs, 243 MOTION for Costs filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
248 [FILING ERROR: EXHIBIT LABELING] MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1) (Reosti, Ronald) Modified on 9/28/2007 (Greer, A.). (Entered: 09/28/2007)
249 MOTION TO EXTEND Time for Filing Amended Complaint by all plaintiffs. (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held (not on the record) on 10/3/2007, before Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
250 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Robert R. Stearns by Willis Chapman. (Stearns, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
251 ORDER denying 241 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
252 RESPONSE to 250 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Robert R. Stearns filed by all plaintiffs. (McGehee, Cary) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
253 ORDER Granting 249 MOTION TO EXTEND Time for Filing Amended Complaint, Signed by Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
254 ORDER re: in camera inspection 215 regarding MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiffs. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
255 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by all plaintiffs against all defendants. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
REQUEST for SUMMONS for Michigan Department of Corrections. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
256 SUMMONS Issued for Michigan Department of Corrections (VLun) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
257 MOTION to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Patricia Caruso by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 Dennis Straub Deposition Transcript# 3 Exhibit 2 Designated Straub Deposition Pages# 4 Exhibit 3 Protective Order Motion Hearing Transcript) (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 12/04/2007)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 55 of 75

12/04/2007
12/17/2007
12/21/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007
12/27/2007 02/12/2008 02/19/2008

258 MOTION TO EXTEND Time for Defendants To Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint re 255 Amended Complaint by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
259 RESPONSE to 257 MOTION to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Patricia Caruso filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
260 RESPONSE to 248 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
261 PROTECTIVE ORDER for Documents Requested in Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Patricia Caruso. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
262 PROTECTIVE ORDER for Documents Requested in Plaintiff's First Request for Documents to Defendant Nancy Zang. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
263 REQUEST FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
264 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Michigan Department of Corrections served on 12/5/2007, answer due 12/26/2007. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
265 REQUEST FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Michigan Department of Corrections by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
266 REPLY to Response re 248 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by all plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
267 NOTICE OF DENIAL of Clerk's Entry of Default as to *Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm*. Reason: *default cannot be entered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(g)* (DPer) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
268 NOTICE OF DENIAL of Clerk's Entry of Default as to *Michigan Department of Corrections*. Reason: *default cannot be entered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(g)* (DPer) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
269 PETITION entitled, "MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTS" with Brief in Support by all plaintiffs. (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
270 PETITION entitled, "MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTS AS TO DEFENDANTS CHAPMAN AND LANCASTER" by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt,

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 56 of 75

02/20/2008
02/20/2008 02/21/2008

Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
271 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 255 Amended Complaint by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
272 RESPONSE to 269 Petition by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Jennifer Granholm. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
273 REPLY to Response re 269 Petition entitled, "REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTS" filed by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 57 of 75

02/25/2008 02/25/2008 03/03/2008 03/12/2008
04/23/2008 04/23/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/28/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008
05/27/2008
05/29/2008 05/29/2008 05/29/2008 05/30/2008

274 ANSWER to 270 Petition entitled motion for entry of defaults as to defendants Chapman and Lancaster by Art Lancaster. (DTyl) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
275 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 issued to attorney J. Richard Colbeck re 274 Answer (DTyl) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
276 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Carlton Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation, # 2 Document Continuation, # 3 Document Continuation, # 4 Document Continuation) (Kotwicki, David) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
277 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits List of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Farley Dep Trans − pp 35−61 &77, # 3 Exhibit B − Farley Dep Trans − p 83, # 4 Exhibit C − Farley Dep Trans pp 58 &77, # 5 Exhibit D − Farley Dep Trans p 83, # 6 Exhibit E − Farley Dep Trans p 104) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
278 RESPONSE to 277 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Velvet Farley−Johnson. (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
279 STIPULATED ORDER Extending Time for Plaintiff, Velvet Farley−Johnson to Respond to 277 MOTION for Summary Judgment :( Response due by 4/25/2008. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
280 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 257 MOTION to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Patricia Caruso. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
281 NOTICE of hearing on 277 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 269 Motion for Entry of Defaults, 270 Motion for Entry of Defaults; Motion Hearing set for 5/29/2008 02:15 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
282 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status/Scheduling Conference set for 5/29/2008 02:30 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
283 REPLY to Response re 277 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
284 ORDER granting 250 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Robert R. Stearns terminated. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
285 NOTICE of hearing on 257 MOTION to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Patricia Caruso. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 5/23/2008. Motion Hearing set for 5/27/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 5/27/2008 re 257 MOTION to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Patricia Caruso filed Plaintiffs before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Motion Granted. (Tape #DAS 5/27/08) (MLan) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
286 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 269 Petition for entry of default, 270 Petition for entry of default. Hearing reset for 6/18/2008 02:30 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 277 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 6/18/2008 02:30 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status/Scheduling Conference set for 6/18/2008 02:45 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
287 ORDER granting 257 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 05/30/2008)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 58 of 75

06/18/2008 06/18/2008 06/19/2008 06/20/2008
06/20/2008
06/20/2008 06/23/2008 06/23/2008 06/27/2008
06/27/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008
06/30/2008 07/01/2008

Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 6/18/2008 re 277 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 269 Motion for entry of default, 270 Motion for entry of default before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: (#277) Granted; (#269) Denied; (#270) Denied(Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (WBar) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
Minute Entry −Scheduling Conference held on 6/18/2008 before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: Parties to submit written case management proposals by 6/27/08(Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (WBar) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
288 ORDER Denying 269 Petition for Default, 270 Petition for Default, ( Answer to amended complaint due by 6/27/2008. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
289 NOTICE of Appearance by John L. Thurber on behalf of Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
290 NOTICE of Appearance by Cori E. Barkman on behalf of Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
291 ORDER granting 277 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
292 BILL OF COSTS by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
293 COSTS not taxed re 292 Bill of Costs. (JPur) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
294 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Certificate of Service by Michigan Department of Corrections, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
295 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
296 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
297 STATEMENT of Proposed Discovery Schedule by Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−−Defendants' Interrogatories to Plaintiff) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
298 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
299 MOTION for Costs by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Dep Trans of Pltf Johnson) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 07/01/2008)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 59 of 75

07/02/2008 07/02/2008
07/03/2008 07/15/2008 07/21/2008
07/23/2008

300 ORDER denying 242 Motion for Costs; denying 243 Motion for Costs. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
301 Plaintiffs' STATEMENT of Response to Defendants' Proposed Discovery Schedule by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
302 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/24/2008 02:00 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (Refer to image for additional dates) (WBar) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
303 ORDER denying 299 Motion for Costs. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
304 RESPONSE to 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
305 REPLY to Response re 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 60 of 75

08/08/2008 08/08/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008
08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008

306 MOTION to Compel Responses to Their First Set of Interrogatories with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−−Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Damika Abner, # 3 Exhibit 2−−Response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
307 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−−MDOC Transit List for Kimberly Lynn Amyx) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
308 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 306 MOTION to Compel Responses to Their First Set of Interrogatories with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Nancy Zang, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Joan Yukins, Michigan Department of Corrections, Thomas Desantis, Susan Davis, Crosby Talley, Jerry Howell. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
309 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, State Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
310 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 309 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
311 ORDER granting 298 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
312 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Crosby Talley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Transit List for Braxton) (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
313 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Crosby Talley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Transit List for Braxton) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/12/2008)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 61 of 75

08/13/2008 08/13/2008 08/14/2008
08/19/2008 08/20/2008
08/20/2008 08/20/2008 08/21/2008 08/21/2008 08/21/2008

314 MOTION for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff Darlene Greco by Nancy Zang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Greco Transit Report) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
315 MOTION for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff Linda Byrd by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Byrd Transit Report) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
316 NOTICE of hearing on 306 MOTION to Compel Responses to Their First Set of Interrogatories with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 309 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of Sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 9/5/2008 Motion Hearing set for 9/9/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (THac) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
317 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Transit List for Bigbee) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
318 NOTICE of hearing on 317 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 313 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 315 MOTION for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff Linda Byrd, 307 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff Darlene Greco. Motion Hearing set for 9/24/2008 01:45 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
319 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Jerry Howell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Transit List for Harris #1, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Transit List for Harris #2) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
Set Deadline as to 319 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 9/24/2008 01:45 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
320 MOTION for Summary Judgment RE: Plaintiff Debrah Patino by Nancy Zang, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Transit List of Patino) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
Set Deadlines as to 320 MOTION for Summary Judgment RE: Plaintiff Debrah Patino. Motion Hearing set for 9/24/2008 01:45 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
321 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production of Documents by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 62 of 75

08/21/2008 08/25/2008 08/25/2008 08/25/2008 08/25/2008 08/26/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008

Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents to Defendants, # 3 Exhibit 2, August 11, 2008, Correspondence) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
322 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 321 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production of Documents. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
323 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Crosby Talley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Transit for THOMAS) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
324 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−transit for WILLIS) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
325 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Transit for MALLETT) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
326 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Crosby Talley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − transit list for Phelps) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
327 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Transit List for Schwerin) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
328 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Transit List for Vannorman) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
329 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Transit List for Smith) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
330 RESPONSE to 309 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits List of Exhibits, # 2

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 63 of 75

09/03/2008 09/03/2008 09/04/2008 09/04/2008 09/05/2008
09/05/2008

Exhibit 1 − Proposed Stip dated 080108, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Modified Proposed Stip dated 080508, # 4 Exhibit 3 − State Dfts Rsps to Pltfs 2nd Interogs and PODs) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
331 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit transit list for Minner) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
332 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit transit list for McCardle) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
Reset Deadlines as to 306 MOTION to Compel Responses to Their First Set of Interrogatories, 309 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS). Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 9/12/2008. Motion Hearing set for 9/16/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer (MLan) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
333 NOTICE of hearing on 321 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production of Documents. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 9/12/2008. Motion Hearing set for 9/16/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
334 RESPONSE to 315 MOTION for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff Linda Byrd, 324 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 323 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 319 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 320 MOTION for Summary Judgment RE: Plaintiff Debrah Patino, 327 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 317 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 313 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 329 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 307 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff Darlene Greco, 312 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 325 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 326 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 328 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
335 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 64 of 75

09/08/2008
09/08/2008 09/09/2008
09/11/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/15/2008 09/16/2008

McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, Summary of Class Member Claims, # 3 Exhibit 2, Trial Group Lists 1−12) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 326 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 332 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 324 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 327 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 325 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 323 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 331 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 328 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 329 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 9/24/2008 01:45 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
336 RESPONSE to 321 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production of Documents filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
337 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to Carolyn Hayes−Zehner and Lisa Aubuchon by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Carolyn Hayes−Zehner #236185 Transit List, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Lisa Aubuchon #265761 Transit List) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
338 MOTION to Adjourn 302 Scheduling Order by Mason. (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
339 STATEMENT of Resolved and Unresolved Issues by Natheauleen Mason (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
340 STATEMENT of Resolved and Unresolved Issues by Natheauleen Mason (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
341 RESPONSE to 338 MOTION to Adjourn 302 Scheduling Order filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 9/16/2008 re 306 Defendants' MOTION to Compel Responses to Their First Set of Interrogatories with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service − Resolved by parties; 309 Plaintiffs' MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request to Produce and to Update Defendants' Computerized Database Concerning Allegations of sexual Misconduct (i.e. AIPHAS) − Granted; and 321 Plaintiffs' MOTION to Compel Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production of Documents −Resolved by the parties − before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (Tape #DAS 9/16/2008) (JJoh) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 65 of 75

09/19/2008 09/19/2008
09/22/2008 09/24/2008 09/24/2008 09/24/2008
09/24/2008 09/25/2008
10/01/2008 10/02/2008

342 ORDER Granting 338 MOTION to Adjourn; Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/12/2008 02:00 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (See order for additional dates). Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
343 REPLY to Response re 315 MOTION for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff Linda Byrd, 324 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 323 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 319 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 331 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 332 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 320 MOTION for Summary Judgment RE: Plaintiff Debrah Patino, 327 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 317 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 313 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 329 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 307 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service, 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff Darlene Greco, 325 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 326 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 328 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
344 ORDER granting 306 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
345 ORDER granting 321 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
346 ORDER granting 309 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 9/24/2008 re 315 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 324 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 323 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 319 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 331 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 332 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 320 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 327 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 317 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 313 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 329 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 307 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 325 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 326 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 328 MOTION for Summary Judgment, before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: Granted #'s 307,313,314,315,319,325,326,327,331,332; and Denied #'s 317,320,323,324,328,329(Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (WBar) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/2/2008 10:00 AM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
347 OPINION AND ORDER granting 307 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 313 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 314 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 315 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 317 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 319 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 320 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 323 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 324 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 325 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 326 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 327 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 328 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 329 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 331 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 332 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
348 MOTION for Protective Order by Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − ltr from Soble dated 082808) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 10/2/2008 before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (WBar) (Entered: 10/02/2008)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 66 of 75

10/06/2008 10/09/2008
10/09/2008 10/09/2008
10/09/2008 10/09/2008
10/09/2008 10/09/2008
10/09/2008 10/09/2008
10/09/2008 10/09/2008
10/09/2008 10/10/2008

349 REPLY to 335 Pretrial Memorandum,,,,,,, by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
350 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 01/24/06. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karin Dains) (Number of Pages: 17) Redaction Request due 10/30/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/10/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/7/2009. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
351 NOTICE of filing transcript. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
352 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 02/06/07. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karin Dains) (Number of Pages: 26) Redaction Request due 10/30/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/10/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/7/2009. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
353 NOTICE of filing transcript. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
354 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 02/13/07. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karin Dains) (Number of Pages: 28) Redaction Request due 10/30/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/10/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/7/2009. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
355 NOTICE of filing transcript. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
356 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 05/29/07. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karin Dains) (Number of Pages: 19) Redaction Request due 10/30/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/10/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/7/2009. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
357 NOTICE of filing transcript. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
358 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 05/27/08. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karin Dains) (Number of Pages: 17) Redaction Request due 10/30/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/10/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/7/2009. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
359 NOTICE of filing transcript. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
360 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 08/02/07. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karin Dains) (Number of Pages: 39) Redaction Request due 10/30/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/10/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/7/2009. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
361 NOTICE of filing transcript. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
362 MOTION to Compel Defendants to: 1) Comply with the Magistrate's Order to Supplement Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; 2) Comply with this Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs'

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 67 of 75

10/16/2008 10/22/2008 10/27/2008
11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008

Motion to Compel Supplementation to Second Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; and 3) Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Interrogatories by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents, # 3 Exhibit 2, Notices of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Director Patricia Caruso) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
363 ORDER REFERRING 362 MOTION to compel, to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer:. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
364 NOTICE of hearing. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 11/10/2008. Motion Hearing set for 11/13/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
365 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket No. 362) filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Defs Rsps dated 030507, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Defs Rsps dated 092208) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
Minute Entry −Final Pretrial Conference held on 11/12/2008 before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
Reset Deadlines as to Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 11/14/2008 Motion Hearing set for 11/18/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer (MLan) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
366 COURTROOM PROCEDURES AND DECORUM ORDER. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
367 JOINT FINAL PRE−TRIAL ORDER Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (JCre) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
368 ORDER Regarding Defendants' Witnesses for Trial. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
369 MOTION to Dismiss for Voluntary Dismissal of Claim Without Prejudice or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Amend Dismissing Without Pejudice Plaintiffs' Claim for Equitable, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 68 of 75

11/18/2008 11/20/2008 11/26/2008 12/02/2008
12/03/2008 12/08/2008 12/10/2008 12/12/2008

Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 11/18/2008 re: 362 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Motion Granted in Part. (Tape #DAS 11/18/08) (MLan) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
370 ORDER Denying 369 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal, and Adjusting Scheduling Order; Bench Trial reset for 1/20/2009 09:00 AM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
371 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Brief in Support by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
372 EXHIBIT A − Affidavit of Patricia Caruso re 371 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Brief in Support by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Firas Awad, Jody Nunn, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections (Thurber, John) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
373 MOTION Dfts Motion Opposing Bundling of Trials by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment − Grand Trunk Western RR) (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
374 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs to Submit Description of Witness Testimony for Upcoming Injunctive Relief Trial by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − November 17, 2008 letter) (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
375 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 362 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
376 RESPONSE to 374 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs to Submit Description of Witness Testimony for Upcoming Injunctive Relief Trial filed by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 69 of 75

12/17/2008
12/29/2008 01/08/2009 01/12/2009 01/16/2009 01/16/2009

Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
377 RESPONSE to 373 MOTION Dfts Motion Opposing Bundling of Trials filed by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
378 REPLY to Response re 373 MOTION Dfts Motion Opposing Bundling of Trials filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Barkman, Cori) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
379 STIPULATED ORDER Regarding Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Injunctive Relief Claims Without Prejudice, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
380 MOTION Clarification of the Court's September 19, 2009 Order re 342 Order, Terminate Motions, Set Scheduling Order Deadlines by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
381 ORDER denying 373 Motion opposing bundling of trials; denying 380 Motion for clarification. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
382 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall,

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 70 of 75

01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/22/2009 01/22/2009
01/23/2009

Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, State Defendants' Eleventh Supplemental Response, # 3 Exhibit 2, DeLonya Tucker Grievance, # 4 Exhibit 3, December 15, 2008 Correspondence) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
383 NOTICE of Appearance by Dawn C.M. Jack on behalf of Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Jack, Dawn) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
384 NOTICE of hearing on 382 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2009 02:15 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
385 NOTICE of Appearance by A. Peter Govorchin on behalf of Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
386 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Order Regarding Request 64 by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, State Defendants' Correspondence, August 21, 2007, # 3 Exhibit 2, State Defendants' Fourth Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 386 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Order Regarding Request 64. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2009 02:15 PM before District Judge

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 71 of 75

01/23/2009 01/29/2009 01/29/2009
01/30/2009 01/30/2009

John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
387 MOTION for Order for a Mental Examination of the Plaintiffs Scheduled for Trial March 3, 2009 by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Jack, Dawn) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
388 State Defendants' Liability and Damages WITNESS LIST by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Sally Langley, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1/22/09 Letter to Plaintiff's Counsel) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
389 RESPONSE to 387 MOTION for Order for a Mental Examination of the Plaintiffs Scheduled for Trial March 3, 2009 filed by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, John Thurber Correspondence, December 15, 2008, # 3 Exhibit 2, Neal v MDOC, Trial Transcript) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
390 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−−Relevant pages of Yolanda Limmitt's deposition transcript, # 3 Exhibit 2−−9/15/99 Report and Recommendation, Linda Nunn v MDOC, et al, # 4 Exhibit 3−−9/30/99 Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, Linda Nunn v MDOC, et al, # 5 Exhibit 4−−9/30/99 Judgment Granting Motion to Dismiss, Linda Nunn v MDOC, et al) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
391 MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List, by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade,

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 72 of 75

02/02/2009 02/03/2009 02/03/2009
02/04/2009 02/04/2009 02/04/2009

Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, LaBelle Correspondence, January 29, 2009) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
392 RESPONSE to 382 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
393 ORDER denying 387 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (DEld) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
394 REPLY to Response re 382 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders filed by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, Chart: History of Defendants' Noncompliance with Plaintiffs' Discovery Request #63, # 3 Exhibit 2, Order Issuing Sanctions for Defendants' Contempt of Discovery Orders, # 4 Exhibit 3, Neal, et al v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, et al, Court of Appeals Decision, January 27, 2009, # 5 Exhibit 4, Order Granting Entry of Defaults Against Defendants, # 6 Exhibit 5, Defendants) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
395 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 11/15/08. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karin Dains) (Number of Pages: 40) Redaction Request due 2/25/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/9/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2009. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (DPer) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
396 NOTICE of filing transcript. (DPer) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
397 MOTION to Compel Depositions of Plaintiffs by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A−−1/26/09 Letter from Peter Govorchin to Deborah LaBelle, # 3 Exhibit B−−1/29/09 Letter from Deborah LaBelle to Peter Govorchin) (Govorchin, A.)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 73 of 75

02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/13/2009 02/20/2009

(Entered: 02/04/2009)
398 RESPONSE to 386 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Order Regarding Request 64 filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
399 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 397 MOTION to Compel Depositions of Plaintiffs with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
400 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−−Relevant Pages of Carmalita Ayers' deposition Transcript from Neal, et al v MDOC, et al, # 3 Exhibit 2−−8/27/02 MDOC CMISS Misconduct Report, # 4 Exhibit 3−−8/29/02 MDOC CMISS Misconduct Report) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 2/5/2009 re 386 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Order Regarding Request 64, 382 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (WBar) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
401 MOTION for Reconsideration re 393 Order on Motion for Order with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
402 RESPONSE to 400 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Jane Eshenroder, January Estrada, Rebecca Fackler, Linda Flowers, Rebecca Gamburd, Wendy Garagiola, Laura Garland, Lawanda Gayles, Debra Gentry, Tanishia Graves, Darlene Greco, Sonya Grissom, Charmaine Harris, Carolyn Hayes−Zehner, Tameka Hewitt, Kelly Hitt, Vickie Hoskins, Irene Houston, Jamie Jenkins, Easter Jones, Jill Flanders, Linda Karow, Coretta King−Howe, Shameka Layton, Janise Leonard, Larita Lewis, LaShunda Lewis, LaTonya Lewis, Marcella Little, Zetta Mallett, Tamara Marshall, Robin McCardle, Sharee Miller, Patricia Minner, Felicia Morgan, Carolyn Moss, Donna Murry, Christy Neff, LaTasha Nichols, Amy Nowak, Beverly Parsel, Deborah Patino, Brenda Phelps, Sherrie Pierce, Jayne Schwerin, Heather Smith, Christina Spencer, Tracey Stuckey, Marquetta Tarver, Diana Thomas, Glenese Thompson, Crystal Truitt−Bailey, Joyce VanNorman, Devon Watts, Andrea Williams, Ronesha Williams, Tawanna Willis, Stacy Wolschon, Jill Yanna, LaTara Young, Samantha Young, Firas Awad, Renee Williams, Mason, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Natheauleen Mason, Tammy LaCross, Velvet Farley−Johnson, Ebony Bates, Kandice Hall, Davone Wilson, Christina Schuster, Dyanna McDade, Damika Abner, Amelia Abraham, Kim Amyx, Barbara Anderson, Lisa Aubuchon, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Tracie Barlow−Young, Alison Barnes, Tami Baumgart, Sandra Berggren, Patricia Bigbee, LaTrina Braxton, Pamela Briggs, Kateshia Brown, Denise Buchanan, Linda Byrd, Jennifer Champagne, Roslyn Cheeseboro, Annie Cole, Debra Collins, Ameca Coppy, Jennifer Davenport, Oralia Donald, Lisa Dolph, Kameka Duren, Ruby Early, Felicia Edison. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, April 20, 2005 Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit 2, Relevant pages from Deposition of Yolanda Limmitt, 05/09/07, # 4 Exhibit 3, Log book for Defendant Carlton Carter, # 5 Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Yolanda Limmitt, # 6 Exhibit 5, Relevant pages from Deposition of Patricia Caruso, 09/19/07, # 7 Exhibit 6, House Legislative Analysis) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/23/2009: # 8 Exhibit #3 Replace) (JCre). (Entered: 02/20/2009)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 74 of 75

02/25/2009 02/27/2009
03/03/2009 03/05/2009
03/05/2009 03/11/2009 03/20/2009 03/20/2009
03/20/2009 03/20/2009 03/20/2009 03/25/2009 03/27/2009
03/30/2009

403 STIPULATED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to 400 MOTION for Summary Judgment :( Response due by 3/5/2009. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
404 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−−Opinion &Order Granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Baldridge v Jeffreys, et al USDC−ED #07−cv−15130)) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
405 REPLY to Response re 390 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Rodney Madden. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
406 RESPONSE to 400 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Carmalita Ayers. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 Ayers' Grievance 8/29/02, # 3 Exhibit Ayers' Grievance 8/31/02, # 4 Exhibit Ayers' Grievance 9/2/02, # 5 Exhibit 4 Parole Decision Board, # 6 Exhibit 5 Misconduct Hearing Report, # 7 Exhibit 6 Ayers' Grievance 3/27/07 and Supporting Documents, # 8 Exhibit 7 Oct. 1`6, 2002 Dept of Corrections Decision Letter, # 9 Exhibit 8 Retaliation Review Committee's Decision 1/08/03) (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
407 ORDER granting 401 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
408 REPLY to Response re 400 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service regarding Plaintiff Carmalita Ayers filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
409 RESPONSE to 404 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Vickie Baldridge. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 Time Review &Deposition, # 3 Exhibit 2 PD 03.03.105, # 4 Exhibit 3 PD 03.03.140 §EE) (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
410 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/23/2009 02:00 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara Jury Trial set for 10/6/2009 09:00 AM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (Refer to image for additional dates) (WBar) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
411 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
412 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney David A. Kotwicki by Carlton Carter. (Kotwicki, David) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
413 Stipulated Order to Remove Documents from Public View Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (JCre) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
414 ORDER REFERRING OTHER MATTERS to *Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer* : *Settlement Conference*. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
415 REPLY to Response re 404 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−−Major Misconduct Report dated 1/10/03, # 3 Exhibit 2−−Major Misconduct Hearing Report dated 1/31/03) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
416 ORDER Granting 412 Motion of David A. Kotwicki and David A. Kotwicki,P.L.C. to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (JCre) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

Case: 5:05-cv-73943-JCO-DAS As of: 07/13/2012 03:04 PM EDT 75 of 75

04/06/2009 04/06/2009
04/06/2009
04/27/2009 05/07/2009 05/11/2009 05/13/2009
05/14/2009 05/14/2009 05/18/2009 05/18/2009 05/18/2009 05/19/2009
07/30/2009 08/06/2009 09/28/2009

417 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Settlement Conference set for 8/12/2009 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
418 MDOC Defendants' Liability and Damages Trial WITNESS LIST by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of, Michigan Department of Corrections (Thurber, John) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
419 PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST FOR OCTOBER 2009 TRIAL − WITNESS LIST by Jamie Jenkins, Janise Leonard, Carolyn Moss, Yolanda Limmitt, Helisha Bailey, Carmalita Ayers, Vickie Baldridge, Debra Collins (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
420 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support pursuant to Rule 56(B) by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Rodney Madden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Reosti letter of 4/22/09) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
421 RESPONSE to 420 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support pursuant to Rule 56(B) filed by Debra Collins. (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
422 REPLY to Response re 420 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support pursuant to Rule 56(B) with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
423 NOTICE by Mason of withdrawal of 391 MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List, MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List, MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List, MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List, MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List, MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List, MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List, MOTION to Strike 388 Witness List,, 386 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Order Regarding Request 64. (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
424 MOTION to Quash Subpoena, Or Alternately, Motion for Protective Order; Brief in Support by Michigan State Police. (Turner, Brenda) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
425 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas by Michael Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−−Subpoena to Michigan State Police, # 3 Exhibit 2−−Subpoena to Michael J. King) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
426 RESPONSE to 425 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by Carolyn Moss. (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
427 RESPONSE to 424 MOTION to Quash Subpoena, Or Alternately, Motion for Protective Order; Brief in Support filed by Mason. (Reosti, Ronald) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
428 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 382 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
429 NOTICE by Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, Nancy Zang, Clarice Stovall, Susan Davis, Joan Yukins, Thomas Desantis, Jerry Howell, Crosby Talley, Kirk Tollzein, William Merrow, Rodney Madden, Michigan, Governor of of withdrawal of 397 MOTION to Compel Depositions of Plaintiffs with Certificate of Service. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
430 ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING SETTLEMENT. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (NHol) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
431 Notice of Failure to Comply with ECF Policies and Procedures as to attorney Dennis D. James. (DeSa) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
432 STIPULATED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 09/28/2009)