Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. _______________ RYAN DECOTEAU, ANTHONY GOMEZ, and DOMINIC DURAN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RICK RAEMISCH, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and TRAVIS TRANI, in his official capacity as the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary and the Centennial Correctional Facility. Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Anthony Gomez, and Dominic Duran (the “Named Plaintiffs”), and others similarly situated (the “class”), all inmates who are currently or have been previously incarcerated in the Colorado State Penitentiary (“CSP”), by and through undersigned counsel, Lindsey Webb, Lauren Fontana, and Amy Robertson, hereby submit this Class Action Complaint for violations of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
1

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 21
I. INTRODUCTION 1. Defendants refuse to provide outdoor exercise to inmates housed in administrative
segregation at CSP. Administrative segregation is the most restrictive form of imprisonment imposed by the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”). At CSP, inmates in administrative segregation spend a minimum of 23 hours per day by themselves in a cell that measures approximately 80 square feet.
Above: Picture of administrative segregation cell at CSP
2. Except for medical or legal visits, inmates in administrative segregation are only allowed to leave their cells when they are taken to the shower or to out-of-cell exercise. The exercise area in administrative segregation is simply another cell called a recreation room. The
2

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 21
inmates in administrative segregation have access to the recreation room for a maximum of one hour per day, five days per week. The time allotted for access to the recreation room is not guaranteed and is frequently cancelled due to prison lockdowns, staff shortages, and other administrative issues.
3. The recreation room is a completely indoor room with a floor, ceiling, and irregularly angled walls. The recreation room is small, only approximately ten square feet larger than the cells in which inmates are housed for the vast majority of their lives. The recreation room is not outside, and there is virtually no opportunity for individuals in the recreation room to experience the elements. Except when immediately adjacent to the small open grate, inmates cannot feel the wind; they cannot feel the sun on their face; they cannot feel the rain or the snow. This deprivation begins the moment inmates are placed at CSP, and does not end until they are transferred to a facility offering outdoor exercise or released. This claustrophobic room contains only a pull-up bar, and there is no opportunity for inmates to run, except in a small circle.
Above: Picture of recreation room at CSP.
3

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 21
4. The recreation room has two narrow windows measuring approximately five inches wide by three feet long, which are covered by thick metal grates. These grates block what little access to the elements inmates may have. In order to feel a breeze, the snow, or the rain, an inmate must press his face up to the metal grates and hope that the wind is in his favor. Judge R. Brooke Jackson in Anderson v. Colorado, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (D. Colo. 2012), held that this configuration violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Above: Picture of windows in recreation room.
5. Despite Judge Jackson’s holding in Anderson, Defendants still do not provide outdoor exercise at CSP. In many cases, Defendants have simply transferred inmates who have challenged the lack of outdoor exercise rather than providing required outdoor exercise at CSP. This repeated behavior by Defendants has made a class action necessary to obtain relief for those inmates at CSP. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the substantial mental and
4

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 21

physical health risks implicated by their decision to deny prisoners in administrative segregation

access to outdoor exercise.

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is

brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and pursuant to the Declaratory

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs’ claim for

attorney’s fees and costs is conferred by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

7. Venue of this action is proper in the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b). All of the events alleged herein occurred in the State of Colorado, and all of the parties

were residents of the State at the time of the events giving rise to this litigation.

III.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff RYAN DECOTEAU is a citizen of the United States and resident of

Colorado and is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, an inmate incarcerated by

CDOC. Mr. Decoteau is currently housed in an administrative segregation unit at CSP. Mr.

Decoteau has suffered and will continue to suffer deprivations of his Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights as a result of being denied access to outdoor exercise at CSP.

9. Plaintiff ANTHONY GOMEZ is a citizen of the United States and resident of

Colorado and is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, an inmate incarcerated by

CDOC. Mr. Gomez is currently housed in an administrative segregation unit at CSP. Mr. Gomez

5

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 21
has suffered and will continue to suffer deprivations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as a result of being denied access to outdoor exercise at CSP.
10. Plaintiff DOMINIC DURAN is a citizen of the United States and resident of Colorado and is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, an inmate incarcerated by CDOC. Mr. Duran is currently housed in an administrative segregation unit at CSP. Mr. Duran has suffered and will continue to suffer deprivations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as a result of being denied access to outdoor exercise at CSP.
11. Defendant RICK RAEMISCH is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Colorado. Defendant Raemisch is the Executive Director of CDOC, and is the state official that manages, supervises, and controls the State of Colorado’s correctional facilities where the Named Plaintiffs and class are or have been incarcerated. Defendant Raemisch is responsible for developing and implementing, and has the authority to establish and alter, the policies and practices which have resulted in the violation of the Named Plaintiffs’ and the class’s constitutional rights while incarcerated at CSP, including the denial of outdoor exercise opportunities. All of Defendant Raemisch’s acts or omissions alleged in this action have been and are being carried out under color of state law, and he is being sued in his official capacity.
12. Defendant TRAVIS TRANI is a citizen of the United States and resident of Colorado and, as the warden of CSP, is responsible for the custody and care of all inmates while they are incarcerated at CSP. Defendant Trani manages, supervises, and controls all employees and operations at CSP. Defendant Trani is responsible for developing and implementing, and has the authority to establish and alter, the policies and practices which have resulted in the violation
6

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 21

of the Named Plaintiffs’ and the class’s constitutional rights while incarcerated at CSP, including

the denial of outdoor exercise opportunities. All of Defendant Trani’s acts or omissions alleged

in this action have been and are being carried out under color of state law, and he is being sued in

his official capacity.

IV.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16. The Named Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule

23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all prisoners who are now or will

in the future be housed in administrative segregation at CSP and who are now or will in the

future be subjected to Defendants’ policy and practice of refusing to provide access to outdoor

exercise to inmates in administrative segregation at CSP.

17. The size of the class is so numerous as to make joinder impracticable. There are

more than 500 prisoners currently being housed in administrative segregation at CSP, and many

more prisoners who may be housed there in the future.

18. There is at least one common question of law and fact that applies to all members

of the class, namely, whether Defendants’ policy and practice of denying outdoor exercise to all

inmates in administrative segregation at CSP constitutes a violation of the inmates’ Eighth

Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

19. The Named Plaintiffs are all currently incarcerated inmates in administrative

segregation at CSP; therefore, their claims are typical of the claims of the entire class.

20. The Named Plaintiffs, through counsel, will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class as a whole. Among other things, the Named Plaintiffs do not have any

7

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 21

conflicts with the class and have retained counsel experienced in prison and class action

litigation.

21. Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class as a whole, so

that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the entire

class. Specifically, Defendants have denied outdoor exercise to the class as a whole, and that

violation can be remedied by an injunction requiring, among other things, that proper outdoor

exercise be made available to the class.

V.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Defendants refuse to provide outdoor exercise access at CSP, and thus pose a substantial risk to the mental and physical health of class members.

22. At CSP, inmates in administrative segregation are housed in single-person cells

where they spend at least 23 hours per day.

23. The total square footage of the single-person cell (not counting the encumbered space taken up by a protruding sleeping platform and toilet) is approximately 80 square feet.1

The cells have only one narrow window made of thick safety glass, measuring approximately

44.5 inches tall by 4.75 inches wide and recessed approximately 5.5 inches deep into the cell

wall. This window is often located in the rear corner of the cell, over the cell’s raised, immovable

sleeping platform, resulting in limited views and natural light.

24. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants, in their administration and

operation of CSP, have maintained a policy and practice of denying outdoor exercise, or any

1 These cells measure approximately 13 feet long by 6.5 feet wide at their widest point; they narrow to approximately 4 feet 11 inches wide at certain points. The ceilings are also less than 8 feet high.
8

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 21
regular opportunity to be outside, to all inmates housed in administrative at CSP, including the Named Plaintiffs.
25. CSP allows inmates in administrative segregation only five hours per week of outof-cell time in a recreation room.
26. In practice, Defendants’ provision of out-of-cell time for “exercise” is frequently more limited, due to facility lockdowns or for other reasons.
27. Lockdowns occur for a variety of reasons, including when there is an emergency at the prison, when there is a disturbance at the prison, or when there is a shortage of staff at the prison.
28. Inmates housed in administrative segregation at CSP only receive “exercise” time in an indoor cell. This recreation room is not outside. It is inside the building and is entirely enclosed by irregularly angled walls, a ceiling, and a floor. The room is triangular in shape and measures approximately 13 feet long by 9 feet wide, and provides roughly 90 square feet of floor space. This is only marginally larger than the approximately 80 square-foot cells in which inmates are housed.
9

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 21
Above: Picture of recreation room at CSP.
29. In one corner of the recreation room there are two narrow windows that measure approximately 5 feet high by 5 inches wide, and are recessed into the wall by a depth of approximately 7 inches. Inside each opening, Defendants have placed thick metal grating with approximately 1-inch square holes, through which only a small amount of air is able to pass.
30. The only equipment in the recreation room is a single pull-up bar. 31. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice, the inmates at CSP in administrative segregation are not allowed outside and do not receive the physical and mental health benefits of being outside. 32. Inmates in administrative segregation at CSP are also denied the benefits of feeling natural unfiltered light enter their pupils. Some class members have experienced
10

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 21
deterioration in eyesight, the lack of outdoor exercise has negatively affected the mental health of some members of the class, and all class members are at risk of such harm.
33. Defendants have also denied the inmates in administrative segregation at CSP access to any meaningful physical exercise opportunity that is truly outside. Rather, Defendants’ policy and practice at CSP is to escort the inmates a short distance from their approximately 80square foot cell to an approximately 90-square foot cell. This recreation room lacks sufficient space or equipment to engage in and receive the health benefits of exercise and of being outside. As a result, the inmates in administrative segregation at CSP are unable to experience the recognized benefits of exercising and are suffering -- and are at risk of suffering -- physical and mental health injuries.
34. Defendants’ deprivation of the opportunity to exercise outside to inmates in administrative segregation at CSP has posed, and will continue to pose, a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates’ mental and physical health.
B. Defendants knew their actions posed a substantial risk of serious harm, and they deliberately disregarded it.
35. At all times relevant to this case, Defendants had and continue to have knowledge that their acts and omissions denying outdoor exercise to inmates in administrative segregation pose a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates.
36. In 1987, the Tenth Circuit recognized that “regular outdoor exercise is extremely important to the psychological and physical well being of inmates.” Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 653 (10th Cir. 1987).
11

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 21
37. CDOC began construction of CSP in 1990 - three years after the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Bailey.
38. On February 1, 2011, CDOC issued Administrative Regulation 1000-01, which states that it is the policy of the CDOC to ensure all facilities provide a comprehensive recreation program that includes leisure-time activities, outdoor exercise, and recreation activities appropriate to the offenders.
39. Despite the new CDOC administrative regulation, CSP made no changes to its inadequate recreation room.
40. In addition, in October of 2011, the CDOC commissioned a study of its administrative segregation policies through the Prison Division of the National Institute of Corrections, known as the “Austin–Sparkman Report.” The resulting report found that outdoor recreation was deficient at CSP. In this report, correctional experts expressly warned Defendant Raemisch’s predecessor, Tom Clements, that the denial of outdoor exercise at CSP violated correctional standards and that this practice is extreme and unlike the operation of any other facility in the United States. See Austin, J., et al., Colorado Department of Corrections Administrative Segregation and Classification Review, National Institute of Corrections Report, 18 (October 2011).
41. Despite the results of the “Austin–Sparkman” report commissioned by CDOC, CSP made no changes to its inadequate recreation room.
42. Further, on August 24, 2012, Judge Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued his opinion in Anderson v. Colorado, finding that the Defendants
12

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 21
were put on notice that “CSP is the only supermax facility in the country, including the notorious federal supermax prison at Florence, Colorado, that does not provide some opportunity for outdoor exercise.” 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1141 (holding that CSP violated the Eighth Amendment because the recreation room was not outside and therefore offered no meaningful opportunity for inmates to exercise out-of-doors).
43. Judge Jackson also held that CDOC was deliberately indifferent to the physical and mental health of Mr. Anderson, an inmate in administrative segregation at CSP who was denied opportunity for exercise out-of-doors, thereby offering further notice to the Defendants that they were violating the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1142.
44. Despite the Anderson ruling, CSP made no changes to its inadequate recreation room; instead they simply transferred Mr. Anderson to another facility.
45. Therefore, Defendants have been on notice that the lack of outdoor exercise at CSP is a violation of the Eighth Amendment based on Judge Jackson’s decision in Anderson; additionally, several other inmates have filed lawsuits regarding this same issue at CSP since 2009. See, e.g., Moore v. Arguello, No. 13-cv-1861-WJM-BNB (D. Colo.); Oakley v. Raemisch, No. 10-cv-03052-CMA-MJW (D. Colo.); Dunlap v. Zavaras, No. 09-cv-01196-WJM-MEH (D. Colo.); Parker v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., No. 08-CV-00737-MSK-KLM (D. Colo.).
46. Defendants Raemisch and Trani knew or had constructive knowledge of clearly established law and correctional standards. The established law and correctional standards state that prolonged and continuous denial of outdoor exercise violates the Eighth and Fourteenth
13

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 21
Amendments. Their knowledge, at the very least, was based on the events and judicial findings described above.
47. The Named Plaintiffs have all exhausted their administrative remedies regarding outdoor exercise, thereby giving further notice to the Defendants that the outdoor exercise at CSP is deficient.
48. Defendants Raemisch and Trani have the ultimate duty and power to approve the policy change that could have ended the constitutional violations at issue in this case and, despite having had ample opportunity to do so, have refused to take such action, causing substantial injury to the Named Plaintiffs and other class members. Since becoming Executive Director of CDOC, Defendant Raemisch has participated in an annual review of any and all CDOC policy changes recommended by staff and, through his participation, has had the ultimate, personal responsibility and discretion for approving or denying such changes.
C. Named Plaintiff Allegations 49. The Named Plaintiffs are Mr. Decoteau, Mr. Gomez, and Mr. Duran. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all other allegations in this Complaint herein. 50. The Named Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to engage in regular outdoor exercise during the entire period of their incarceration in administrative segregation at CSP. 51. While in administrative segregation, the Named Plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to experience any natural elements, including the sun, wind, rain, snow, aside from the small amount of those elements that make it through the narrow grates of the window in the recreation room.
14

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 21
52. The harms described above are continuing and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue in the future.
1. Ryan Decoteau 53. Mr. Ryan Decoteau was born on July 10, 1983, and was first received for incarceration by CDOC on or about April 14, 2004, at the age of 21 years. 54. Defendants transferred Mr. Decoteau to a cell in an administrative segregation housing unit at CSP on or about February 18, 2011. 55. Through the denial of access to outdoor exercise by Defendants, Mr. Decoteau has not had access to outdoor exercise for two years and ten months. 56. As a result of Defendants’ denial of outdoor exercise, Mr. Decoteau has experienced a number of mental and physical problems. 57. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice, for a period of approximately two years and ten months, Mr. Decoteau has not been outside and has not received the physical and mental health benefits of being outside, including but not limited to the benefits of exposing his skin to sunlight and feeling natural, unfiltered light enter his pupils. 58. Mr. Decoteau is currently incarcerated at CSP. If CDOC transfers him to another facility in the future, he will remain at risk of being transferred back to CSP. Absent a change in CDOC policy and practice, or an injunction issued by this Court, Mr. Decoteau remains subject to denial and at risk of being denied access to outdoor exercise, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
15

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 21
2. Anthony Gomez 59. Mr. Anthony Gomez was born on April 3, 1985, and was first received for incarceration by CDOC on or about November 15, 2005, at the age of 20 years. 60. Defendants placed Mr. Gomez in administrative segregation at CSP on or about October 2, 2008. 61. Mr. Gomez remained at CSP for over three years until he was transferred to Sterling Correctional Facility on or about November 4, 2011. 62. During his initial time at CSP, Mr. Gomez was denied outdoor exercise for over three years and one month. 63. Mr. Gomez was transferred back to CSP on or about March 6, 2013, and remains there. 64. As a result of Defendants’ denial of outdoor exercise, Mr. Gomez has experienced a number of mental and physical problems. 65. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice, for a cumulative period of approximately three years and ten months, Mr. Gomez has not been outside and has not received the physical and mental health benefits of being outside, including but not limited to the benefits of exposing his skin to sunlight and feeling natural, unfiltered light enter his pupils. 66. Mr. Gomez is currently incarcerated at CSP. If CDOC transfers him to another facility in the future, he will remain at risk of being transferred back to CSP. Absent a change in CDOC policy and practice, or an injunction issued by this Court, Mr. Gomez remains subject to
16

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 21
denial and at risk of being denied access to outdoor exercise, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
3. Dominic Duran 67. Mr. Dominic Duran was born on November 3, 1984, and was first received for incarceration by CDOC on or around August 10, 2006, at the age of 22 years. 68. On February 1, 2013, Defendants transferred Mr. Duran to a cell in an administrative segregation housing unit at CSP. 69. Through the denial of access to outdoor exercise by Defendants, Mr. Duran has not had access to outdoor exercise for approximately ten months. 70. As a result of Defendants’ denial of outdoor exercise, Mr. Duran has experienced a number of mental and physical problems. 71. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice, for a period of approximately ten months, Mr. Duran has not been outside and has not received the physical and mental health benefits of being outside, including but not limited to the benefits of exposing his skin to sunlight and feeling natural, unfiltered light enter his pupils. 72. Mr. Duran is currently incarcerated at CSP. If CDOC transfers him to another facility in the future, he will remain at risk of being transferred back to CSP. Absent a change in CDOC policy and practice, or an injunction issued by this Court, Mr. Duran remains subject to denial and at risk of being denied access to outdoor exercise, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
17

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 21
VI. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Eighth Amendment Violation 73. The Named Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if those allegations were set out explicitly herein. 74. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. 75. Defendants have housed and continue to house all inmates in administrative segregation at Colorado State Penitentiary indoors without any opportunity for outdoor exercise. 76. Defendants’ denial of outdoor exercise is excessive and disproportionate, and therefore constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 77. All actions taken by Defendants were committed deliberately and intentionally. 78. Defendants’ decision to deny any opportunity for outdoor exercise to all inmates in administrative segregation at CSP has caused serious harm to the physical and mental health of those inmates. 79. Defendants’ decision to deny any opportunity for outdoor exercise to all inmates in administrative segregation at CSP creates a serious risk of substantial harm to the physical and mental health of those inmates. 80. Defendant Trani and Defendant Raemisch, and their predecessors, acting under color of state law, knew and continue to know that denying the opportunity to engage in regular outdoor exercise has harmed, and continues to pose a substantial risk of serious harm to, the mental and physical health of inmates in administrative segregation.
18

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 21
81. Defendants were aware and continue to be aware of the past harm and continuing substantial risk of serious harm. The Anderson court held that, at least as of May 3, 2010, when Mr. Anderson filed his complaint, CSP was already on notice that its failure to provide outdoor exercise to inmates in administrative segregation was unconstitutional. Anderson, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1141.
82. Even though Defendants are aware of this harm and continuing risk of harm, Defendants have consciously disregarded the harm and risk by failing to improve conditions at CSP, or to provide inmates in administrative segregation at CSP access to sunlight, fresh air, the elements, or outdoor exercise.
83. An actual and immediate controversy exists between the Named Plaintiffs and Defendants, and the Named Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants are currently enforcing the challenged policy and practice at CSP. As a result of this policy, Named Plaintiffs and class members have suffered irreparable injury. Absent a declaration of their rights and issuance of a permanent injunction by this Court, the Named Plaintiffs and the class will continue to suffer from a real and immediate threat of being subject to the challenged policy and practice, suffering further irreparable injury.
84. Defendants have acted and continue to act deliberately and with indifference to the past harm and continuing risk of harm, and continue to deny any opportunities for any outdoor exercise to administrative segregation inmates at CSP.
85. The Named Plaintiffs and the class have suffered, and continue to suffer, from significant mental and physical harm and damage as a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions.
19

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 21
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against Defendants, and award them all relief as allowed by law, including but not limited to, the following:
1. That this Court assume jurisdiction; 2. That this Court certify the class identified in paragraph 16 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3. That this Court declare that the acts, omissions, policies, practices and conditions described above violated and continue to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; 4. That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendants to comply with the Eighth Amendment with respect to all inmates at Colorado State Penitentiary by providing regular access to outdoor exercise; 5. That this Court award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 6. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper and equitable.
20

Case 1:13-cv-03399 Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 21
JURY DEMAND: Plaintiffs seek a trial to the Court. Dated this 17th day of December, 2013. Respectfully Submitted, s/ Amy F. Robertson Amy F. Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 757-7901 arobertson@creeclaw.org Lindsey Webb Lauren Fontana University of Denver College of Law 2255 E. Evans Ave., Suite 335 Denver, CO 80208 Phone: (303) 871-6140 Fax: (303) 871-6847 lwebb@law.du.edu
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
21

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-3399-WJM-KMT RYAN DECOTEAU, ANTHONY GOMEZ, and DOMINIC DURAN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. RICK RAEMISCH, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and TRAVIS TRANI, in his official capacity as the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary and Centennial Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Anthony Gomez, and Dominic Duran (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other inmates who are currently or have previously been incarcerated at the Colorado State Penitentiary (“CSP”) against Defendants Rick Raemisch and Travis Trani (“Defendants”), the Executive Director and Warden of the Penitentiary. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ policy of denying outdoor exercise to all inmates housed in administrative segregation at CSP violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at 18.) Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendants to comply with the Eighth Amendment by providing regular access to outdoor exercise. (Id. at 20.)
Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Motion for Class Certification

(ECF No. 12); and (2) Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 22). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Class Certification is granted and the Motion to Consolidate is denied.
I. MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following class: “All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise” (“Class”). (ECF No. 12 at 4.) A. Rule 23 As the parties seeking class certification, Plaintiffs must first demonstrate that all four prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) are clearly met. Shook v. El Paso Cnty., 386 F.3d 963, 971 (10th Cir. 2004); see also Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013). These threshold elements consist of the following: (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 party 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). If Plaintiffs prove they have met these threshold requirements, they must then demonstrate that the action falls within one of the three categories set forth in Rule 23(b). Shook, 386 F.3d at 971. Here, Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act
2

on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”
The party seeking to certify a class bears the strict burden of proving the requirements of Rule 23. Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1162 (10th Cir. 2006). In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met. Anderson v. City of Albuquerque, 690 F.2d 796, 799 (10th Cir. 1982). When deciding whether the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23, the Court accepts the Plaintiffs’ substantive allegations as true, though it need not blindly rely on conclusory allegations and may consider the legal and factual issues which the complaint presents. Shook, 386 F.3d at 968; see also Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259, 1265 (10th Cir. 2009). The Court should not pass judgment on the merits of the case, but must conduct a “rigorous analysis” to ensure that the requirements of Rule 23 are met. D.G. ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010).
The decision whether to grant or deny class certification “involves intensely practical considerations and therefore belongs within the discretion of the trial court.” Tabor, 703 F.3d. at 1227. B. Analysis
As set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23 requirements.
3

1. Numerosity To establish the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1), Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the class is so numerous as to render joinder of all members impracticable. To satisfy this requirement, Plaintiffs must produce some evidence or otherwise establish by reasonable estimate the number of class members who may be involved. See Rex v. Owens ex rel. Okla., 585 F.2d 432, 436 (10th Cir. 1978). Plaintiffs have submitted evidence showing that there are presently at least 500 inmates housed in administrative segregation at CSP. (ECF No. 12-1 at 6.) Defendants do not dispute this number. Courts have found far smaller class sizes than this to be sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1). See Schreiber v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 167 F.R.D. 169, 174 (D. Kan. 1996) (certifying a proposed class of 300); Wilcox Dev. Co. v. First Interstate Bank, 97 F.R.D. 440, 443 (D. Ore. 1983) (class of 40 is sufficient to satisfy numerosity requirement); Dale Elec., Inc. v. R.C.L. Elecs., Inc., 53 F.R.D. 531, 534-36 (D.N.H. 1971) (13 members found sufficient). Additionally, the fact that the Class definition is fluid—in that it calls for the addition of new inmates when they are transferred to CSP—further supports a finding that joinder is impracticable. See U.S. ex rel. Green v. Peters, 153 F.R.D. 615, 618 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (certifying class of approximately 300 inmates and noting that “the true impracticability of joinder is reinforced” when considering the fluid nature of a class of prisoners); Andre H. v. Ambach, 104 F.R.D. 606, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (“The fact that the population . . . is constantly revolving establishes sufficient numerosity to make joinder of the class members impracticable.”); Arthur v. Starrett City Assocs., 98 F.R.D.
4

500, 505-06 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (“This fluctuating nature of the pool of prospective plaintiffs further demonstrates the impracticability of joinder.”).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the numerosity requirement because they cannot show that each member of the proposed Class has exhausted his administrative remedies under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). (ECF No. 19 at 9-11.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that the PLRA has an exhaustion requirement, but argue that they can satisfy this requirement vicariously when pursuing a class action by showing that each of the named Plaintiffs has exhausted his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 27 at 6.) The Court agrees. Although there is no case law in the Tenth Circuit directly on point, other circuit courts across the country have held that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is limited to the class representatives.1 See Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that “a class of prisoner-plaintiffs certified under Rule 23(b)(2) satisfies the PLRA’s administrative exhaustion requirement through ‘vicarious exhaustion,’ i.e., when one or more class members ha[s] exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to each class claim raised by the class” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 330 (5th Cir. 2004) (stating that one class member’s exhaustion “is enough to satisfy [the PLRA's exhaustion] requirement for the class”); Jackson v. District of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262, 269 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining
1 Defendants argue that the continuing viability of these cases is questionable in light of Dukes and Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). (ECF No. 19 at 9-10.) However, Dukes was not a prisoner case and therefore had nothing to do with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. While Woodford involved the PLRA and its exhaustion requirement, it was not a class action. Thus, the Court does not find that these later cases call into question the reasoning behind the vicarious exhaustion doctrine for prisoner class action cases.
5

that so long as one member of the prisoner class pursued the available administrative remedies, “the plaintiff class has met the filing prerequisite”).
The Court finds the reasoning behind these cases sound. Exhaustion by the named Plaintiffs allows prison officials an opportunity to address the merits of a claim while avoiding the requirement that all class members exhaust, which could unduly burden the prison’s complaint system. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93 (purpose of PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is to “afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case”). In this case, Plaintiffs have submitted evidence showing that each of the three named Plaintiffs has submitted grievances to the proper authorities within CSP, and has appealed those grievances such that his administrative remedies have been exhausted. (ECF No. 27-1 at 4-25.) Thus, Defendants have had at least three opportunities at each stage of the grievance process to review their policies regarding access to outdoor exercise for inmates in administrative segregation. As the named Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies, the Court finds that the fact that other members of the Class have not done so is irrelevant to the numerosity requirement.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden under Rule 23(a)(1).
2. Commonality The commonality element of Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be questions of law or fact that are common to the class. The United States Supreme Court recently held that in order to satisfy this requirement, the claims of the members of the proposed class must depend on a common contention which is “of such a nature that it is capable
6

of class-wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. —, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). Thus, “what matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common ‘questions’—even in droves—but, rather the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. “Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the potential to impede the generation of common answers.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).
The proposed Class in this case consists of inmates that are all subjected to the same policy that denies access to outdoor exercise for all prisoners housed in administrative segregation at CSP. (ECF No. 12 at 4.) Defendants admit that the proposed Class members are all subject to the same policy so long as they remain in administrative segregation at CSP. However, Defendants argue that this is not sufficient to establish commonality because whether the denial of outdoor exercise violates the Eighth Amendment is an individualized inquiry that depends on the amount of time that the inmate has been denied access. (ECF No. 19 at 5.) Because members of the Class have been at CSP for varying lengths of time, Defendants contend that there is no commonality between their claims. (Id.)
The Court agrees that the ultimate issue of whether the denial of access to outdoor exercise constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation turns, in large part, on the length of the deprivation. See Housley v. Dodson, 41 F.3d 597, 599 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Although we have never expressly held that prisoners have a constitutional right to exercise, there can be no doubt that total denial of exercise for an extended period of
7

time would constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.”); Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 379 (5th Cir. 1977) (“[C]onfinement for long periods of time without the opportunity for regular outdoor exercise does, as a matter of law constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”). Although there is no bright line rule for when denial of outdoor exercise becomes cruel and unusual punishment, the Tenth Circuit has held than an inmate who was denied outdoor exercise for nine months stated a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. See Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 805 (10th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiffs here have presented evidence showing that Defendants’ policies on administrative segregation require that inmates progress through at least four different levels before they can be released back into general population, and that this progressive process “is typically a minimum of nine (9) months in duration.” (ECF No. 19-3 at 7.) Inmates are denied access to outdoor exercise at each of the four levels of administrative segregation. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) Thus, based on Defendants’ current administrative segregation policies, each inmate placed in administrative segregation at CSP will be denied access to outdoor exercise for at least nine months.
There will certainly be some variability within the Class as to how long each inmate has been denied outdoor exercise, as the Class contains inmates who have just been transferred to administrative segregation at CSP, and some who have already been housed there for some period of time. As for the former, however, because those inmates will eventually have to spend at least nine months in administrative segregation, they will necessarily be denied access to outdoor exercise for a sufficient length of time to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. See Perkins, 165
8

F.3d at 805. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that the common issues of fact and law so as to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2).
3. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the class representatives be typical of those of the class which they seek to represent. The positions of the class representatives need not be identical to those of the other class members, so long as there is a sufficient nexus between the claims of the class representatives and the common questions of law or fact which unite the class. Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 245 F.R.D. 478, 484 (D. Colo. 2007). “The commonality and typicality requirements tend to merge,” and both “serve as guideposts for determining whether. . . maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are [sufficiently] interrelated.” Young v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2012 WL 3704997 (D. Colo. 2012). The named Plaintiffs in this case are three inmates currently imprisoned in administrative segregation at CSP and who are being denied access to outdoor exercise. (ECF No. 1 at 5-6.) The named Plaintiffs have been housed at CSP since February 18, 2011, February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2013. (Id. at 15-17.) At this point, each of the named Plaintiffs has been denied access to outdoor exercise for over a year, which is sufficient to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. See Perkins, 165 F.3d at 805. The named Plaintiffs are subjected to the same policy of denying access to outdoor exercise as the rest of the proposed Class. As such, the Court finds that the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the Class for purposes of Rule 23(a)(3).
9

4. Ability to Represent Class Finally, Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representatives fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. This requirement entails the resolution of two questions: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Rutter & Willbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 1180, 1187-88 (10th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs bear the initial burden of demonstrating facts to support a finding that they will adequately protect the interests of the class. Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 178 F.R.D. 545, 552 (D. Colo. 1998). Once the plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of adequate representation, the burden shifts to the defendant. Id. Absent evidence to the contrary, a presumption of adequate representation is invoked. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel has significant experience litigating civil rights actions, including the filing of two separate lawsuits for individual prisoners on this precise issue. (ECF No. 12 at 7.) There is no known or alleged conflict between counsel or the named Plaintiffs and the proposed Class. (Id.) Defendants do not dispute this prong of the analysis. (ECF No. 19.) As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that the named Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Class. 5. Rule 23(b)(2) Class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so
10

that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting
the class as a whole.” However, where the claims asserted “do not lend themselves to
the formulation of appropriate class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief” and where it is
clear that the primary relief sought is monetary damages, it is within a district court's
discretion to deny certification on this basis. Monreal v. Potter, 367 F.3d 1224, 1236
(10th Cir. 2004). The Tenth Circuit has set forth an extensive explanation regarding
when a class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2):
First, plaintiffs must demonstrate defendants’ actions or inactions are “based on grounds generally applicable to all class members.” Second, plaintiffs must also establish the injunctive relief they have requested is “appropriate for the class as a whole.” Together these requirements demand “cohesiveness among class members with respect to their injuries . . . .”
This cohesiveness, in turn, has two elements. First, plaintiffs must illustrate the class is “sufficiently cohesive that any classwide injunctive relief” satisfies Rule 65(d)’s requirement that every injunction “‘state its terms specifically; and describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)). Second, cohesiveness also requires that class members’ injuries are “sufficiently similar” that they can be remedied in a single injunction without differentiating between class members. Rule 23(b)(2)’s bottom line, therefore, demands at the class certification stage plaintiffs describe in reasonably particular detail the injunctive relief they seek “such that the district court can at least ‘conceive of an injunction that would satisfy [Rule 65(d)’s] requirements,’ as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).”
DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2010) (citations
omitted).
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because the
amount of time each inmate has spent in administrative segregation varies amongst the
11

Class. (ECF No. 19 at 18.) For reasons already extensively discussed supra, the Court cannot agree that the different lengths of time during which the putative class members are housed in administrative segregation makes class certification inappropriate in this case. It may be that, if Plaintiffs succeed on the merits, the Court ultimately may order that there is a certain minimum time that an inmate must be at CSP before they have to be permitted outdoor exercise, or that only inmates at certain security levels must be allowed to exercise outdoors. However, the Court can draw whatever lines are necessary when fashioning the ultimate relief on the merits, and any injunction entered can still apply to the Class as a whole.
The entire proposed Class in this case is subject to the exact same policy of being denied all access to outdoor exercise while housed in administrative segregation at CSP. As Defendants’ current policies require that all inmates spend at least nine months processing through the various levels of administrative segregation, each member of the Class will, at some point during their confinement at CSP, have a viable Eighth Amendment claim. See Perkins, 165 F.3d at 805. Plaintiffs have proposed injunctive relief that can apply to the Class overall, and the Court is capable of making whatever modifications necessary to comply with Rule 55(b) and the PLRA’s requirement that injunctive relief be narrowly drawn. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden under Rule 23(b)(2). C. Conclusion
As the Court has found that Plaintiffs have met their burden under each of the prongs of Rule 23(a), as well as Rule 23(b)(2), class certification is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 12) is granted, and
12

the Court certifies the following class in this case: “All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise.”
II. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Before the above-captioned action was filed on behalf of all inmates in administrative segregation at CSP, a number of inmates had individually filed actions alleging an Eighth Amendment violation due to the lack of access to outdoor exercise. One of these cases, Moore v. Arguello, No. 13-cv-1861-WJM-BNB, is also pending before the undersigned. Plaintiffs in this case have moved to consolidate this action with the Moore case for purposes of discovery and other pre-trial matters. (ECF No. 22.) Defendants oppose the Motion, as does Plaintiff Moore. (Id. at 1.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that consolidation is appropriate when the actions involve common questions of law or fact:
If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Further, consolidation is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Chimal v. Sledge, 2007 WL 1576346, at *1 (D. Colo. May 31, 2007). “The purpose of Rule 42(a) is to give the court broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.” Skaggs v. Level 3
13

Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 WL 458682, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 24, 2009) (quotations omitted). Having reviewed the above-captioned action and the Moore case, the Court finds
that consolidation is not appropriate. While both cases arise out of the denial of outdoor exercise to inmates in administrative segregation at CSP, that is where the similarities end. The class action is brought against the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections and the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary. Plaintiff Moore brings his case against Chad Arguello and Tom Meek, two officers at CSP. Thus, the two actions do not involve the same parties.
More significantly, the two action do not seek the same type of relief. The class action seeks only injunctive relief requiring CSP to permit inmates access to outdoor exercise. Plaintiff Moore seeks monetary damages in the amount of $200,000. This is a significant difference that would affect the discovery needed in the cases, and alters the analysis of whether a trial by jury is necessary.
Finally, class counsel has made it clear that Plaintiff Moore does not wish to be represented by them. Therefore, consolidation would require the class action to be merged with a pro se prisoner Plaintiff, which could significantly complicate discovery conferences, scheduling conferences, and other administrative matters.
Given all of these considerations, the Court finds that consolidation of the abovecaptioned action with Moore v. Arguello is not in the interest of the parties, the attorneys, or the Court. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate is denied.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
14

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 31) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED;
3. The Court CERTIFIES the following class in this case:
All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise.

Dated this 10th day of July, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez United States District Judge

15

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-3399-WJM-KMT RYAN DECOTEAU, ANTHONY GOMEZ, and DOMINIC DURAN
Plaintiffs, v. RICK RAEMISCH, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and TRAVIS TRANI, in his official capacity as the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary and Centennial Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REDEFINE THE CLASS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION TO REDEFINE THE CLASS
This class action lawsuit seeks a ruling regarding the right to exercise outdoors for certain prisoners at the Colorado State Penitentiary (“CSP”). This Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the following class: “All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise.” Decoteau v. Raemisch, __ F.R.D. __, __, 2014 WL 3373670, at *6 (D. Colo. July 10, 2014).
The Colorado Department of Corrections (“DOC”) has since amended its regulations to eliminate “administrative segregation” and replace it with various different classifications. The parties agree that these amended regulations require refinement of

the class definition, but they disagree on the proper redefinition. Accordingly, before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify Class Definition (ECF No. 41) and Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Redefine the Class (ECF No. 51). For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ proposed redefinition.
I. BACKGROUND Before DOC’s recent regulatory amendments, it would place certain CSP prisoners in “administrative segregation,” which was effectively solitary confinement with no opportunity for outdoor exercise. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1–4.) Effective June 30, 2014, however, DOC eliminated the term “administrative segregation” and replaced it with a new classification: “Restrictive Housing Maximum Security Status” (“Restrictive Housing”). (ECF No. 51-2 at 1.) Restrictive Housing still does not allow for outdoor exercise. (ECF No. 41 at 4.) Under the new regulations, the major difference between administrative segregation and Restrictive Housing is that inmates in Restrictive Housing have a presumptive limit on their stay—either six or twelve months, depending on the offense that warranted their placement in Restrictive Housing. (ECF No. 51-2 at 4.) “Any extension beyond twelve (12) months must be approved by the Director of Prisons as well as the Deputy Executive Director, and must be based upon documented exigent circumstances.” (Id. at 14.) After their time in Maximum Security, inmates are expected to transfer to a “Management Control Unit” (“MCU”) at DOC’s Sterling facility. (ECF No. 51 at 9; ECF No. 51-4 at 1.) MCU inmates at Sterling receive outdoor exercise three times per week. (ECF No. 51 at 9.) However, some “overflow” MCU inmates reside at CSP, although DOC claims their time at CSP should be short. (Id.)
2

Prisoners who behave well in MCU status can then progress to a Close Custody Transition Unit (“CCTU”), which also permits a limited amount of outdoor exercise. (ECF No. 51 at 9–10; ECF No. 51-4 at 2.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD “An order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C). Such amendments or alterations are a matter within this Court’s discretion. DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1201 (10th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, the am ended class must still meet Rule 23’s requirements, meaning: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (“numerosity”); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (“commonality”); (3) the claims or defenses of the representative party are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (“typicality”); and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (“ability to represent”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). If those requirements have been satisfied, the action must still fall within one of the three categories set forth in Rule 23(b). Shook v. El Paso Cnty., 386 F.3d 963, 971 (10th Cir. 2004). Here, both parties propose class def initions that rely on Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”
III. ANALYSIS The parties have reacted to DOC’s regulatory changes by proposing the
3

following class redefinitions:

Plaintiffs
All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise.

Defendants
All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in administrative segregation Restrictive Housing at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise for more than nine continuous months.

Obviously these definitions differ in only two ways, i.e., Defendants’ two
insertions. The Court will address each insertion in turn.
A. “Restrictive Housing”
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to drop “administrative segregation” from
the class definition. Defendants, however, propose to replace it with “Restrictive
Housing.” According to Defendants, this is to avoid
encompass[ing] large numbers of inmates at CSP who are no longer incarcerated in conditions that would even potentially give rise to a claim for the violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.
More specifically, Plaintiffs’ proposed definition is faulty because though there are now inmates at CSP who may not receive “regular” outdoor exercise to the extent that is defined as 3 hours of outdoor exercise per week, these inmates are not being subjected to a deprivation of a basic human need as is required to state an Eighth Amendment violation.
(ECF No. 61 at 8–9.) Defendants characterize this indiscriminately as a challenge to
the numerosity, commonality, and typicality prongs of the Rule 23(a) class certification

4

test. (ECF No. 51 at 12–13.)1 The clarification Defendants seek through inserting “Restrictive Housing” is
unnecessary. The original class definition focused on inmates who are denied all outdoor exercise. The Court does not understand Plaintiffs’ proposed redefinition to broaden that scope. (See ECF No. 67 at 9.)
Inserting “Restrictive Housing” could also lead to additional problems in the future. The fact that Defendants are now redefining their housing classifications suggests that Defendants may do so again. Rather than require a round of class redefinition motions for each new regulatory change, the Court believes it prudent to define the class with reference to the challenged condition, and not on the housing classification that creates that condition.
Finally, “Restrictive Housing” may be too restrictive a definition to encompass the challenged condition. Defendants admit that at least some “overflow” MCU inmates are housed at CSP. (ECF No. 51 at 9.) Although MCU inmates at Sterling supposedly receive regular outdoor exercise, Defendants say nothing about the MCU inmates at CSP. Thus, limiting the class definition to those in “Restrictive Housing” at CSP may be underinclusive. B. “For More Than Nine Continuous Months”
Defendants also ask the Court to create a class def inition based on the length of time that an inmate has been denied outdoor exercise. Defendants’ draw their proposal —“more than nine continuous months”—from the Tenth Circuit’s Perkins decision,
1 Defendants do not address the remaining Rule 23(a) consideration, ability to represent. The Court therefore deems that matter conceded in Plaintiffs’ favor.
5

which held that a prisoner could state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation by alleging deprivation of “all outdoor exercise for more than nine months.” Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 805, 810 (10th Cir. 1999). Def endants treat this as a holding that nine months is the threshold for a constitutional violation.
Defendants misread Perkins. The nine-month period in Perkins came from the plaintiff’s allegations, not from any direct analysis of the amount of time the state can lawfully withhold outdoor exercise. The Tenth Circuit might have just as easily accepted six or seven or eight months as sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment in that case. Moreover, “what constitutes adequate exercise will depend on the circumstances of each case, including the physical characteristics of the cell and jail and the average length of stay of the inmates.” Housley v. Dodson, 41 F.3d 597, 599 (10th Cir. 1994).
Thus, adding “more than nine continuous months” into the class definition unduly frontloads the merits of the case, both as to the length of deprivation generally and as to the effect of “continuous” deprivation versus, for example, one opportunity for outdoor exercise every nine months. “Merits questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1195 (2013). Defendants have not explained how a nine-month threshold in the revised class definition relates to Rule 23’s prerequisites.
In this context, it bears repeating what the Court stated in its original class certification order:
6

It may be that, if Plaintiffs succeed on the merits, the Court ultimately may order that there is a certain minimum time that an inmate must be at CSP before they have to be permitted outdoor exercise, or that only inmates at certain security levels must be allowed to exercise outdoors. However, the Court can draw whatever lines are necessary when fashioning the ultimate relief on the merits, and any injunction entered can still apply to the Class as a whole.
Decoteau, 2014 WL 3373670, at *5. This statement remains true even in light of
Defendants’ recent amendments to their housing classifications.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify Class Definition (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED. The
class is redefined as follows: “All inmates who are now or will in the future be
housed at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future
be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates
access to outdoor exercise.”
2. Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Redefine the Class (ECF No. 51) is DENIED.

Dated this 13th day of April, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez United States District Judge

7

 
 Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-3399-WJM-KMT RYAN DECOTEAU, ANTHONY GOMEZ, and DOMINIC DURAN,
Plaintiffs, v. RICK RAEMISCH, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and TRAVIS TRANI, in his official capacity as the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary and Centennial Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Before the Court is the parties’ joint request for final approval of their proposed class action settlement. (ECF No. 162.) The Court held a Fairness Hearing on June 29, 2016. (ECF No. 180.) Having considered the arguments raised in the briefs and at the Fairness Hearing, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement, and also grants Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF No. 145).
I. BACKGROUND1 This class action lawsuit challenges certain exercise policies of the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”). (ECF No. 1.) When this lawsuit began in
1 Many of these background facts come from the undisputed facts established in the parties’ summary judgment cross-motions.

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 21
December 2013, some prisoners at the Colorado State Penitentiary, or “CSP,” were living in “administrative segregation,” commonly known as “Ad Seg” or “solitary.” (Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Plaintiffs’ Facts”) (ECF No. 50 at 5–13) ¶¶ 2–9.) These Ad Seg prisoners were, as a matter of CDOC policy, denied all outdoor exercise. (Id.) This Court eventually granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the following class: “All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise.” Decoteau v. Raemisch, 304 F.R.D. 693, 691 (D. Colo. 2014).
Effective June 30, 2014, however, CDOC eliminated the term “administrative segregation” and replaced it with a new classification: “Restrictive Housing Maximum Security Status.” (Plaintiffs’ Facts ¶ 7.) The major difference between Ad Seg and Restrictive Housing is that inmates in Restrictive Housing have a presumptive limit on their stay—either six or twelve months, depending on the offense that warranted their placement in Restrictive Housing. (Id. ¶ 48; Defendants’ Statement of Facts (“Defendants’ Facts”) (ECF No. 56 at 5–12) ¶¶ 12–13.) “Any extension beyond twelve (12) months must be approved by the Director of Prisons as well as the Deputy Executive Director, and must be based upon documented exigent circumstances.” (ECF No. 50-3 at 14.)
At the time of the change from Ad Seg to Restrictive Housing, Restrictive Housing inmates still generally did not receive outdoor exercise. (Plaintiffs’ Facts ¶¶ 10, 46.) The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the class definition as
2

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 21
follows: “All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise.” (ECF No. 93.)
In late 2014, both parties moved for summary judgment. (See ECF Nos. 50, 56.) By that time, CSP was beginning to permit Restrictive Housing prisoners who had been in that classification for at least nine months to exercise in a small, completely enclosed courtyard with a metal mesh and razor wire ceiling, one hour per day, three days per week. (ECF No. 98 at 3.) Restrictive Housing prisoners could not roam the courtyard freely, but were instead confined to steel mesh cages measuring 10 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 8 feet tall. (Id. at 4.)
The parties disputed whether this exercise arrangement qualified as “outdoors,” and whether CDOC could constitutionally deny outdoor exercise for up to nine months. The Court ultimately denied both parties’ summary judgment motions, finding that various issues of fact and law required further resolution. These included the circumstances and safety considerations surrounding Restrictive Housing prisoners, as well as the minimum length of constitutionally permissible deprivation of outdoor exercise. The Court did agree with Plaintiffs, however, that categorical deprivation of outdoor exercise is a constitutional violation. (Id. at 5–8.)
As all of these proceedings played out, CDOC secured funding from the Colorado Legislature to build new outdoor exercise yards at CSP. (ECF No. 162 at 5–6.) CDOC did not intend these yards for Restrictive Housing inmates, but instead for inmates in two less restrictive (but still high-security) housing classifications known as Management Control Unit (“MCU”) and Close Custody Transition Unit (“CCTU”). (Id. at 5.)
3

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 21
This matter was set for a bench trial in November 2015. (See ECF No. 86.) In September 2015, the parties participated in an all-day mediation guided by retired United States Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland, and reached a memorandum of understanding. (ECF No. 162 at 6.) The parties then drafted a formal class action settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) (ECF No. 115-1), on the basis of which the Court vacated the trial in favor of class settlement approval proceedings.
The Settlement Agreement sweeps more broadly than this lawsuit’s original focus. It addresses outdoor exercise for prisoners in Restrictive Housing as well as for prisoners in MCU and CCTU classifications. (§ IV.A–H.)2 The Settlement Agreement also covers both CSP and CDOC’s Sterling Correctional Facility (“Sterling”). (Id.)
The basics of the settlement are that Restrictive Housing prisoners will be transferred from CSP to Sterling, where they will be permitted to exercise in newly constructed outdoor cages for one hour per day, three days per week. (§ IV.G.) These cages are in areas that all parties deem to be out-of-doors, are required to have at least 180 square feet of ground space, and must be at least 12 feet tall. (§ III.D.) Meanwhile, as previously planned, CSP is building the new outdoor exercise yards to accommodate MCU and CCTU prisoners. (§ IV.A–E.) The expected completion date of the construction is sometime in December 2016. (§ III.C.) “If by October 1, 2016, CDOC determines that it will not be able to complete construction of the Yards by December 31, 2016, it will file a status report to the Court, explaining the cause of the delay, and the Parties will meet and confer to establish a reasonable deadline for
2 All citations beginning with a “§” symbol are to the Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 115-1.
4

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 21
completion.” (Id.) Once the new yards are complete, however, MCU and CCTU prisoners will receive one hour per day, three days per week, of outdoor exercise. (§ IV.A–E.) All of these agreements regarding exercise time are subject to safety and security needs and exigent circumstances. (Id.)3
The Settlement Agreement provides that, following approval by this Court, the parties will move to administratively close this case. (§ IX.A.) Following completion of the construction required by the Settlement Agreement, the parties will stipulate to dismiss this case. (§ IX.C.)
The parties provided notice of this proposed settlement to all potentially affected prisoners at CSP and Sterling. (See ECF Nos. 115–19, 162-2.) The Court received ten timely, written objections from current CSP and Sterling prisoners. (See ECF Nos. 120, 125, 133, 138, 143, 146, 149, 150, 151, 155.) T he Court concluded that four of those objectors either lacked standing or failed to state a proper objection. (See ECF Nos. 167–69, 174.) As to the remaining six, the Court weighed their right to be heard against the security concerns created by transporting and supervising numerous high-security inmates in court, and ultimately permitted two of them to appear in court and state their objections personally, while the remaining four were permitted to state their objections by videoconference from their respective facilities. (See ECF No. 166.) Shortly before the June 29, 2016 Fairness Hearing, one of those videoconference objectors, Douglas
3 The choice of one hour per day, three days per week, was not selected at random. Class Counsel and CDOC counsel had previously litigated an outdoor exercise case involving a single CSP prisoner, and U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, after a bench trial, ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to exercise one hour per day, three days per week, “in an area that is fully outside and that includes overhead access to the elements.” Anderson v. Colorado, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1157 (D. Colo. 2012). (See also ECF No. 162 at 3, 13.)
5

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 21
Wilson, withdrew his request to speak (ECF No. 179), leaving two in-person objectors and three remote objectors.
Each of the objectors, whether appearing in court or appearing remotely, were informed that they would be permitted to speak for up to five minutes. All five objectors spoke as planned at the Fairness Hearing. Synthesizing their written objections and oral presentations, their objections may be summarized as follows:
• Chris Green (in-person) spoke regarding his belief that CDOC should pay damages; complained about uncleared snow and ice in the exercise cages at Sterling (which have already been constructed); described CDOC’s apparent practice of requiring prisoners who choose to exercise outside to remain outside for their entire allotted hour, regardless of weather conditions; and alleged unspecified retaliation he has suffered from prison guards because of this lawsuit.
• Isaac Benavidez (videoconference) expressed his belief that construction of the exercise modules is happening too slowly; his belief that CDOC should not be able to avoid admitting fault; his belief that CDOC should pay damages; his concern whether the Settlement Agreement would affect future claims for damages; and his desire to ensure that the Settlement Agreement is fully enforced over time, rather than forgotten or ignored.
• Eric Lee Roberts (in-person) spoke regarding his request that the exercise yard schedule be controlled by CDOC’s Security Threat Group Intelligence unit, to prevent violence; and his experience with snow and 6

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 21
ice in the exercise modules at Sterling. • Emmanuel Theus-Roberts (videoconference) expressed his worry that
compliance with the Proposed Settlement will not be monitored; that CSP exercise facilities would not be finished by December 2016; and alleged that, on outdoor exercise days at Sterling (which CDOC has already begun implementing according the Settlement Agreement), inmates must choose between taking their full hour outside or having no exercise at all that day, even on cold days. • John James (videoconference) spoke regarding his worry that CDOC would not actually abide by the Settlement Agreement given that it has allegedly not complied with other settlements relating to him. The Court also granted Class Counsel’s request to have two of the named plaintiffs testify in favor of the Proposed Settlement. (See ECF Nos. 173–74, 178.) Each was allotted fifteen minutes to make a statement, testify, or both, and each appeared by videoconference. Their testimony and statements may be summarized as follows: • Anthony Gomez, a current CSP inmate, described the medical consequences of being deprived of outdoor exercise for approximately eight years, including diminished eyesight, anxiety, and depression. He also described his participation by telephone in the September 2015 mediation leading to the Settlement Agreement. He worries that prison officials will abuse the safety/security/exigent circumstances exception to lock down prisoners and thereby deprive them of exercise privileges from
7

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 21
time to time, including for reasons as trivial as staff potluck parties. But he believes that the Settlement Agreement is still fair, reasonable, and adequate. • Dominic Duran, a former CSP inmate, described the negative psychological effects of being deprived of outdoor exercise, including depression and inability to “cool off” when frustrated. He has since been transferred to a lower-security prison near CSP where he has many opportunities to be outside—including, as it happens, on the construction detail that is building the new CSP exercise yards. That “small freedom,” as he describes it, often changes his day for the better. He also described his participation by phone in the September 2015 mediation leading to the Settlement Agreement.4
II. SETTLEMENT APPROVAL STANDARDS When asked to approve a class action settlement, the Court must determine if the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The Court reviews a proposed class action settlement by considering four factors:
(1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt;
4 Duran will not be affected by the Settlement Agreement given his new facility assignment. The Court nonetheless permitted him to remain a class representative because (a) when this lawsuit began, he was housed at CSP and deprived of all outdoor exercise, and (b) he can speak from personal experience regarding the contrast between deprivation of and access to outdoor exercise.
8

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 21
(3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004, 1014 (10th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002). “[T]he power to approve or reject a [class action] settlement . . . does not authorize the court to require the parties to accept a settlement to which they have not agreed.” Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 726 (1986). Thus, the Court may not modify the settlement, but must either approve or disapprove it in total. See, e.g., Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 868 (9th Cir. 2012).
III. RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS For the reasons that follow, the Court has ultimately concluded to overrule all objections presented to the Settlement Agreement. A. Failure to Admit Fault Although not raised at the Fairness Hearing, various written objections chided CDOC for failing to admit fault. Class counsel, named plaintiffs, and counsel for the CDOC (“settlement proponents”) respond that refusal to admit fault is “a standard settlement provision, and it in no way diminishes or in any way affects the class members’ ability to access the outdoor exercise that is provided for by the Settlement Agreement.” (ECF No. 162 at 19–20.) The Court further notes that the factors it must consider in this context assume that neither party admits fault. In particular, “whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt,” and “whether the value of
9

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 21
an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation,” Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1014, have little meaning if a defendant admits liability. Thus, lack of admission of liability is expected in the class action settlement process, and not something unusual that must be addressed. B. Damages
Some objectors argue that the prisoners should receive damages for the alleged Eighth Amendment violation. “However,” say the settlement proponents, “the Class Settlement explicitly excludes damages claims from the release and thus does not preclude inmates from raising damages claims in another setting.” (ECF No. 162 at 21–22.) The proponents refer to Settlement Agreement § X.F: “Nothing in this Agreement releases any claims for damages.” In fact, a damages lawsuit based on outdoor exercise deprivation is pending in this Court before a different judge. See Apodaca et al. v. Raemisch et al., No. 15-cv-845-REB-MJW (D. Colo., filed Apr. 22, 2015).5 Thus, the Settlement Agreement does not foreclose claims for damages based on outdoor exercise deprivation.
It is also important to note that the Complaint’s prayer for relief does not request damages (see ECF No. 1 at 20), and that the class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2) (“the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole”). (See ECF No. 37 at 10–12.) Rule 23(b)(2) generally does not permit damages as part of classwide relief. See Wal-Mart
5 Class Counsel is not involved in that lawsuit.
10

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 21
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 360–67 (2011). Thus, even if this case had proceeded to trial, this Court could not have awarded damages without reopening the class certification analysis. The Court therefore finds that failure to award damages is not an appropriate objection to the Settlem ent Agreement. C. Monitoring and Enforcement
Some objectors worry that the Settlement Agreement will have no real teeth, and that Class Counsel will forget about this case once attorneys’ fees are paid. However, the Settlement Agreement contains an inspection provision and a dispute resolution provision. (§§ V & IX(B).) “Class Counsel has every intention of conducting the required inspection and addressing any shortfalls in compliance. If a Class Member believes that CDOC is violating term(s) of the Settlement, he may write to Class Counsel,” who will determine whether the dispute resolution process must be invoked. (ECF No. 162 at 18.) Given the undersigned’s familiarity with Class Counsel’s dedication to these sorts of structural reform lawsuits, the undersigned accepts Class Counsel’s statement as sincere. Moreover, the requested award of attorneys’ fees and costs includes an estimated amount of fees and costs needed to ensure compliance. (See ECF No. 145 at 9.) For these reasons, the Court f inds that objectors’ fears about lack of monitoring and enforcement are not a basis to disapprove the Settlement Agreement. D. Discretionary Carve-Outs
Some objectors, and even the named plaintiffs, worry that CDOC will abuse the carve-outs to the various exercise policies (“absent safety and/or security concerns,
11

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 21
and/or exigent circumstances”). However, the Tenth Circuit has already stated that exercise may be restricted due to legitimate penological concerns. See Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corrs., 165 F.3d 803, 810 n.8 (10th Cir. 1999) (agreeing with prior authority that “penological considerations may, in certain circumstances, justify restrictions” on out-of-cell exercise).
Moreover, nearly all matters in prison are influenced by “safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances.” It is not clear what sort of terms Class Counsel could have bargained for to prevent CDOC from abusing its discretion with this sort of carve-out. Nonetheless, the Settlement Agreement wisely requires CDOC to “document all recreation opportunities offered to inmates . . . by date, time, and unit to which recreation is offered, including any denials by CDOC of recreation time.” (§ IV.J.) “Should a class member believe that CDOC is misusing the exigent circumstances exception, he may request that Class Counsel submit the matter to dispute resolution,” and CDOC’s documentation may assist this process. (ECF No. 162 at 14.) The Court therefore finds that the discretion left to CDOC as to these matters is not a reason to disapprove the Settlement Agreement. E. Retaliation
Objector Chris Green complained of retaliation from prison staff based on either this lawsuit generally or the Settlement Agreement in particular. This is not a basis to disapprove the Settlement Agreement—if retaliation for this suit has taken place, it likely would have taken place anyway if this case went to trial. Nonetheless, counsel for CDOC stipulated on the record at the Fairness Hearing that he would cause a memorandum to be distributed to relevant prison staff at the facilities involved in this
12

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 21
litigation, reemphasizing that retaliation for exercising constitutional rights (actual or perceived) is itself a constitutional violation. The Court notes that this stipulation was made in the context of CDOC counsel concurring with Class Counsel and the Court that these rights included, but were not limited to, freedom from retaliation against inmates for being a member of the plaintiff class. The Court understood that this memorandum will advise staff that such retaliatory conduct would not be tolerated, and that violators would be subject to appropriate discipline. The Court expects CDOC counsel to abide fully with these representations made on the record at the Fairness Hearing. F. Weather & Length of Time Outdoors
The most frequently raised objection was treatment of inmates and their outdoor exercise privileges during dangerous weather, and during very cold weather in particular. With respect to the one-hour exercise periods, some objectors have complained about being forced to choose between spending the entire hour outside or having no exercise at all that day, which is a difficult choice on cold days. Objectors have also expressed concern about going outside and then needing to come back in before the end of the allotted hour due to cold or sudden weather changes.
From CDOC’s perspective, this apparently comes down to a matter of transport staff availability. The Settlement Agreement, by nature, addresses inmates with highsecurity classifications. These inmates—particularly inmates in Restrictive Housing, who exercise in the outdoor cages—are deemed too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely between day halls and exercise yards. Thus, CDOC must have transport staff available to escort prisoners to and from the outdoor exercise area. At the Fairness Hearing, CDOC counsel and Sterling’s warden, John Chapdelaine, both represented
13

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 21
that these inmates can come inside early if they so request and transport staff is available to bring them in.
The settlement proponents acknowledge that this “raise[s] an important issue” but argue that it “do[es] not call into question the adequacy, fairness, or reasonableness of the Class Settlement.” (ECF No. 162 at 16.) Ultimately, the Court agrees. The objectors’ concerns raise significant questions regarding administration of the regime created by the Settlement Agreement, but they do not undermine the adequacy, fairness, or reasonableness of the Settlement Agreement itself. Moreover, CDOC counsel expressly stipulated at the Fairness Hearing that the Settlement Agreement in no way waives any inmate’s future Eighth Amendment claim based on exposure to the elements. Cf. Skelton v. Bruce, 409 F. App’x 199, 208 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Exposure to inclement weather without proper clothing can meet the objective prong of an Eighth Amendment violation . . . .”). Thus, for example, neither an inmate’s choice to exercise outside on a cold day nor unavailability of transport staff would excuse CDOC’s failure to bring the inmate back inside if dangerous conditions develop, or even if it simply becomes clear in the middle of an exercise period that the day is too cold for a human being to safely spend a full hour outside.
Finally, the Settlement Agreement contains a dispute resolution mechanism that Class Counsel can invoke if serious complaints continue to arise regarding these matters. (§ V.) Given all of the foregoing, the Court finds that concerns about cold or other inclement weather do not undermine the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement.
14

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 21
G. Snow & Ice in Certain Cages Some objectors complained specifically about exercise cages 13 and 14 at
Sterling. According to the objectors, these cages were built in what they describe as a drainage ditch, and they fill with snow and ice in the wintertime, making them either unusable or dangerously slippery. According to CDOC counsel and Warden Chapdelaine, these two cages were partially built over a grating that allows for water drainage. Apparently these grates did not drain as expected, but CDOC insists that it sends crews to shovel those cages, or, alternatively, CDOC will not place any inmates in those cages when it is not safe to do so.
As with concern about cold weather generally, the Court believe this raises an issue of administering the regime created by the Settlement Agreement, rather an issue with the Settlement Agreement itself. If cages 13 and 14 continue to be a problem and the problem prevents inmates from receiving exercise time as specified in the Settlement Agreement, the parties may invoke the Settlement Agreement’s dispute resolution process. This issue does not undermine the entire Settlement Agreement. H. Safety from Violence
Objectors raise general concerns about safety from violence in the new CSP exercise yards (which will not employ the individual cages, but allow inmates to roam freely). The settlement proponents respond that “[p]rison security is beyond the scope of the Class Settlement. That matter is governed by CDOC [administrative regulations] (as well as federal and state law).” (ECF No. 162 at 22.)
CDOC counsel also stipulated at the Fairness Hearing that the Settlement
15

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 21
Agreement does not waive any inmate’s Eighth Amendment right to safety from violence inflicted by other inmates, including violence among inmates who choose to exercise outside in the new yards. In other words, by gaining the privilege to exercise outside the inmates do not lose the constitutional right to be protected from attacks by other inmates. Accordingly, this objection presents no basis to disapprove the Settlement Agreement. I. Construction Timeline
Some objectors doubt that CDOC will complete the new CSP exercise yards by December 2016. CDOC counsel stated at the Fairness Hearing, however, that he believed it was “very likely that [CDOC] will meet that December 2016 deadline.” Moreover, the Settlement Agreement specifically contemplates an October 1, 2016 checkpoint, so to speak, when CDOC must reasonably determine whether it can finish by the end of December and, if not, inform the Court and confer with Class Counsel “to establish a reasonable deadline for completion.” (§ III.C.) In this light, the Court concludes that abstract worries that CDOC will not timely complete construction are not a reason to disapprove the Settlement Agreement.
IV. APPROVAL ANALYSIS Having overruled all objections, and having thoroughly reviewed the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds that the settlement negotiated by counsel is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arms’ length by counsel who are experienced in these types of cases, and with the help of an experienced and respected mediator. It was also negotiated with input of named
16

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 21
plaintiffs Gomez and Duran, who have firsthand experience with the matters in question.
The notice procedures were appropriate. (See § VIII; see also ECF Nos. 117, 118, 118-1.) These procedures apparently worked well judging by the number of objections the Court received.
The settlement assures the class members of something they have never had before, namely, regular outdoor exercise regardless of security classification. Access to such exercise is subject to safety and security concerns, and exigent circumstances, but nearly all matters in prison are subject to the same qualifications. The important fact is that CDOC will now be required to make outdoor exercise a regular part of every inmate’s life. In addition, such opportunities for exercise will come soon (and in some places, have already begun), rather than after a lengthy trial and appeals process. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement achieves a laudable result on behalf of all affected inmates, and is therefore approved.
Although the Settlement Agreement says nothing about this Court retaining jurisdiction, the parties stated at the Fairness Hearing that this Court should do so subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Title VIII, 110 Stat. 1321–71 (1996) (codified at various locations in Titles 11, 18, 28, and 42 of the United States Code) (“PLRA”). CDOC’s counsel specifically referred to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(i), which allows for prospective relief to be “terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener * * * 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief.” Although the Court is not granting prospective relief in the sense of a consent decree or similar injunctive order, CDOC counsel asserted at the Fairness
17

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 21
Hearing (and Class Counsel confirmed) that subjecting the Settlement Agreement to § 3626(b) (see § IX.D) was a material term for which CDOC negotiated, thus preventing the Settlement Agreement from becoming a vehicle for judicial supervision of CDOC exercise policies in perpetuity.
Given that this was a negotiated and agreed-upon term, the Court will retain jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising under the Settlement Agreement’s dispute resolution process (§ V.D) subject to a motion to terminate the Court’s continuing jurisdiction filed two or more years after the date of this Order and in conformity with the PLRA.
V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES A. Legal Standard
When considering the appropriateness of an attorneys’ fees award, the Court should consider what have become known as the “Johnson factors”: (1) the time and labor required by counsel; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the legal question presented; (3) the skill required to represent the class appropriately; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorneys due to the acceptance of this case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) any time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys, (10) the “undesireability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. See Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1979).
18

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 21
B. Analysis Class Counsel filed an unopposed motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs, requesting an all-inclusive award of $410,000. (ECF No. 145.) “Defendants do not oppose the award of fees and costs to Class Counsel in the amount of $410,000, but otherwise do not join the content of [Class Counsel’s] motion.” (Id. at 2.)
According to the PLRA, “[n]o award of attorney’s fees in an action [governed by the PLRA] shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 [governing CJA panels] for payment of court-appointed counsel.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3). The referenced hourly rate is set by the Judicial Conference. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1). Class Counsel claims that the Judicial Conference rate for 2016 is $144, so the PLRA permits an hourly rate of up to $216. CDOC believes that the correct rate is $190.50, although Class Counsel’s motion contains no explanation of CDOC’s math. In any event, according to Class Counsel, “the result—even if this [lower] rate were used—would still be a lodestar of over $560,000, considerably more than Class Counsel request.” (ECF No. 145 at 14 & nn.3–4.)
At the assumed hourly rate of $216, Class Counsel claims $576,503.22 in total fees already incurred, after exercising billing judgment to exclude some hours, and after reducing every attorney’s hours by 5%. (Id. at 8, 9.) Class Counsel also estimated future fees and costs (to ensure compliance) of $27,816. (Id. at 9.) Finally, Class Counsel requested $13,611.28 in costs, mostly due to travel to and from prisons, depositions, and “technical assistance in managing data produced by Defendants in
19

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 21
different formats and in creating 3D renderings of the interior courtyard and exercise [cages] at CSP.” (Id.) This totals $617,930.50, which was Class Counsel’s first offer to Defendants. “Defendant[s] countered and a series of negotiations ensued in which the parties ultimately agreed on the figure of $410,000.00 in payment of Class Counsel’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Id.)
The Court finds that the requested amount of fees and costs is reasonable considering the effort expended on this case by class counsel, the risks and difficulties inherent in this sort of litigation, the skill required, and the dedication displayed over the last few years. The Court specifically notes that, but for the PLRA, Class Counsel’s total lodestar fee at market rates would be over $1 million. (Id. at 10.) Even at PLRA rates, but before exercise of billing judgment, Class Counsel’s total fee would be approximately $850,000. (Id. at 1.) Thus, $410,000—inclusive of fees and costs incurred, and future fees and costs likely to be incurred in monitoring the Settlement Agreement—is certainly reasonable. In light of CDOC’s agreement to that amount, and having considered all of the relevant Johnson factors, the Court approves the attorneys’ fees and costs as requested.
VI. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 115-1) is APPROVED; 2. The Court retains jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising under the Settlement Agreement, subject to a motion to terminate this retention of jurisdiction filed two or more years after the date of this Order;
20

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 21

3. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF No. 145) is GRANTED; and
4. Plaintiffs are hereby AWARDED $410,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dated this 6th day of July, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez United States District Judge

21

 
 Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 63
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made this 3rd day of November, 2015, by Anthony Gomez and Dominic Duran (collectively “Named Plaintiffs”), by and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons (the “Class”), and Rick Raemisch, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and Travis Trani, in his official capacity as the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary and Centennial Correctional Facility (collectively “CDOC”).
RECITALS WHEREAS, Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, brought a lawsuit against CDOC alleging that the lack of outdoor exercise at the Colorado State Penitentiary violates the Eighth Amendment, Civil Action No. 13-cv-3399-WJM-KMT (D. Colo.) (the “Lawsuit”); WHEREAS, CDOC denies and continues to deny any and all liability or wrongdoing to Named Plaintiffs and to the Class. By entering into this Agreement, CDOC does not admit any impropriety, wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever, including any as to the claims raised in the Lawsuit, and on the contrary, expressly denies the same; and CDOC has entered into this Agreement solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense, inconvenience, distraction and delay of the Lawsuit, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. The Parties agree that this Agreement does not constitute evidence of or an admission of any liability, omission or wrongdoing of any kind by the CDOC, the State of Colorado, or any former or current employee, official, agent, or attorney of the CDOC or State of Colorado; WHEREAS, the Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, and CDOC desire to settle the claims asserted in the Lawsuit and to enter into a settlement agreement related to the Lawsuit and
1

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 63
the claims giving rise thereto, in accordance with the provisions and upon the terms and conditions hereafter set forth.
AGREEMENT I. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.
This Agreement shall be conditioned upon and shall be effective only upon, the occurrence of all of the following events (“Effective Date”): A. Filing of the pleading described in Paragraph VII(A); B. Grant by the Court of preliminary approval of this settlement and the plan for issuance of
notice thereof; C. Notice to the Class in accordance with Section VIII of this Agreement; D. A Final Approval Hearing held in accordance with Paragraph VII of this Agreement; E. Final approval (“Final Approval”) of this Agreement by the Court following a Final
Approval Hearing; and F. Expiration of the time to appeal the Final Approval without the filing of an appeal; or, if
an appeal is filed, final adjudication or resolution of the same. II. DEFINITIONS.
A. “AR” means an Administrative Regulation of the Colorado Department of Corrections. B. “CCTU” means Close Custody Transition Unit as defined in Paragraph III(F) of AR 600-
09. C. “Class Counsel” means Lindsey Webb of the Civil Rights Clinic of the University of
Denver Sturm College of Law, and Amy Robertson and Lauren Fontana of the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center. D. “CSP” means Colorado State Penitentiary.
2

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 63
E. “FPP” means the Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards - Colorado State Penitentiary: Facility Program Plan attached as Exhibit 1.
F. “MCU” means Close Custody Management Control Unit as defined in Paragraphs III(C), (D) and (E) of AR 600-09.
G. “Module” means an exercise area surrounded on four sides and the top by chain link or steel mesh.
H. “Party” refers to CDOC and/or to Class Counsel on behalf of the Class. I. “RHM” means Restrictive Housing Maximum Security Status as defined in Paragraph
III(J) of AR 650-03. J. “Sterling” means Sterling Correctional Facility. K. “Yard” means one of the exercise areas to be constructed at CSP pursuant to the FPP. III. CONSTRUCTION A. By January 1, 2016, subject to the exception in Paragraph III(B), CDOC will house MCU
and CCTU inmates at CSP. B. By January 1, 2016, CDOC will house RHM inmates at Sterling. C. On a date expected to be on or before December 2016, CDOC will complete the
construction of the Yards at CSP described in the FPP. If by October 1, 2016, CDOC determines that it will not be able to complete construction of the Yards by December 31, 2016, it will file a status report to the Court, explaining the cause of the delay, and the Parties will meet and confer to establish a reasonable deadline for completion. D. On or before January 1, 2016, CDOC will complete the construction of sixteen exercise Modules, eight such Modules in each of two recreation yards at Sterling attached to Living Units 5 and 6. The Modules will be at least 180 square feet in size and will
3

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 63
consist of chain link walls and chain link ceiling. The sides of the Modules will be at least 12 feet high. The configuration of the Modules is set forth in Exhibit 2 hereto. IV. POLICIES A. Once the Yards are built at CSP, CDOC will permit every inmate in MCU to exercise in those Yards one hour per day, three days per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances. B. Once the Yards are built at CSP, CDOC will continue to permit every inmate in MCU to exercise for a total of four hours per day, seven days per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances. This time includes both the time referred to in Paragraph IV(A) and time spent exercising in the day hall and attached indoor recreation cell. C. In the time frame between today and the completed construction of the Yards at CSP, CDOC will permit every inmate in MCU at CSP to continue to exercise in the day hall and attached indoor recreation cell four hours per day, seven days per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances. D. Once the Yards are built at CSP, CDOC will permit every inmate in CCTU to exercise in those yards one hour per day, three days per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances. E. Once the Yards are built at CSP, CDOC will continue to permit every inmate in CCTU to exercise for a total of six hours per day, seven days per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances. This time includes both the time referred to in Paragraph IV(D) and time spent exercising in the day hall and attached indoor recreation cell.
4

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 63
F. In the time frame between today and the completed construction of the Yards at CSP, CDOC will permit every inmate in CCTU to exercise in the day hall and attached indoor recreation cell six hours per day, seven days per week, and in the gym and adjacent courtyard for one hour one day per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances.
G. Once the Modules are built at Sterling, CDOC will permit every inmate in RHM to exercise in those Modules one hour per day, three times per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances.
H. Once the Modules are built at Sterling, CDOC will permit every inmate in RHM to exercise in the exercise areas attached their living unit one hour per day, two times per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances. This time is in addition to the time referred to in Paragraph IV(G).
I. In the time frame between now and their transfer to Sterling, CDOC will permit the inmates in RHM at CSP to exercise in accordance with the requirements of AR 650-03 (effective January 15, 2015), absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances.
J. CDOC will document all recreation opportunities offered to inmates, as required by AR 600-09 and AR 650-03, by date, time, and unit to which recreation is offered, including any denials by CDOC of recreation time.
K. CDOC will retain one or more Modules in the courtyard of CSP (“CSP Modules”), and will permit inmates who cannot exercise in the Yards due to exigent circumstances to exercise in the CSP Modules for one hour per day, three days per week, absent safety and/or security concerns, and/or exigent circumstances.
5

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 63
L. The decision that an inmate will be limited to exercising in the CSP Modules in lieu of the Yards, as referred to in Paragraph IV(K), will require approval by the Director of Prisons.
M. CDOC will evaluate any inmate who is limited to exercising in the CSP Modules as referred to in Paragraph IV(K) every three months in order to determine whether the exigent circumstances permitting such limitation still exist.
N. If in the future, up until final dismissal of this Lawsuit, CDOC amends its Administrative Regulations or other regulations, policies, or procedures in such a way that the definition of RHM, MCU or CCTU changes materially or it becomes otherwise impossible to implement the policies required in this Section IV, CDOC and Class Counsel will meet and confer in good faith to amend the language above and seek Court approval for such amendment so as to implement as faithfully as possible the intent of this Section.
V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. If CDOC or Class Counsel believes that a dispute exists relating to the performance or interpretation of this Agreement, it shall notify the other Party in writing, describing the dispute and clearly identifying that they are invoking the dispute resolution process. B. The other Party shall respond in writing to such notice within 10 business days of receipt of the notice. C. Within 10 business days of receipt of the response described in the previous paragraph, counsel for both Parties shall meet and confer by telephone or in person and attempt to resolve the issue informally.
6

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 63
D. Only if the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute through the informal process described in Paragraphs V(A) through V(C) may the dispute be submitted for judicial resolution.
VI. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS A. The Parties agree that as part of this Settlement Agreement, the Colorado Office of Risk Management, on behalf of the CDOC, will pay Class Counsel a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined through negotiation and subject to approval by the Claims Board, if required by statute, or, if that is not successful, by submission to the Court. B. The amount of attorneys’ fees and costs that the Colorado Office of Risk Management , on behalf of the CDOC, will pay Class Counsel will be determined as follows: 1. Within 30 days of Preliminary Approval, Class Counsel will prepare and submit to counsel for the CDOC a bill for their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the litigation of this matter as well as a reasonable estimate of the fees required to complete work on this matter through Final Approval and the inspection contemplated by Paragraph IX(B), and a demand for some or all of that amount. 2. The Colorado Office of Risk Management, on behalf of the CDOC, will have 30 days to make an offer to pay some or all of the amount of the demand. 3. If the Colorado Office of Risk Management, on behalf of the CDOC, does not make an offer or if Class Counsel is not satisfied with the offer, within 30 days of the offer (or the deadline, if no offer is made) in Paragraph VI(B)(2), a. Class Counsel may submit a fee petition to the Court of no more than fifteen pages accompanied by billing records, an affidavit of counsel attesting to the
7

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 63
billing records, and an affidavit of an expert supporting the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and costs Class Counsel requests. b. Within 30 days of the filing of the fee petition, CDOC may respond to the fee petition with a brief not to exceed fifteen pages, an affidavit of counsel, and an expert affidavit. c. Within 15 days of CDOC’s brief, Class Counsel may submit a reply brief not to exceed seven pages. C. The Colorado Office of Risk Management, on behalf of the CDOC, specifically recognizes and acknowledges that if the Parties are not able to resolve the amount of Class Counsel’s reasonable fees and costs and Class Counsel submits a fee petition to the Court, Class Counsel will be entitled to collect their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the preparation of the fee petition, including but not limited to costs incurred in retaining an expert to prepare an affidavit to support the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and costs they request, provided however, that if the Court awards Class Counsel less than 60% of the fees requested in the fee petition, Class Counsel shall be responsible for their own fees and costs incurred in connection with the preparation of the fee petition. D. The Colorado Office of Risk Management, on behalf of the CDOC, will pay Class Counsel any amounts owed under this Section within 30 days of Final Approval and approval by the State Claims Board, if approval by the Claims Board is necessary. E. Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-30-202.4 (as amended) the State Controller may withhold debts owed to State agencies by Dominic Duran and/or Anthony Gomez under the vendor offset intercept system for: (a) unpaid child support or child support arrearages; (b)
8

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 63
unpaid balance of tax, accrued interest and other charges specified in Article 21, Title 39, C.R.S.; (c) unpaid loans due to the Student Loan Division of the Department of Higher Education; (d) owed amounts required to be paid to the Unemployment Compensation Fund; (e) medical bills paid in part or in full by Medicare or Medicaid, and (f) other unpaid debts owing to the State or any state agency thereof, the amount of which is found to be owing as a result of final agency determination or reduced to judgment as certified by the State Controller. The State Controller has determined that this amount is $2,488.81, as of October 22, 2015. VII. COURT APPROVAL A. No later than seven days before the Preliminary Approval Hearing, Plaintiffs shall file an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement requesting that the Court: 1. Grant preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement; 2. Approve of the proposed notice and proposed plan for dissemination of the notice to
the Class; 3. Order the following procedures for objections:
a. Any member of the Class may object to the Settlement Agreement by filing, within 90 days after the Notice Deadline, written objections with the Clerk of the Court.
b. Only such objecting Class Members shall have the right, if they seek it in their objection, to present objections orally at the Final Approval Hearing.
4. Schedule a Final Approval Hearing for a date at least 120 days after the Notice Deadline.
9

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 63
B. Motion for Final Approval. At least two weeks prior to the final approval hearing, Plaintiffs shall file, and CDOC shall not unreasonably oppose, a mutually acceptable motion seeking final approval of the Settlement and responding to any objections to the Settlement.
VIII. NOTICE TO THE CLASS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. A. Notice of this Agreement (the “Notice”), in a form agreed to by the Parties, will be provided to Class members who are classified as RHM, MCU or CCTU at the time the Notice is sent, informing such Class members of a general description of the terms of this Agreement, the amount of Class Counsel’s reasonable fees and costs either agreed to by the Parties or requested by Class Counsel, the right of Class members to object to the Agreement or the amount of fees and costs, and the deadline for such objection. B. The Parties will cooperate on a plan to provide the Notice to Class members who are currently classified as RHM, MCU or CCTU. C. The Notice and the plan for providing notice must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and applicable legal precedent, and must be approved by the Court. D. The Parties will provide Notice as required by this Section or as ordered by the Court within 30 days of any agreement reached or petition filed under Paragraph VI (“Notice Deadline”).
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE, INSPECTION AND DISMISSAL A. Following final approval of the class settlement, the Parties will request that the Litigation be administratively closed.
10

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 63
B. After the Yards are constructed at CSP, Class Counsel will have the opportunity to inspect those Yards and the exercise Modules in the yards at Sterling. The Parties agree there will be no further discovery in this action pending inspection of the Yards and Modules.
C. Following the inspection referred to in Paragraph IX(B), provided that the CSP Yards and the Sterling Modules are completed as required in this Agreement, the Parties will file a stipulation to dismiss the case. Prior to final submission of a stipulation of dismissal, the Parties agree to file a Joint Motion to Substitute the Colorado Department of Corrections as a Defendant in place of the currently named Defendants, in which the Parties move to dismiss with prejudice each and every individually named Defendant and to substitute the CDOC as the sole Defendant in the Lawsuit.
D. This Settlement is subject to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. X. RELEASE
A. The Named Plaintiffs and the Class intend this Agreement as a complete settlement and release of all actual and potential issues arising from the Lawsuit between themselves and the CDOC and every present or former employee, agent, representative, insurer, and attorney of the CDOC. Through this Agreement, the Named Plaintiffs and the Class express their intent to resolve all existing and potential disputes derived from the Lawsuit with all such entities and persons. The Agreement concludes every actual or potential dispute and claim arising from the Lawsuit between the Named Plaintiffs and the Class and any released entity and individual, whatever the nature of any such claim and dispute.
B. Subject to Paragraph X(F) and X(G) hereof, effective on the date of Final Approval of this Agreement, Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the Class
11

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 63
and their executors, successors, heirs, assigns, agents and representatives, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally and forever do fully and finally release, acquit and discharge CDOC and its present, former or future directors, managers, supervisors, employees, attorneys, insurers, agents, and representatives, from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, charges, demands, losses, judgments, liens, indebtedness and liabilities arising out of the subject matter of the Lawsuit for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees arising out of the claims of the Class for injunctive or declaratory relief. C. The Named Plaintiffs and the Class further agree and covenant that they did not sue and that in the future, they will not sue, or assert any federal, state, or administrative cause of action of any type or kind, at law or in equity, whether before a court of law or an administrative agency, to the extent that such suit or action had not been filed by the date of the Court’s preliminary approval of this Agreement, against the CDOC, the Office of Risk Management, the State of Colorado or any current and former employee, official, agent, or attorney of any such entity respecting any purported claim, cause of action or liability arising out of any acts attributable to any of them that arise from the matters asserted in the Lawsuit, as well as during the negotiations generated in the course of reaching this Settlement Agreement and Release, to the extent such claim, cause of action, or liability is for injunctive relief or attorneys’ fees relating to such injunctive relief. D. The Named Plaintiffs and the Class understand and acknowledge that no promise or inducement was offered to them except as expressly set forth herein; that this Agreement
12

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 63
is executed without any reliance on any statement or representation by any person or Party released, or by their representatives, attorneys, insurers, or anyone else, concerning the nature or extent of any injury or damage, or legal liability for any such matter, or for any tax or other implication, or respecting any other fact or matter relating to the matters asserted in the Lawsuit; that they are of lawful age and legally competent to execute this Agreement, and to accept full responsibility for the consequences of such action. The Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, understand and agree that this Release shall be forever binding and that no cancellation, rescission or modification of, or release from the terms of, this Release shall be made based upon any mistake of fact or of law. The Named Plaintiffs and the Class also acknowledge that any consideration paid as a result of this Agreement is paid to obtain a release of all claims for injunctive relief and related attorneys’ fees arising out of the Lawsuit, including for any and all unknown, undiagnosed and untreated physical, psychological, or emotional injuries, that either occurred in the past and are yet to be known, as well as any that may occur in the future and therefore be incapable of prediction. The Named Plaintiffs and the Class also acknowledge that any portion of the consideration paid as a result of this agreement is paid for their voluntary and knowing assumption of all the risk relating to the Lawsuit of all unknown or undiscovered injuries, damages, and losses in terms of future complications, any further physical, psychological, and emotional pain, discomfort and distress, future damages and losses, including economic and non-economic losses, and that they shall, under no circumstances, seek to reopen and present any prior, new, or further claim for injunctive relief or related attorneys’ fees relating to the Lawsuit against any person or entity released under the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
13

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 63
E. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Settlement Agreement is not confidential. The Named Plaintiffs and the Class understand and agree that, upon a valid request made pursuant to applicable public disclosure laws, including, without limitation, the provisions of Section 24-72-101, et seq., C.R.S. (Open Records Act), all as presently or subsequently amended, the CDOC and the Colorado Risk Management Division are obligated to provide a requesting person a copy of this Settlement Agreement and Release. The Named Plaintiffs and the Class agree that they will make no attempt whatsoever to hold the State of Colorado, the CDOC, the Colorado Risk Management Division, any other state department or division, as well as any administrator, officer, agent, employee, or attorney for any such entity, liable on any basis for any release of documentation or information released in compliance with any applicable law.
F. Nothing in this Agreement releases any claims for damages. G. Nothing in this Agreement releases any claims under any order or settlement entered
prior to the filing of the Litigation. H. The headings used in this Settlement Agreement and Release are used only for the
convenience of the Parties. As such, these headings shall not possess any legal effect whatsoever or, in any other way alter or modify the meaning or interpretation of this Settlement Agreement and Release. XI. COMMUNICATIONS. Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given to Named Plaintiffs, the Class, Class Counsel or CDOC under this Agreement shall be given in writing by email and U.S. Mail, addressed as follows:
14

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 63
To CDOC:
Nicole Gellar Chris Alber Colorado Department of Law Civil Litigation and Employment Law Section Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 nicole.gellar@state.co.us chris.alber@state.co.us
To Named Plaintiffs, the Class or Class Counsel:
Lindsey Webb University of Denver Sturm College of Law 2255 E. Evans Ave., Suite 335 Denver, CO 80208 lwebb@law.du.edu
and
Amy F. Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 arobertson@creeclaw.org
If the above addresses or the appropriate contact change, it is the responsibility of the Party
whose address is changing to give written notice of said change to all other Parties within 30
business days following the effective date of said change.
XII. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.
Prior to Final Approval, this Agreement can only be amended by written agreement of
the Parties hereto. Following Final Approval, no modification of this Agreement shall be
effective unless it is pursuant to Court Order.
15

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 63
XIII. SEVERABILITY If any provision or any part of this Agreement shall at any time be held unlawful, or
inconsistent with applicable law, in whole or in part, under any federal, state, county, municipal or other law, ruling or regulation, then the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain effective and enforceable. XIV. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original for all purposes and all of which together will constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile or electronic signature by any party and such signature will be deemed binding for all purposes.. XV. EFFECTIVE DATE/CONTROLLER APPROVAL. This Settlement Agreement and Release shall not be deemed valid until it is approved and signed by the State Controller or such assistant as he may designate, as provided by Section 24-30-202(1), C.R.S. (1988). This provision is applicable to any agreement providing for payment of money by the State of Colorado. The effective date of this Settlement Agreement and Release is the date it is signed by the State Controller or his designee. No signature of the State Controller or his designee shall be provided until after all other required signatures are affixed to this Settlement Agreement and Release. XVI. DUTY TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND DECREE
Named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and CDOC by their signatures below, each agree to abide by all of the terms of this Agreement in good faith and to support it fully, and shall use their best efforts to defend this Agreement from any legal challenge, whether by appeal or collateral attack.
16

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 63

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 63

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 63

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 63

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 63
STATE of COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT of
CORRECTIONS

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards –
Colorado State Penitentiary

Exhibit 1

Facility Program Plan
July 25, 2014
CDOC/Decoteau 008942

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 63
Facility Program Plan
Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards
Colorado State Penitentiary Dated: July 25, 2014
Table of Contents
I. Mission and Programmatic Intent
A. Executive Summary – Project Description ....................................................................... 2 B. Colorado Department Vision and Mission Statements .................................................. 3 C. Programmatic Intent ............................................................................................................ 3 D. Significant Issues .................................................................................................................. 6 E. Effects on CSP Spaces and Functions ................................................................................ 7
II. Scope of Work
A. Project Overview ................................................................................................................ 14 B. Background and History of CSP ..................................................................................... 14 C. Detailed Description of Project Elements........................................................................15 D. Facility Infrastructure and Site Improvements .............................................................. 17 E. Alternate Solutions ...............................................................................................................18 F. Consequences if Not Funded .............................................................................................19
III. Cost and Budget Analysis
A. Project Cost Summary ...................................................................................................... 20 B. Description of Scope included in the Budget Summary ............................................... 20 C. Project Summary Budget Table ........................................................................................ 20 D. Extraordinary Cost Impact ............................................................................................... 20
IV. Proposed Capacity and Future Expansion
A. Proposed Capacity ............................................................................................................. 22 B. Future Expansion ............................................................................................................... 22
V. Proposed Staffing and Assignments
A. Staffing Changes ................................................................................................................ 23 B. Offender Assignments .......................................................................................................23
VI. Construction Delivery
A. Construction Delivery Strategy ..........................................................................................24 B. Project Schedule Milestones ............................................................................................25
VII. Appendices
Appendix A Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yard Improvements – Capital Construction Request – July 25, 2014
Appendix B Preliminary Site Plan Concepts
CDOC/Decoteau 008943

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 63
I. MISSION AND PROGRAMMATIC INTENT
A. Executive Summary – Project Description
This Facility Program Plan (FPP) outlines the requirements for design and construction to provide group outdoor recreation space for Close Custody Management Control Unit offenders at the Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP).
The project’s conception was initially in response to a Final Order and Judgment in the Civil Action between Plaintiff Troy Anderson and the State of Colorado, Department of Corrections, regarding conditions of confinement in the Administrative Segregation housing classification, but eventually evolved as a larger response to the State’s reform of its housing classifications; namely, phasing out of Administrative Segregation entirely and replacing it with new Restrictive Housing and updated Close Custody Management policies.
Issues related to the proposed modifications to incorporate effective Outdoor Recreation for Close Custody Management Unit offenders include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Upgrading the Perimeter Security Barrier;  Offender Movement to and from the Outdoor Recreation Yards;  Managing Different Offender Populations; and  Working Within a Secure Operating Facility.
At CSP, three on-grade recreation yards, each with two sub-recreation yards for up to 16 offenders in a group, will be constructed. The secure perimeter will be enhanced with a double line fence, non-lethal electrified fence for detection and deterrence, video surveillance and improved site lighting. A new Gatehouse and two vehicle sallyports will also be constructed. The project at CSP also considers changes to all spaces and functions in the facility due to re-purposing CSP to contain offenders with the same custody level but with varying restrictions and privileges. The Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF) will become involved with managing a portion of the new Close Custody Management Unit offender population, but no physical modifications are anticipated as a result of the re-purposing.
The total project budget is $4,780,979. A significant portion of the work at CSP will be performed by Colorado Correctional Industries (CCI) Heavy Equipment and Building Technologies programs.
The rated capacity of CSP will not change. No future expansion is anticipated. No additional staff will be required in association with the work described in this proposal.
Currently the selection of the Architect/Engineer (A/E) team is not a part of this Project Request. A/E selection could occur early so that construction could begin late 2015 and occupancy at the end of 2016.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 2 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008944

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 63

B. Colorado Department of Corrections Vision and Mission Statements
VISION STATEMENT
“Building a Safer Colorado for Today and Tomorrow”
MISSION STATEMENT
“To protect the citizens of Colorado by holding offenders accountable and engaging them in opportunities to make positive behavioral changes and become law-abiding, productive citizens.”
The Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP) is a Level V security correctional institution for adult male offenders with a rated capacity of 756. Its main purpose until recently was to house the department’s most violent, dangerous and disruptive offenders in an Administrative Segregation status. CSP also houses a population of Medium Custody offenders in its Incentive Unit. These offenders provide logistical support for the facility. The Sterling Correctional Facility is also a Level V security correctional institution for adult male offenders with a rated capacity of 2,488. Together CSP and SCF will house the vast majority of offenders in a revised Close Custody classification and Restrictive Housing Maximum Security Status. These facilities accomplish the vision and mission of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) by:
 Providing a safe work environment for all CDOC staff by effectively managing high risk offenders who have demonstrated they pose a risk to the safe and orderly operations of general population facilities;
 Improving offender behavior utilizing incentive and cognitive based programs which facilitate offender reintegration into less secure environments.
C. Programmatic Intent
The intent of the Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards project is to provide the physical modifications and upgrades to CSP in order to align it operationally to the Department’s recent policy changes regarding its former Administrative Segregation Housing status, and to respond to certain court-decreed minimum legal standards for outdoor recreation for its new Close Custody Management Control and Transition Units.
Operationally, offenders designated as Restrictive Housing Maximum Security (MS) Status will be housed in a manner similar to the way they were in the former Administrative Segregation but generally for a shorter period of time. MS Status is the most restrictive offender management status and is for those offenders who have demonstrated through their behavior they pose a significant risk to the safety and security of staff and other offenders as well as to the safe and orderly operation of general population.
MS Status offenders will be housed at CSP in one or more of the six housing units, depending on the population at any given time. These offenders will recreate out of cell individually in the existing Exercise Rooms. There is no plan to modify these rooms in this project. MS Status is designed to be a progressive management process, and offenders will be evaluated every thirty days to discuss behavior, status, and potential custody issues. Assignment is a maximum of twelve months, except

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 3 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008945

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 63
for cases with extenuating circumstances. In most cases, it is expected that the offender will progress to an appropriate housing assignment at a Close Custody classification level.
Close Custody is a general population offender classification level that requires an increased level of housing, supervision, controlled movement, and monitoring over lower custody classifications. Close custody offenders may have an additional designation based on their unique management needs, and are housed accordingly. The new Close Custody Management Control Unit (MCU) is a designation that provides an increased level of housing, supervision and control in addition to maintaining the safety of the public, staff and offenders over general population Close Custody offenders. MCU offenders will be housed at SCF in one or more of the four living units, depending on the population at any given time. Overflow MCU offenders will be housed at CSP. MCU offenders can be further classified for housing in MCU-High Risk (MCU/HR), MCU-Protective Custody (MCU/PC), or Close Custody Transition Units (CCTU). MCU/HR and MCU/PC offenders will be housed at SCF with access to the individual Exercise Rooms in the SCF living units. SCF also has a secure outdoor recreation yard for group recreation. CCTU offenders will be housed at CSP. All offenders in Management Control and Transition Unit housing will have some opportunity for group interaction, as prolonged isolation is generally not conducive to reintegration. One goal of the classification reform initiatives is to better prepare offenders for placement in a less controlled environment and for eventual release, and the group interaction setting supports this goal.
Regarding the minimum standards for outdoor recreation, the existing spaces at CSP do not meet certain American Corrections Association (ACA) physical standards for outdoor recreation areas, and do not satisfy certain court-decreed minimum legal standards for an outdoor exercise area that is “fully outside and that includes overhead access to the elements, e.g., to sunlight, rain, snow and wind....”. At CSP, this project will include constructing three on-grade recreation yards, each with two sub-recreation yards for up to 16 offenders in a group, along with provisions for up to fortyeight future individual steel panel wire mesh outdoor exercise rooms for the most violent offenders.
Background to Administrative Segregation Re-Classification
In October 2011 a report was issued titled “Colorado Department of Corrections – Administrative Segregation Classification and Review” by James Austin, Ph.D. and Emmitt Sparkman. The Austin/Sparkman report was a result of a request by the CDOC to the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to have an external review of its offender classification system and its Administrative Segregation policies and practices. The number of offenders assigned to Administrative Segregation in Colorado had peaked at 1,505 in August of that year, and the CDOC determined a re-validation of the offender classification system in general and especially with respect to its Administrative Segregation policies was in order. The report found, in part, that the CDOC Administrative Segregation population was approximately 7% of its overall prison population, which was significantly above the national average of 1 to 2%. Further, the average length of stay in Administrative Segregation was approximately two years with the median length of stay of 14 months. It also found that the decision to refer an offender to Administrative Segregation was largely controlled at the various facilities with some oversight at the Central Office. Finally, access to outdoor recreation was deficient at all of the Administrative Segregation units except for Centennial Correctional Facility (CCF)-North, SCF and San Carlos Correctional Facility (SCCF).

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 4 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008946

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 63
The report went on to recommend, in part, that the criteria for admission to Administrative Segregation be narrowed, and that Administrative Segregation not be used as Disciplinary Segregation. Further, mental health reviews should be required before placement in Administrative Segregation and that monthly reviews follow thereafter, with the review being an out-of-cell interview. Also, offenders should be allowed at minimum a 30-minute out-of-cell contact with their caseworker each month. In addition, the CDOC should create a simplified four-level system with specific rules and privileges associated with each phase, and a timeline by which offenders could return to the general population within nine months if compliant with the program. Finally, it was recommended that the CDOC strengthen the role and influence of the Central Office on who is admitted to and released from Administrative Segregation.
Influenced by the findings and recommendations of this report, the CDOC immediately introduced several reform initiates to reduce the Administrative Segregation population, and has recently implemented changes that have phased out the use of Administrative Segregation entirely, replacing it with a new Restrictive Housing policy (AR 650-03) and an updated Management of Close Custody Offenders policy (AR 600-09). These policies define and include the use of the new Maximum Security Status, and the new Close Custody Management Control and Transition Units.
Background to Minimum Legal Standards for Outdoor Recreation
During the period between April 30 and May 12, 2012, a case was tried in the 10th United States District Court regarding the Civil Action between Troy Anderson, Plaintiff, and the State of Colorado, Department of Corrections. The Plaintiff alleged that his civil rights were violated and asserted, among other things, a denial of access to the out-of-doors and outdoor exercise.
During the proceedings, the CDOC presented reasons as to why the existing exercise rooms were adequate and provided opportunities for exercising in an outdoor environment to counter the first claim type. They also explained the security measures that were necessary at this classification level and the restrictions due to staffing issues. However, in the Final Order and Judgment, the Judge ruled that the Plaintiff had proven that failure to provide reasonable access to the out-of-doors and outdoor exercise constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and ordered the CDOC to develop a plan to provide Mr. Anderson “access for at least one hour, at least three times a week, to outdoor exercise in an area that is fully outside and that includes overhead access to the elements, e.g., to sunlight, rain, snow and wind, unless inclement weather or disciplinary needs make that impossible.”
This Final Order and Judgment and its rulings apply only to the legal proceedings in the case between Troy Anderson and the State of Colorado – Department of Corrections. However, the CDOC anticipates the potential for future legal proceedings on similar grounds, especially with regard to reasonable access to the out-of-doors and outdoor exercise opportunities for offenders housed at CSP. In fact, a class-action lawsuit involving all current offenders housed at CSP and allowed access only to the current individual exercise rooms has been initiated. The project defined in this Facility Program Plan is in part intended to satisfy the directives issued in the Anderson case as well as to negate future litigation.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 5 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008947

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 63
D. Significant Issues
Issues related to the proposed modifications to incorporate effective Outdoor Recreation for Close Custody Management Control Unit offenders will be addressed in a comprehensive analysis by CDOC and design professionals during the design phase, which is currently not a part of this Project Request. Significant issues to deal with include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Upgrading the Perimeter Security Barrier;  Offender Movement to and from the Outdoor Recreation Yards;  Managing Different Offender Populations; and  Working Within a Secure Operating Facility.
Upgrading the Perimeter Security Barrier:
At CSP, moving offenders outside the building envelope on a regular basis will necessitate a reconfiguration of the site security perimeter. Due to natural and man-made constraints, the perimeter itself cannot be expanded greatly, but must be pushed outward to some small degree to allow for the anticipated new construction. Because close custody offenders will be regularly exercising in such close proximity to the secure perimeter, systems and construction must be provided for increased monitoring and deterrent. In addition, where the security perimeter is penetrated for access, sallyports are anticipated.
Offender Movement to and from Outdoor Recreation Yards:
The original CSP design did not anticipate regular offender movement vertically to destinations outside the Housing Units. Each tower is served by a single large-capacity elevator, intended to transport services, such as food and laundry carts, on a regular basis, and offenders occasionally. The size, number and placement of these elevators make them ineffective for a steady flow of vertical offender movement. The operation to move offenders to and from the outdoor recreation yards will rely on offenders to move vertically through existing stairways at the rear of each Housing Unit. Offenders will be escorted to the stairway door at their tier level and will make their way down the stairs unescorted to be met by security staff at the exterior door to the recreation yard complex. Offenders will return to their Housing Unit in a similar manner. At the exterior door offenders will pass through a metal detector both going to and returning from the recreation yard complex.
Managing Different Offender Populations:
CSP has been operating predominately as a Level V facility with highly restrictive offender movement, limited programs available to the offender, and with an emphasis for services delivered to the cell. Offenders (with the exception of the Incentive Unit) were basically confined to their cells 23 hours a day, and when removed from their cells for exercise, showers or appointments, were fully restrained and escorted individually. Offenders were highly isolated, with no contact with other offenders, and for the most part were managed consistently.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 6 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008948

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 63
In contrast, the re-purposing of CSP will include housing up to four distinct offender populations, Maximum Security Units, Close Custody Management Control Units, Close Custody Transition Units, and the Medium Custody Incentive Unit. Each population with have a different set of restrictions and privileges that could result in the need for physical changes to the facility. Some changes will be limited to the housing units while some changes will involve the support space outside the housing units.
In addition, Housing Units will potentially house different populations at different times, depending on the numbers assigned to those populations. Housing Units may also contain different populations by dayroom within a single Housing Unit. Operationally the facility must be designed to be managed with flexibility to account for these shifts in populations.
Working Within a Secure Operating Facility:
CSP will remain a fully operational and secure correctional facility containing incarcerated offenders, some violent and dangerous, during construction of the Recreation Yards and any modifications to the buildings themselves that are identified and incorporated in the project. Temporary reduction in the offender population is not planned, based on limited renovation work at the interior the buildings affecting only a few areas of the existing facility. Relative to any work within the existing security perimeter, control of construction labor force, tools and stored material will decrease the overall efficiency of the construction effort, adding a premium to the bid construction costs. A construction sequence that maintains effective security ahead of construction efficiency could add a premium to the construction costs as well.
E. Effects on CSP Spaces and Functions
With CSP undergoing a re-purposing from a predominately restricted offender population to a facility with multiple populations, each having a different set of restrictions and privileges, the effects on the various spaces and functions must be reviewed. Generally, a correctional facility is designed around five basic space and function types:
 Administration  Security  Housing  Services  Programs
Each of the above space and function types are broken down in further detail. For CSP, each area was reviewed for the impact re-purposing CSP would have on it.
1. ADMINISTRATION
Administration provides the overall management of the facility, both staff and offenders, and is responsible for most of the facility-to-public interface.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 7 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008949

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 63

Central Administration
No modifications to the existing CSP Central Administration suite are anticipated.
Operational Administration
No modifications to the existing CSP Operational Administration suite are anticipated.
Reception/Lobby
The security checkpoint in the existing Reception/Lobby will be relocated to the Gatehouse, and the Reception/Lobby will now be fully within the security perimeter. In order to relieve Visiting space constraints, the Reception/Lobby could be used for the Incentive Unit Contact Visitation. Slight modifications to the entry doors, or a possible new sallyport separating the Lobby from the main entry, would be needed. The old checkpoint can serve as an observation post during visiting hours.
Staff Locker/Wellness Center
The CSP Staff Locker area is considered inadequate based on historic operation, and is located within the secured perimeter of the facility. While not a direct component of this project, additional staff locker space could be considered in the new Gatehouse design to relieve this situation.
2. SECURITY
Security is responsible for the overall safety of the staff, the public, and the offenders. Security is dispersed throughout the entire facility but is concentrated at the interface with the public and in areas of offender movement control and containment.
Master Control
The Master Control Room will need to be modified to provide appropriate space and effective observation of the new perimeter detection, deterrent and surveillance systems for the upgraded security perimeter.
Shift Commander
No modifications to the existing CSP Shift Commander Suite are anticipated.
Tactical Room
No modifications to the existing CSP ERT/SORT Center are anticipated.
Armory and Lock Control
No modifications to the existing CSP Non-Lethal Armory and Lock Control are anticipated.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 8 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008950

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 63

Housing Control Rooms
Controls in the Housing Control Rooms have many interlocks such that certain doors cannot be opened simultaneously (i.e., no two cell door can be opened at the same time, or a cell door and a shower door cannot be opened at the same time, etc.). This was done to assure no two offenders could inadvertently be released at the same time into the dayroom.
With the introduction of new, less restrictive housing classifications, many of these controls are no longer needed. The CSP staff is in the process of re-programming the security controls to remove the appropriate interlocks where offenders will be less restricted in their movements. This work should be accomplished prior to the start of this project, but if not, would need to be incorporated into it.
Intake/Administration and Orientation (A&O)/Release
No modifications to the existing CSP Intake/A&O/Release area are anticipated.
Visiting
CSP contains 27 non-contact visiting booths and a relatively small Contact Visiting Room located at Level 400. Due to the increased visiting privileges for MCU classification, and the presence of Medium offenders, the existing Contact Visiting Room is inadequate, and alternatives need to be considered. The use of the Lobby as contact visitation for nonrestrictive housing offenders was discussed earlier and remains an option to help relieve the current space constraints. More flexible scheduling options are also a possibility. In any expanded visitation area, added video surveillance will be required. In addition, the existing contact visitation area will require increased video surveillance.
3. HOUSING
Housing facilities provide sleeping and personal hygiene quarters, dayrooms and interior space for movement and supportive administrative management, counseling, case management, education, programs, vocational instruction (custodial) and other functions for offenders. Housing will be programmed according to the particular needs and restrictions associated with the custody level served.
Maximum Security Status Housing Units:
Offenders will be assigned to this status generally no more than 12 months. These offenders will be restrained for all movement and staff interaction. Programs and services will continue to be delivered to the cell door or via in-cell television, with the exception of a monthly out-of-cell status/review meeting with the case manager. Offenders on Maximum status will be allowed recreation in the existing exercise rooms accessed within the dayroom and on each tier. For this project, provisions are being made to construct future outdoor individual recreation yards of approximately 234 square feet adjacent to the new group recreation yards, should the CDOC decide the benefit to this, or should the CDOC be required to do so in the future. If this were

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 9 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008951

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 63
to occur, additional staffing requirements for escort and supervision would need to be evaluated. Close Custody Management Control Housing Units
CSP will house Close Custody Management Unit offenders, MCU and CCTU (MCU/HR, MCU/PC and most MCU offenders are to be housed at SCF).
 MCU offenders will be allowed out of cell in groups of no more than eight for dayroom activities. When being escorted out of the dayroom area, offenders may be restrained, except in the stairways to the new Recreation Yards. Staff interaction with unrestrained offenders must be approved by the Appointing Authority. Programs and services will be delivered to the cell door or via television, with staff support at the cell door. Recreation opportunities will be in the new at-grade recreation yards in groups of no more than eight.
 CCTU offenders will be allowed out of cell in groups of no more than sixteen for dayroom activities. When being escorted out of the dayroom area, offenders will not normally be restrained. Staff may have unrestrained interaction with offenders. Recreation opportunities will be in the new at-grade recreation yards in groups of no more than sixteen.
Day Rooms
Because of their increased use, dayrooms will need to be outfitted with fixed tables and seats for dining and dayroom recreation, chin-up bars for indoor exercise opportunities, television brackets and televisions for entertainment TV, microwave ovens, and telephones, along with any associated electrical circuitry and communications cabling. In addition, pass-through ports need to be incorporated into the sliding doors at the dayroom entrance, should the need arise to introduce tear gas or other disturbance-quelling devices, as well as to pass medication, meals and other supplies.
The facility staff is in the process of retrofitting the appropriate dayrooms with these items. This work should be accomplished prior to the start of this project, but if not, would need to be incorporated into it. In addition, with the anticipated increase in offenders being escorted out of the Housing dayrooms to appointments and assignments, one metal detector associated with each Housing Unit entrance will be added.
4. SUPPORT SERVICES
Support Services provide the essential functions that keep the facility operating each day. These operations provide the food, clothing, medical attention and environmental conditioning necessary to sustain an acceptable standard of living for the occupants of the facility.
Clinical Services Facilities
No modifications to the existing CSP Clinical Services Facilities are anticipated.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 10 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008952

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 63

Housing Unit – Exam/Consult Cells:
CSP has one Exam/Consult Cell in each Housing Unit (6 total) for medical exams and minor treatment within housing areas, including mental health consultation or intervention in a controlled atmosphere. These spaces will be used on a more regular basis, and should be re-purposed back to their original function, if taken over by another function.
Mental Health Offices:
Similarly, each Core Area supporting a CSP Housing Unit contains two Mental Health Offices (12 total). These and their adjacent Multi-Purpose program areas will be used on a more regular basis, and should be re-purposed back to their original function of individual and group consultation and therapy sessions, if taken over by another function.
Food Service Facilities
No modifications to the existing CSP Food Service Facilities area are anticipated. There are no plans to significantly change the current operation for meal delivery. Meals will be delivered to the cell door or dayroom door depending on the offender’s classification.
Laundry Facilities
The volume of laundry to be processed will increase due to two factors; increased privilege levels allowing for more personal laundry items, and increased outdoor recreation year-round adding the need for thermal clothing and more outerwear. Most laundry is sent to Centennial Correctional Facility, but some is processed in the CSP laundry. More analysis of the overall ECCPC laundry capacities is needed in order to determine how this laundry increase will be handled. CSP can increase its processing by increasing the offender assignments.
Canteen Services
No modifications to the existing CSP Canteen Services are anticipated, even though an increase in those services is anticipated.
Physical Plant Services
Physical improvements proposed in the Facility Program Plan will generally require maintenance, upkeep, replacement, electronic programming, etc. Increased maintenance will be accomplished by the existing combined CSP/CCF maintenance staff.
Warehousing Facilities
No modifications to the existing CSP Warehouse are anticipated.
5. PROGRAMS
The Programs category covers many areas of daily operations that are supplemental in nature for the welfare and enrichment of the offender. These development and training opportunities

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 11 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008953

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 63

encourage positive offender behavior and enhance the offender’s chances for successful community re-integration.
Academic and Vocational Education:
Academic and Vocational Programming for the MS Status and MCU offenders will be delivered through in-cell programming. CCTU and Incentive offenders have the opportunity to take classes in a classroom setting. Over the years spaces originally intended for this function have been taken over by other functions. The multi-purpose rooms need to be re-purposed back to their original function, and space for the current functions found elsewhere. In addition, two computer laboratories are needed for testing purposes. An analysis of existing space within the Core of CSP needs to occur to find and/or relocate the needed functions. At this time there is no proposal for additional space to be built, but minor interior remodeling will be necessary to satisfy the proposed realignments.
General Library Services:
General Library Services for the MS Status and MCU offenders will be delivered to the cell front. CCTU (at the discretion of the Appointing Authority)) and Incentive offenders have the opportunity to visit the General Library. However, space is limited and offender populations must remain separated. Further, the current General Library is not ADA accessible, and the number of available volumes is deficient, according to the Colorado State Library – Institutional Library Development Office. Many of the problems associated with the General Library predate this Facility Program Plan and, as such, may not be resolved through this project. At a minimum, with the anticipated increase in offender visits, additional security surveillance should be installed. If at all possible, a realignment of the space, with an attempt to increase space or use space more efficiently, should be reviewed as part of the overall interior renovation being proposed.
Legal Access Services:
Legal Access Services finds itself occupying space not originally intended for it, and finds its space limited now and deficient in the future when increased offender visits occur. Discussions on how to rectify these problems should be a part of the overall interior renovation being proposed. In order to mitigate the situation, Legal Services will be delivered to the cell front for MS Status, MCU and CCTU offenders.
Case Managers:
No modifications to the existing CSP Case Managers offices are anticipated.
Recreational Facilities:
One indoor Gymnasium for group use exists at the Upper Level 400 to accommodate Incentive Unit offenders and CCTU offenders at the discretion of the Appointing Authority. The main intent of the project described in this FPP is to add new group recreation yards, and to plan for new individual recreation yards, and those descriptions can be found elsewhere in this FPP.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 12 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008954

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 63
Religious Programs:
CSP religious programs will generally be delivered to the individual cell via closed circuit television. The facilities provided for Academic Education video production and distribution can be used for Religious Programs delivery. With an increasingly non-restricted offender population, or for special occasions or needs, the gymnasium or visiting room can be utilized.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 13 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008955

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 63

II. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Project Overview
The project described in this Facility Program Plan (FPP) involves construction and modifications required to provide group outdoor recreation spaces to Close Custody Management Control offenders at CSP. Access to these spaces, located at grade behind each Housing Tower, will be through the existing stairs at the rear of each Tower. New metal detectors are needed at the interface between each Housing Tower entrance/exit as well as at each Housing Unit entrance/exit. In addition, improvements to the secure perimeter are required. These improvements include a double line fence with razor wire, a detection and deterrent system, and enhanced surveillance. A new Gatehouse is required to process both staff and facility visitors out at the double line security perimeter. Finally, upgrades to exterior lighting are required for enhanced observation.
No work is anticipated at SCF under this Facility Program Plan.
B. Background and History of CSP
The Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP) is a State owned and operated Level V Security correctional institution for adult male offenders, with a current rated capacity of 756 offenders. CSP is located within the East Cañon City Prison Complex (ECCPC) of correctional institutions and support facilities. The CSP facility is prominently located along Evans Boulevard, the main access road to ECCPC off of State Highway 50, approximately two miles east of Cañon City, in Fremont County, Colorado. The facility is also highly visible from Highway 50, separated by approximately one-half mile of open field.
Following completion of Phase I construction in 1993, CSP has served as the primary Level V Security facility in the CDOC system. Housing within CSP occurs in three separate towers surrounding support, programs and administration space. Each tower consists of two housing units stacked, with each unit consisting of two tiers, a penthouse and basement/crawlspace areas. Each tower has one elevator, used primarily for vertical transportation for daily service and program delivery, and occasional offender movement, mostly to Intake and Medical.
The initial operational intent of the facility was to allow no offenders access to any part of the CSP facility outside its exterior walls. As such, two unique design responses came about as a result of this intent. First, the building’s exterior wall was considered one of the two required lines in the facility’s secure perimeter; the second line being a single row of security fencing with no razor ribbon wire. Therefore, “no-man’s land”, or the space between the inner and outer perimeter lines where no offender is allowed, is considered all the space from the exterior walls outward to the single perimeter fence.
Second, outdoor exercise rooms were designed as a part of the building’s interior space and are accessed from each dayroom. There is one outdoor exercise room for every eight offenders, one on each tier. In Phase I construction (Tower 2 C/D units and Tower 3 E/F units), the exercise rooms are 92 square feet with an eight-foot high concrete ceiling. In Phase II construction (Tower 1 A/B units), the design was slightly modified and the exercise rooms are 137 square feet with an eight-foot high concrete ceiling.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 14 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008956

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 63

In both phases, the exercise rooms are lit, unheated, have security glazed doors and windows facing the dayroom and have two tall narrow openings, approximately six inches wide by five feet tall, facing the exterior. The openings are covered with perforated metal plate. The intent of these openings was to provide the occupant of the exercise room a view to the outside and the ability to sense the outside environment.
C. Detailed Description of Project Elements
CSP Project Elements:
Outdoor Group Recreation Yards: There will be three fenced group recreation yards, one per Housing Tower, of approximately 2,400 square feet per yard, with each yard subdivided into two separate spaces, containing the following:
 2 concrete half-court basketball courts  2 concrete exercise pads  2 walking tracks  2 groups of tables and benches with sun cover  1 raised covered officer’s observation station overlooking both yards  Concrete flatwork each side for future groups of 8 – 234 square foot individual outdoor
recreation yards for high risk security offenders
Each sub-recreation yard will manage up to 16 offenders, or one dayroom, and there will be no shared space or ability to mingle groups, except for the access to and from the Housing Tower. The raised observation station will not be able to access either sub-recreation yard. The purpose of these outdoor recreation yards is to provide a response to the court-decreed minimum legal standards for outdoor recreation and to provide group interaction opportunities for offenders progressing through the Management Control Unit program.
Double Line Fence: The perimeter fence will be upgraded to provide a stand-alone Level V perimeter without relying on the exterior of the building as a part of the perimeter. Upgrades include:
 12-foot high security fence installed outside the existing line of 12-foot high security fence where practical. Note: Existing fence may need to be reconfigured for security issues
 Razor ribbon wire in a coiled pyramid array at base of the new outer security fence  Barbed wire and supports to top of new outer fence  Horizontal concrete rat barrier inside of existing inner fence  Two vehicle sallyports with remote operated sliding gates  Non-lethal electrified fence (NLEF) on inner security fence
The purpose in upgrading the fence is to provide the appropriate level of detection and deterrent for a Level V facility when offenders are regularly outdoors in close proximity to the perimeter.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 15 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008957

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 63
Gatehouse: When the existing exterior building wall constituted the second security perimeter, the security checkpoint and sallyport into the facility could occur just inside the building’s main entrance. With the addition of the outer perimeter fence, penetration of the secure perimeter now will technically occur at the double line fence, and a new Gatehouse to provide that checkpoint is needed. The Gatehouse will be a site adapt of the design that was developed at the Centennial Correctional Facility, and will include:
 Vestibule/Waiting Area  Security Officer Station  Toilet  In-processing Area  Out-processing Area  Electrical/Communication  Mechanical/Storage  Metal Detector  Visitor Lockers
The staff position currently at the main security desk just off of the Lobby will be relocated to the Gatehouse, and the main security desk no longer used for security screening into and out of the facility. The purpose of the Gatehouse is to provide a sheltered and conditioned space to provide the necessary security processing of staff and facility visitors without having those staff and visitors penetrate the secure perimeter without proper screening.
Relocated Perimeter Patrol Road, Drainage and Landscaping: With the addition of the double line fence, the existing perimeter road will need to be relocated and reconfigured. Currently, as the perimeter patrol road circles the facility to the north, it follows existing contours to climb a hill for a panoramic, but distant, view of the back side of the facility. With the addition of an NLEF, the patrol road will need to remain close to the outer fence for security monitoring. The perimeter patrol is responsible for visually clearing any alarm detected by the NLEF system, and this cannot be managed from a distance. Additional grading will need to occur to allow the road to stay in close proximity to the outer fence.
In addition, the site drains naturally from north to south, and rock-lined drainage swales had been designed to carry surface water around the building to the east and west. These swales are where the new recreation yards are to be constructed, and the drainage patterns will have to be studied and re-engineered. Finally, there is existing landscape that will need to be removed and /or relocated, if salvageable.
New Perimeter Lighting: The new recreation schedule will require extending recreation time into the evening hours, which could include dusk or even darkness in winter months. New lighting will be required to illuminate the recreation yards so they may be properly observed when occupied. In addition, new LED perimeter lighting to provide lighting levels at the fence perimeter for a Level V facility per CDOC standard is being studied and will likely be a part of this project to some degree.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 16 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008958

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 63

Metal Detectors: Metal Detectors will be required at the entrance/exit (same point) at the Housing Tower stairways to the new recreation yards. Tower 2, because of the use of the existing recreation yard by the Incentive Unit, has an existing metal detector. Towers 1 and 3 will require new metal detectors. In addition, since increased offender movement outside of the Housing Units is anticipated for out-of-cell appointments and assignments, a new metal detector is needed at the entrance/exit to each Housing Unit at its interface to the central Support space, for a total of eight additional detectors.
Video Surveillance: Video surveillance cameras will be needed to monitor inmate activity in each outdoor recreation yard when staff is not available to provide direct supervision. Multiple video surveillance cameras will also be needed in each stairwell to monitor offender movement.
D. Facility Infrastructure and Site Improvements
The majority of the project described in this FPP falls under the category of site improvements and has been described in detail elsewhere. Those include briefly the upgrades to the security perimeter, to include a pedestrian sallyport and two vehicle sallyports, reconfiguration of the paved service road, reconfiguration of the gravel perimeter patrol road, revised site lighting (discussed in detail below), and the construction of three new recreation yards.
There is no need for any utility service upgrades to support the new work described in this project. Any utility work will be only to relocate existing utilities that interfere with the new construction.
Site Lighting Improvements:
The existing security/perimeter lighting is to be upgraded to illuminate the new outdoor recreational yards, the new guardhouse, the new perimeter double fence, and the new perimeter security patrol road. There are currently nine (9) existing 50 foot tall poles around the existing perimeter single fence, with each pole containing three (3) 1000W HID luminaires. Seven (7) of these nine (9) poles are to remain in their current locations. The two (2) perimeter poles closest to the parking lot are to be relocated inside the perimeter to better illuminate the new vehicle sally ports. All twenty-seven (27) perimeter pole mounted HID luminaires are to be demolished and returned to the owner. There are currently four (4) 50 foot tall poles in the parking lot area, with each pole containing two (2) 1000W HID luminaires, which are to remain as-is. There are currently twelve (12) 100W HID bollards along the front entry sidewalk. Four (4) of the twelve (12) bollards closest to the parking lot area are to be demolished and returned to the owner to accommodate the new guardhouse location. All other bollards are to remain as-is. There are currently thirty-two (32) exterior building mounted 1000W HID luminaires around the perimeter of the CSP building. All 32 exterior building mounted luminaires are to remain as-is.
To accommodate the new CSP facility layout, a new LED lighting and controls system is being proposed to replace the existing HID lighting and controls system for the new perimeter double fence, new patrol road, new guardhouse, and new outdoor recreational yards only. A new wireless LED luminaire control system is also being proposed, which will allow dimming of the new perimeter LED luminaires. Seven (7) of the nine (9) existing perimeter 50’ poles are to be reused to support four (4) new high lumen output LED luminaires each. The two (2) relocated 50 foot poles are to be reinstalled and reused to support four (4) new high lumen output LED luminaires each. (High Lumen Output = 68,000 lumens per luminaire.) Two new concrete pole

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 17 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008959

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 63
bases are to be provided for the two (2) relocated 50 foot poles. The existing circuits for the existing perimeter pole mounted HID luminaires are to be reworked to accommodate the new LED perimeter pole mounted luminaires. The existing circuits for the existing sidewalk HID bollards are to be reworked to accommodate the removal of four (4) bollards. Four (4) new LED wallpacks are being proposed for exterior illumination directly around the new guardhouse. The result of the proposed new LED lighting and controls system is to provide upgraded perimeter luminaires, a higher level of perimeter luminaire control, and illumination the new outdoor recreational yards and new patrol road.
E. Alternate Solutions
The CDOC explored several alternate solutions prior to proposing the current scope of work. Initially, the solution was to site-adapt a design implemented by the Ohio DOC for its Ohio State Penitentiary, a facility similar in design to CSP. Ohio had to respond to a similar court-decree to provide more open, entirely out-of-doors recreational opportunities for its maximum custody offenders housed in this facility. The solution was to construct elevators at the intersection of two dayroom stacks, four per tower or twelve total, to connect a grouping of four dayrooms to on-grade semi-enclosed individual and group exercise rooms. Each on-grade recreational yard would serve 64 offenders. There were three major issues with this concept.
At the time, the CDOC was still operating under the premise that the offenders would be managed as Administrative Segregation offenders, requiring a high level of restraint and two dedicated escort staff to move the offender to and from his cell to the on-grade exercise yards. It was estimated that an addition of up to fifty security staff would be required to operate this solution. Second, the construction cost for this design concept was estimated to be from $10 million to $12 million. Third, due to the building configuration, some of the proposed locations would not accommodate an elevator and on-grade recreation yard, and no feasible alternative was developed at these locations.
Next, the CDOC considered the construction of semi-enclosed, 180 square foot modules attached to the building at each dayroom. The modules would be constructed of concrete and/or wire mesh panels, offering some protection to the elements, some exposure to the elements, and some opportunity for horizontal views. There would be a total of 96 modules, each serving eight offenders for individual exercise only. Since the modules would be stacked, they would only be as tall as the cells on the tiers they served. The advantage to this solution is that it required no additional staff, as access to the new modules would be from the tier on which the offender was housed. The disadvantage to this solution is that exercise remained isolated, with no opportunity for group interaction. Again, the solution was explored at the time when all CSP offenders were to be managed under the former Administrative Segregation status. The construction cost for this design concept was estimated to be from $11 million to $15 million.
The CDOC briefly considered converting portions of the roof at CSP to recreation yards, but the logistics of moving offenders vertically, plus questions concerning the structural capacity of the roof, the presence of numerous mechanical equipment and roof penetrations, and security concerns quickly eliminated this solution as not feasible.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 18 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008960

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 63
F. Consequences if Not Funded
If the project described in this Facility Program Plan is not funded, improvements that would allow full access to the out-of-doors and to recreation space for offenders impacted by the phasing out of the Administrative Segregation status will not occur. Offenders at CSP with a Close Custody classification will not have the same recreational opportunities as Close Custody offenders at other CDOC facilities. Further, there would be no space to safely and effectively allow for group interaction in a recreational setting that is consistent with the management directives provided in the revised AR 600-09 Management of Close Custody Offenders. In addition, the CDOC could be viewed as not responding to the court order to provide “outdoor exercise in an area that is fully outside and that includes overhead access to the elements, e.g., to sunlight, rain, snow and wind,…”. As a result, further legal challenges to the existing conditions at CSP for adequate out-of-door and recreational space could be anticipated.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 19 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008961

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 63

III. COST AND BUDGET ANALYSIS

A. Project Cost Summary
The project budget for the CSP Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yard Project is $4,780,979.
B. Description of Scope included in the Budget Summary
See FPP Section II for description of programmatic, infrastructure, and site elements included in this Budget.
C. Project Summary Budget Table
An expanded Preliminary Budget Analysis is included as Appendix B. The budget includes the following costs for construction and renovation:

Description

Project Summary Budget Table Subtotal

A. Land Acquisition B. Professional Services C. Construction
Services/Utilities (Off-Site) Site Improvements New Construction Renovation Other D. Equip. and Furnishings Equipment Furnishings Communications E. Miscellaneous Art in Public Places (0.1%) F. Project Contingency

165,000 2,830,834
181,500 775,000
0
167,500 0
50,000
3,952

G. Total Budget Request

Total N/A 200,152 3,952,334
217,500
3,952 407,041 4,780,979

D. Extraordinary Cost Impact
This Budget reflects the following extraordinary costs, due to factors beyond the CDOC’s control:
 Construction cost premiums related to operational disruption of CSP facility security and building support functions is anticipated, while control of construction labor force, tools, and stored material will decrease the overall efficiency of the construction effort, adding a premium to construction costs;

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 20 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008962

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 63
 Construction cost premiums related to out-of-sequence work or highly regulated schedule restraints due to overriding security constraints;
 Cost of temporary structures and barriers due to work within a secured/occupied CSP facilities;  Cost premiums to match existing products and equipment to existing CSP systems; and  Significant construction market cost fluctuations within the Colorado Front Range market area
due to labor force and material availability, contractor workload and current backlog, and relative construction bid market environment.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 21 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008963

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 63
IV. PROPOSED CAPACITY AND FUTURE EXPANSION
A. Proposed Capacity
CSP currently houses up to 756 offenders in a mix of Maximum Security Status, Close Custody Management Control, Close Custody Transition, Close Custody general population, and Medium Custody general population offenders (Incentive Unit). The presence of Close Custody general population offenders is a temporary condition. It is operating at its current rated design capacity.
Upon completion of the Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yard project, the rated design capacities of CSP will not have changed as a result of the project.
B. Future Expansion
There are no current plans for future expansion of the CSP building, therefore, there are no provisions for expansion of facilities, infrastructure, or site improvements beyond that anticipated in this Facility Program Plan.
There are no current plans to increase the offender population at CSP. The cells housing the offenders affected by this project are currently single-bunked and would not meet standards for double-bunking.
Provisions will be made to add up to forty-eight individual outside exercise rooms in the future at CSP should the need arise or should the addition benefit the CDOC. The appropriate grading for the building pads, as well as the concrete pads themselves, will be constructed as a component of this project.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 22 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008964

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 63
V. PROPOSED STAFFING AND ASSIGNMENTS
A. Staffing Changes Staffing patterns for CSP and SCF will not change significantly as a result of the work described in this FPP. However, due to less restrictions and increased privileges for offenders, and generally more activity involving escorts and direct supervision, CSP and SCF will need to modify their staffing patterns within the current staff assignments.
B. Offender Assignments For MCU and CCTU offenders, assignments will be based on the new direction contained in the revised AR 600-09 Management of Close Custody Offenders. An offender’s programming and needs requirements will be assessed and provided to the offender by the assigned case manager upon intake to the facility or unit (if progressing within the MCU program). Incentive Unit offender assignments are not anticipated to change as a result of this project.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 23 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008965

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 63
VI. CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY
A. Construction Delivery Strategy
For the Close Custody Recreation Yards Project at CSP, much of the site improvement work will be performed by the Colorado Correctional Industries (CCI) Heavy Equipment program and the Building Technologies program. The Heavy Equipment program will provide the following:
 Excavation and earthwork  Perimeter Patrol Road reconfiguration  Service Road realignment (asphalt/curb/gutter)  Restoration of site  Installation of Recreation Yard fencing  Installation of Recreation Yard physical improvements (basketball court, running track,
concrete pad and walkways, ramps, tables and chairs, observation platform).
The Building Technologies program will construct the Gatehouse.
Specialty systems, such as the NLEF (including the perimeter fence), the site lighting improvements, and the video surveillance system, will be furnished and installed by private contractors on a competitive bid basis.
CDOC may choose one of several routes for project management. The entire project at CSP can be bid as a single project, with the self-performed work identified and Correctional Industries placed under the General Contractor’s control as a subcontractor. Or, the work to be bid could be issued in a single package with a General Contractor managing the various subcontractors and coordinating closely with the CDOC’s self-performed work, with Correctional Industries independent of the General Contractor. Finally, the various specialty systems could be bid separately, such that the project would have multiple prime contracts along with a large component of self-performed work. In this scenario, the entire project could be managed in-house by Facilities Management Services, or a private sector project manager could be employed for the role.

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 24 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008966

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 63

B. Project Schedule with Milestones:

Project Schedule with Milestones

Phase
CDOC Review and Approval of Facility Program Plan (FPP)
Submittal and Approval by Capital Development Comm.
FPP Addenda Complete
Approval of Funding Request
Advertise, Award, Contract for Professional Services
A/E Professional Services (excluding Bid and Construction Administration)
Bid, Award, Contract for Construction
Construction Phase
Punchlist

Start Date(s)
July 2014
Sept 2014 Jan 2015 May 2015
Sept 2014
Dec 2014
July 2015 Oct 2015 Oct 2016

Completion Date(s)

Remarks

Aug 2014

Dec 2014 Feb 2015 May 2015

Dec 2014 Under Separate Contract

June 2015
Sept 2015 Sept 2016 Nov 2016

Under Separate Contract

Occupancy

Dec 2016

As with any construction project, variables beyond the control of the CDOC may impact overall implementation of the project described in this Program Plan, including but not limited to:

 Significant variation in the Colorado Front Range construction market;
 Unforeseen site conditions, including subsurface geological and hydrological features; and
 Phasing issues due to Security concerns (subject to further definition in the Physical Planning Phase);
 Construction duration may be expedited based on premiums to the construction cost to achieve early completion (including additional workforce, workforce overtime premiums above assumed 40 hour work week, and other contractor incentives) which typically result in a reduction in project scope.

END OF FACILITY PROGRAM PLAN

Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards – Facility Program Plan

page 25 of 25
CDOC/Decoteau 008967

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 63
VII. APPENDICES
Appendix A – Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yard Improvements – Capital Construction Request – July 25, 2014
CDOC/Decoteau 008968

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 63

CC-C: CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION REQUEST FOR FY 2015-16

Agency or Institution: Department of Corrections

Project

Title

Colorado State Penitentiary Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards

Project Year(s): FY 2015-16

Agency or Institution Priority 2 Number:

Revision? Yes

No

If yes, last submission date:

Total Project Costs

A. Land Acquisition

Total Prior Year Appropriations

Signature Department or Institution Approval:
Signature CCHE Approval:
Signature OSPB Approval:
Name and e-mail address of preparer: richard.gordon@state.co.us

Date Date Date

Current Request FY 2015-16

Year 2 Request

Year 3 Request Year 4 Request Year 5 Request

(1) Land /Building Acquisition

$

B. Professional Services

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-

(1) Master Plan/PP

$

(2) Site Surveys, Investigations,

$

Reports

(3) Architectural/Engineering/ Basic $

Services

(3b) Construction Administration

$

(4) Code Review/Inspection

$

(5) Construction Management

$

(6) Advertisements

$

(7a) Inflation for Professional Services $

(7b) Inflation Percentage Applied

(8) Other

$

(9) Total Professional Services

$

C. Construction or Improvement

-$ 70,576 $
-$
70,576 $ 10,000 $ 25,000 $ 24,000 $
-$
-$ 200,152 $

-$ -$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.00% -$ -$

-$ 70,576 $
-$
70,576 $ 10,000 $ 25,000 $ 24,000 $
-$ 0.00%
-$ 200,152 $

-$ -$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.00% -$ -$

-$ -$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.00% -$ -$

-$ -$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.00% -$ -$

-
-
0.00% -

(1) Infrastructure

$

(a) Service/Utilities

$

(b) Site Improvements

$

(2) Structure/Systems/ Components

(a) New (GSF): 1,210

$

New $150/GSF

(b) Renovate GSF: 72,657

$

Renovate $10.67/GSF

(3) Other (Specify)

$

(4) High Performance Certification

$

Program

(5a) Inflation for Construction

$

(5b) Inflation Percentage Applied

(6) Total Construction Costs

$

D. Equipment and Furnishings

-$ 165,000 $ 2,830,834 $
181,500 $
775,000 $
-$ -$
-$
3,952,334 $

-$ -$ -$
-$
-$
-$ -$
-$ 0.00%
-$

-$ 165,000 $ 2,830,834 $
181,500 $
775,000 $
-$ -$
-$ 0.00% 3,952,334 $

-$ -$ -$
-$
-$
-$ -$
-$ 0.00%
-$

-$ -$ -$
-$
-$
-$ -$
-$ 0.00%
-$

-$ -$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$ 0.00%
-$

-
-
-
-
0.00%
-

(1) Equipment

$

(2) Furnishings

$

(3) Communications

$

(4a) Inflation on Equipment and

$

Furnishings

'(4b) Inflation Percentage Applied

(5) Total Equipment and Furnishings $ Cost

E. Miscellaneous

167,500 $ -$
50,000 $ -$
217,500 $

-$ -$ -$ -$
0.00% -$

167,500 $ -$
50,000 $ -$
0.00% 217,500 $

-$ -$ -$ -$
0.00% -$

-$ -$ -$ -$
0.00% -$

-$ -$ -$ -$
0.00% -$

-
0.00% -

(1) Art in Public Places=1% of State $

Total Construction Costs (see SB

10-94)

(2) Annual Payment for Certificates of $

Participation

(3) Relocation Costs

$

(4) Other Costs [specify]

$

(5) Other Costs [specify]

$

(6) Other Costs [specify]

$

(7) Other Costs [specify]

$

(8) Total Misc. Costs

$

F. Total Project Costs

$

G. Project Contingency

(1) 5% for New

$

(2) 10% for Renovation

$

(3) Total Contingency

$

H. Total Budget Request [F+G(3)] $

I. Source of Funds

CCF $ CF $ RF $ FF $

-$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,952 $ 4,373,938 $
29,958 $ 377,083 $ 407,041 $ 4,780,979 $
4,780,979 $ -$ -$ -$

-$

3,952 $

-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$

-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,952 $ 4,373,938 $
29,958 $ 377,083 $ 407,041 $ 4,780,979 $

-$ -$ -$ -$

4,780,979 $ -$ -$ -$

-$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

-$

-$

-

CDOC/Decoteau 008969
Page 1

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 63

DEPARTMENT OF [NAME OF DEPARTMENT]
FY 2015-16 Capital Construction Request July 25, 2014

John W. Hickenlooper Governor
Rick Raemisch Executive Director

______________________________________________________________

Signature

Date

Department or CCHE Capital Construction Priority: 02 Colorado State Penitentiary Close Custody Outdoor Recreation Yards

Summary of Capital Construction Request FY 2015-16

Total Funds $4,780,979

CCFE $4,780,979

Cash Funds*
$0

Federal Funds
$0

Request Summary: This FY 2015-16 Capital Construction Request seeks CCFE funding of $4,780,979 for the construction to provide group outdoor recreation space to close custody management control offenders at Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP) with overhead access to the elements. This request is in response to recent legal rulings with regards to Administrative Segregation housing conditions as well as the Department’s phasing out of the administrative segregation beds as currently defined. This request coordinates the legally required facility adjustments with the evolving policy changes for administrative segregation. These changes will require the repurposing of CSP to house primarily close custody offenders and meet recreation and security requirements that meet the current legal standards in outdoor recreation. Professional services for the project design are ongoing with funding provided by the Department.
Project Description: A Facility Program Plan (FPP) for this project request is currently being finalized and will be made available to the Capital Development Committee/Joint Budget Committee through the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting upon final Department and third party review.
Colorado State Penitentiary Improvements: Improvements are required to provide group outdoor recreation spaces to close custody management control offenders. Recreation yard improvements will be accessible through the existing three stair towers with the offenders exercising in groups of up to 16. Perimeter improvements include the following:
 Outdoor group recreation yards. Three fenced group recreation yards, one per housing tower, of approximately 24,000 square feet per yard will be provided with each containing the following: o 2- concrete half-court basketball courts o 2- concrete exercise pad o 2- walking tracks o 2 groups of tables and chairs with sun cover o Raised covered officer’s observation station

Page 1

CDOC/Decoteau 008970

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 63
o Concrete flatwork for future two groups of 8-234 square foot individual outdoor recreation yards for higher security offenders
 Double fence. The external security requirements for a Level V facility require a double fence, razor wire, and detector devices. At CSP the existing exterior security is achieved with a single perimeter fence and the exterior building wall constituting the second security perimeter. With the addition of the new outdoor recreation yards, the exterior building wall is no longer the primary security perimeter, therefore, requiring a second security perimeter around the facility. The security measures included with the double fence include the following: o 12 foot high security fencing to complete double fencing around the facility perimeter o Rat barrier at new outer security fencing o Razor coil pyramid at base of new outer security fencing o Barbed-wire support and coils at top of new security fencing o Two vehicle sallyports with sliding gates o NLEF (non-lethal electric fence) on inter security fencing
 Gatehouse. The existing exterior building wall constituted the second security perimeter and contained the entrance and security checkpoint into the facility. With the addition of the second perimeter fence this is no longer the case and a new approximately 1,200 square foot Gatehouse will be provided as the entry and checkpoint into the facility for staff and visitors. The Gatehouse specs are based on the Gatehouse at Centennial Correctional Facility and include the following spaces: o Vestibule/waiting area o Guard station o Toilet o In-processing area o Out-processing area o Secure storage o Electrical/communication o Mechanical/storage o Metal detector
 Relocated perimeter road and re-grading of exterior landscape. The addition of the outdoor recreation yards and double perimeter security fencing will required the existing perimeter road around the facility and portions of the exterior landscape to be relocated and re-graded.
 New perimeter lighting. The anticipated outdoor exercise access schedule, to provide offenders with necessary recreation time, will require extending recreation time into the evening hours. New perimeter lighting will be required to illuminate the outdoor recreation yards and the new double perimeter security fencing.
 Exterior security cameras. Security cameras are required as no additional staff will be provided to monitor offenders using the outdoor recreation yards. The cameras will be indirectly monitored by existing control center posts.
 Metal detectors at entrance/exit from housing stair towers to new recreation yards.
A CSP Site Plan for the proposed layout of spaces identified in this request is included in the Facility Program Plan.

Page 2

CDOC/Decoteau 008971

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 63
Background and Justification: In August of 2011, the administrative segregation population within the DOC peaked at 1,505. As of April 2014, the administrative segregation population stood at 449. During May and June 2014, administrative segregation, as currently defined, will be completely phased out by DOC. Offenders will be placed on Maximum status but this placement will be for a limited duration and based on offender behavior. This change will result in the need to adjust the mission at CSP. In addition, recent and pending court rulings direct the DOC to provide “access for at least one hour, at least three times per week, to outdoor exercise in an area that is fully outside and that includes overhead access to the elements, e.g., to sunlight, rain, snow and wind, unless inclement weather or disciplinary needs make that impossible.” These legal requirements create a need to adjust the facility physical structure at CSP to house close custody offenders and create the fundamental basis for this request and associated urgency.
CSP is a Level V security correctional institution for adult male offenders with current facility capacity of 756 offenders and employs 426 staff. CSP is situated in the East Canon City Prison Complex (ECCPC) and is sited on approximately 80 acres, with approximately 460,000 square feet of floor space. CSP originally opened Phase I on August 16, 1993 with a capacity of 504 offenders. In January 1998, Phase II added an additional 252 beds. Housing within CSP occurs in 3-four tiered towers of 252 beds per tower.
In order to accommodate large numbers of close custody offenders under the Maximum status designation for offenders at CSP new recreation yards, as well as additional exterior security improvements, need to be constructed. While CSP was originally constructed as a close custody facility, numerous physical plant changes are still required to enable the mission change. This project request is for the construction of three group recreation areas (one per housing tower), each containing two recreation yards based on the previously completed design by the architectural/engineering team. The construction of the group recreation yards will require additional security improvements to the facility including a new security gatehouse at the entrance, non-lethal electrical fence, relocation of perimeter security roads, re-grading of the exterior landscape, upgrade of perimeter lighting, and exterior security cameras. In addition, provisions for future individual outdoor recreation spaces for higher security offenders will be included.
The conceptual budget for the repurposing of CSP into a close custody facility is estimated at approximately $4,780,979.
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis: The Facility Program Plan for this project, currently being developed, will include alternatives to this supplement project request for which the LCC Analysis can be based.
Consequences if not Funded: If this project request is not funded, full access to outdoor recreation space for offenders impacted by the phasing out of administrative segregation will be delayed. In addition, the DOC could be viewed as not meeting the court order to provide “outdoor exercise in an area that is fully outside and that includes overhead access to the elements, e.g., to sunlight, rain, snow and wind, unless inclement weather or disciplinary needs make that impossible.” Subsequent litigation is pending and further suits are anticipated at CSP in this regard

Page 3

CDOC/Decoteau 008972

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 63
Operating Budget Impact: No additional FTE will be required for this supplemental project request. Existing staff will be utilized for the operation of this request.
Utilities: $2,200 per fiscal year. Maintenance and operating impacts- $840 per fiscal year
Assumptions for Calculations:  Estimated expenditures for land purchases; N/A  Estimated expenditures for construction and professional services;
A conceptual budget for construction has been developed by DOC Facility Management Services and is based on data from RS Means Building Construction Cost Data and historical data from past construction projects of similar scope and size. Professional services, other than construction administration, are not a part of this project request as the design services are being funding through the Department. Verification of the budget will be performed by the architect/engineer (A/E) within the Facility Program Plan (FPP) currently under development.
 A list of equipment and furnishings, including estimated prices; A budgetary estimate for equipment, including cameras ($36,000), DVR’s & switches ($16,500), metal detectors ($40,000), and furnishings, including exterior recreation yard equipment ($75,000) was provided based on past purchases for similar items
 Calculations for art in public places, as necessary; Art in public places was calculated on the total costs of new construction and site improvements at onetenth of one percent per C.R.S. 24-48.5-313 (2013).
 Inflation assumptions by year and component; This is a new project request, no inflation has been assumed.
 A discussion of costs associated with High Performance Certification Program (HPCP), or LEED certification, and the target certification level. If HPCP certification will not be pursued, please provide an explanation as to why the project is exempt from this requirement;
This is a renovation project (Outdoor Recreation Spaces) and consists of outdoor, unheated recreation space, thus exempt from the HPCP. The Gatehouse at CSP is approximately 1,210 square feet and thus under the 5,000 square feet threshold for HPCP requirements and certification will not be pursued. The DOC will strive to implement applicable HPCP standards and principles throughout the project, as cost effective and practicable as possible.
Supplemental Justification (if necessary): N/A

ADDITIONAL REQUEST INFORMATION
Please indicate if three-year roll forward spending authority is required. Date of project’s most recent program plan:
Please provide the link to the program plan or attached

 Yes

 No

The FPP for this project is currently being finalized. As final Department and third party review are complete the FPP will be forwarded to OSPB. See note above

Page 4

CDOC/Decoteau 008973

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 63

the first page of the analysis to this document: Request 6-month encumbrance waiver? New construction or modification? Total Estimated Square Footage
Is this a continuation of a project appropriated in a prior year? If this is a continuation project, what is the State Controller Project Number?

 Yes  New  Expansion CSP Gatehouse 1,210 GSF; Fenced outdoor recreation yards (including flatwork for future individual outdoor yards) 72,657 GSF
 Yes
N/A

 No  Renovation  Capital Renewal
 No

ESTIMATED PROJECT TIME TABLE
Steps to be completed
Architectural/Engineering professional services for design through construction documents – NOT A PART OF THIS PROJECT REQUEST Bidding, award, contract for construction based on design previously completed. CSP Construction CSP Punchlist CSP Project completion and occupancy

Start Date
08/2015 11/2015 10/2016 11/2016

Completion Date
03/2015
10/2015 10/2016 11/2016 12/2016

Page 5

CDOC/Decoteau 008974

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 63
Appendix B – Preliminary Site Plan Concepts
CDOC/Decoteau 008975

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 63
CDOC/Decoteau 008976

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 63

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

Cut (cy)

Fill (cy) Net Export * Area

CSP Outdoor Rec Yards

22,329

19,118

3,210

9.73

Know what's
CDOC/Decoteau 008977

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 63

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

Cut (cy)

Fill (cy) Net Export * Area

CSP Outdoor Rec Yards

22,329

19,118

3,210

9.73

Know what's
CDOC/Decoteau 008978

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 63

Know what's

CDOC/Decoteau 008979

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 63

Know what's

CDOC/Decoteau 008980

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 63

Know what's

CDOC/Decoteau 008981

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 63

Know what's

CDOC/Decoteau 008982

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 63

BASIN SUMMARY TABLE

Tributary Area

tc

Q5

Q100

Sub-basin (acres)

C5

C100

(min)

(cfs )

(cfs)

OS1

3.32

0.18

0.52

13.94

1.9

10.4

OS2

1.32

0.18

0.52

13.94

0.8

4.2

Know what's
CDOC/Decoteau 008983

Case 1:13-cv-03399-WJM-KMT Document 115-1 Filed 11/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 63 of 63
Exhibit 2

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 1 of 18
NDISPO,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−03399−WJM−KMT

Decoteau et al v. Raemisch et al Assigned to: Judge William J. Martinez Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Date Terminated: 07/06/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner − Civil Rights (U.S. not a defendant) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Ryan Decoteau TERMINATED: 10/06/2015

represented by Amy Farr Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: arobertson@creeclaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Louise Fontana Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Email: lauren.fontana@ucdenver.edu TERMINATED: 06/30/2016

Lindsey De Soto Webb University of Denver−Sturm College of Law 2255 East Evans Avenue Denver, CO 80208−0632 303−871−6585 Fax: 303−871−6847 Email: lwebb@law.du.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Gomez

represented by Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Louise Fontana (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2016

Lindsey De Soto Webb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dominic Duran on behalf of themselves and others

represented by Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 2 of 18

similarly situated

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Louise Fontana (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2016

Lindsey De Soto Webb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Rick Raemisch in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections
Defendant Travis Trani in his official capacity as the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary and Centennial Correctional Facility
Interested Party Chris Green Interested Party James K. Worosello Interested Party Eric Lee Roberts
Interested Party Emmanuel C Theus−Roberts

represented by Nicole S. Gellar Colorado Attorney General's Office Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 720−508−6614 Fax: 720−508−6032 Email: nicole.gellar@coag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Wayne Alber Colorado Attorney General's Office Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 720−508−6612 Fax: 720−508−6032 Email: chris.alber@state.co.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole S. Gellar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Wayne Alber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric Lee Roberts 127892 Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP) P.O. Box 777 Canon City, CO 81215−0777 PRO SE

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 3 of 18
Interested Party Herbert Shane Daily Interested Party Isaac Benavidez Interested Party Terance D. Wilson Interested Party Loyd Brandon Wheat Interested Party John H. James Interested Party Douglas Wilson Interested Party Charles Hellem Interested Party Keith E Murauskas

Date Filed 12/17/2013
12/17/2013 12/17/2013 12/17/2013 12/17/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT againstRick Raemisch, Travis Trani (Filing fee $ 400,Receipt Number 1082−3664106)Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Ryan Decoteau(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Dominic Duran(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Anthony Gomez(pty:pla), filed by Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
2 Case assigned to Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger and drawn to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Text Only Entry (dbera, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
3 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. Magistrate Judge Consent Form attached. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (dbera, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
4 REASSIGNING JUDGE. This action is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Text Only Entry (dbera, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
5 NOTICE OF CASE ASSOCIATION by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
6 ORDER Drawing Case. This case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/20/13. (nmmsl, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
7 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 6 Draw Order. This case is reassigned to Judge William J. Martinez. All future pleadings should be designated as 13−cv−03399−WJM−KMT. Text Only Entry (nmmsl, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
8 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Lauren Louise Fontana on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Lauren Louise Fontana added to party Ryan Decoteau(pty:pla), Attorney Lauren Louise Fontana added to party Dominic Duran(pty:pla), Attorney Lauren Louise Fontana added to party Anthony Gomez(pty:pla) (Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 12/20/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 4 of 18

12/20/2013 12/20/2013
12/23/2013 12/23/2013 12/24/2013 01/09/2014 01/10/2014 02/19/2014 02/20/2014 02/21/2014 03/03/2014 03/03/2014

9 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Lindsey De Soto Webb on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Lindsey De Soto Webb added to party Ryan Decoteau(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsey De Soto Webb added to party Dominic Duran(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsey De Soto Webb added to party Anthony Gomez(pty:pla) (Webb, Lindsey) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
10 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. Magistrate Judge Tafoya is designated to conduct NDISPO proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and (b). ALSO ORDERED that unless service has otherwise been completed or arranged, Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to effect service of the summons and complaint pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days from the date of this Referral Order, in order for the initial scheduling conference to be held promptly. Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the recommendation or informal request of the Magistrate Judge or on the request of the parties by motion, the court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/20/2013. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
11 ORDER Setting Scheduling Conference for 3/24/2014 at 10:15 AM in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 12/23/13. (sgrim) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
12 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Declaration of Lindsey Webb, # 3 Declaration of Lauren Fontana, # 4 Declaration of Ryan Decoteau, # 5 Declaration of Anthony Gomez, # 6 Declaration of Dominic Duran)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. Rick Raemisch waiver sent on 12/23/2013, answer due 2/21/2014; Travis Trani waiver sent on 12/23/2013, answer due 2/21/2014. (ervsl, ) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION to Certify Class Attorney Nicole S. Gellar added to party Rick Raemisch(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole S. Gellar added to party Travis Trani(pty:dft) by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
15 ORDER granting 14 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Certify Class 12 . The Defendants' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants' deadline to file their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is extended up to and including February 21, 2014. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 01/10/2014. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
16 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
17 ORDER granting 16 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Certify Class 12 . The Defendants' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants' deadline to file their Response to the Motion to Certify Class is extended up to and including March 3, 2014. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 02/20/2014. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
18 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani.(Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
19 RESPONSE to 12 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3)(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
20 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Motion for Class Certification by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 03/03/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 5 of 18

03/04/2014
03/07/2014 03/07/2014
03/10/2014 03/11/2014 03/17/2014 03/20/2014 03/24/2014
03/24/2014 03/24/2014 03/28/2014 05/19/2014 05/19/2014
06/02/2014 06/03/2014

21 ORDER granting 20 Defendants' Unopposed Motion For Leave to Exceed Page Limitations for Response to Motion for Class Certification 12 . The Defendants' Unopposed Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants' Response to the Motion for Class Certification 19 is ACCEPTED as filed. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 03/04/2014. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
23 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 3 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 4 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 5 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 6 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 7 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 8 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 9 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
24 MEMORANDUM regarding 23 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear filed by Anthony Gomez, Dominic Duran, Ryan Decoteau. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 03/10/2014. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
25 ORDER granting 23 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave toAppear. by Judge William J. Martinez on 3/11/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment part 1, # 2 Attachment part 2)(evana, ) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
26 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
27 REPLY to Response to 12 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Declaration of Rachel Martin)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
28 MINUTE ENTRY for Scheduling Conference held before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/24/2014. Discovery due by 9/24/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 10/24/2014. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/20/2015 9:30 AM in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. FTR: KMT Courtroom C−201. (lgale) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
29 SCHEDULING ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/24/14. (lgale) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
30 AMENDED MINUTE ENTRY re 28 Scheduling Conference before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. Minutes amended to correct spelling of attorney's name. FTR: KMT C−201. (lgale) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
31 RESPONSE to 22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
32 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Former Student Attorneys by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
33 MEMORANDUM regarding 32 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Former Student Attorneys filed by Anthony Gomez, Dominic Duran, Ryan Decoteau. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/19/2014. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
34 Joint STATUS REPORT by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Webb, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
35 MINUTE ORDER granting 32 Motion to Withdraw Appearances of Former Student Attorneys. Student attorneys Ryan Burchell, Rachel Martin, and Amelia Messegee are relieved of any further representation, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 6/3/14. Text Only Entry. (sgrim) (Entered: 06/03/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 6 of 18

06/10/2014 07/10/2014
09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/08/2014 09/29/2014
09/29/2014 10/22/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/24/2014

36 SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT Submission of Supplemental Authority In Support of 12 Motion for Class Certification by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Robertson, Amy) (Modified on 6/10/2014 added link to 12 Motion)(evana, ). (Entered: 06/10/2014)
37 ORDER granting 12 Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; denying 22 Motion to Consolidate Cases. The Court CERTIFIES the following class in this case: All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise, by Judge William J. Martinez on 7/10/2014.(evana, ) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
38 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
39 MEMORANDUM regarding 38 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear filed by Anthony Gomez, Dominic Duran, Ryan Decoteau. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 09/05/2014. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
40 ORDER granting 38 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Appear by Judge William J. Martinez on 9/8/2014. Student attorney Jenny Vultaggio are permitted to appear before this Court representing Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Anthony Gomez, and Dominic Duran pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 14(a)(1). (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(evana, ) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
41 MOTION to Modify Class Definition by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Fontana Declaration and Exhibits, # 2 Robertson Declaration and Exhibits 1−9, # 3 Robertson Declaration − Exhibits 10−13, # 4 Robertson Declaration − Exhibit 14 (1 of 8), # 5 Robertson Declaration − Exhibit 14 (2 of 8), # 6 Robertson Declaration − Exhibit 14 (3 of 8), # 7 Robertson Declaration − Exhibit 14 (4 of 8), # 8 Robertson Declaration − Exhibit 14 (5 of 8), # 9 Robertson Declaration − Exhibit 14 (6 of 8), # 10 Robertson Declaration − Exhibit 14 (7 of 8), # 11 Robertson Declaration − Exhibit 14 (8 of 8))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
42 MEMORANDUM regarding 41 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Class Definition filed by Anthony Gomez, Dominic Duran, Ryan Decoteau. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 09/29/2014. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
43 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Class Definition by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
44 MEMORANDUM regarding 43 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Class Definition filed by Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/23/2014. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1, ) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
45 MINUTE ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Class Definition. Defendants may file their response on or before November 21, 2014. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 10/23/14. Text Only Entry(kmtlc1 ) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion and to Modify the Scheduling Order by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
47 MEMORANDUM regarding 46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion and to Modify the Scheduling Order filed by Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/24/2014. Text Only Entry (wjmlc2, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 7 of 18

10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014
10/24/2014 10/28/2014 11/03/2014 11/04/2014 11/04/2014 11/04/2014 11/05/2014 11/05/2014
11/10/2014 11/17/2014 11/21/2014

48 MINUTE ORDER: On or before October 31, 2014, Plaintiffs shall file a respone to 46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion and to Modify the Scheduling Order. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 10/24/14. Text Only Entry (kmtlc1 ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
49 RESPONSE to 46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion and to Modify the Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson and Exhibits)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25)(Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
51 Cross−MOTION to Redefine the Class by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani re: 37 Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3, # 4 Exhibit A−4, # 5 Exhibit A−5, # 6 Exhibit A−6)(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
52 ORDER granting in part 46 Defendants Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order, the court will extend the dispositive motion deadline to November 4, 2014, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 10/28/2014.(evana, ) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
53 MOTION for a Brief, Seven−Day Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
54 MEMORANDUM regarding 53 MOTION for a Brief, Seven−Day Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions filed by Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/04/2014. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
55 RESPONSE to 53 MOTION for a Brief, Seven−Day Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
56 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3, # 4 Exhibit A−4, # 5 Exhibit A−5, # 6 Exhibit A−6)(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
57 MOTION for a One−Week Extension on Their Response to 51 Cross−Motion to Redefine the Class by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
58 ORDER granting 57 Plaintiffs' Motion for a One Week Extension on Their Response to Defendants' Cross Motion to Redefine the Class 51 . Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Response to Defendants Cross Motion to Redefine the Class 51 is extended up to and including November 24, 2014. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/05/2014. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
59 MINUTE ORDER granting 53 Motion for a Brief, Seven−Day Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is accepted as filed. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 11/10/14. Text Only Entry(kmtlc1 ) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
60 RESPONSE to 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3, # 4 Exhibit A−4, # 5 Exhibit A−5, # 6 Exhibit A−6, # 7 Exhibit A−7, # 8 Exhibit A−8)(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
61 RESPONSE to 41 MOTION to Modify Class Definition filed by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 8 of 18

11/21/2014 11/24/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014
11/24/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014 12/11/2014 01/13/2015 01/15/2015 01/20/2015

Exhibit A−3, # 4 Exhibit A−4, # 5 Exhibit A−5, # 6 Exhibit A−6)(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
62 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment , 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
63 NOTICE OF NON ADMITTED ATTORNEY. Jenny Vultaggio has entered an appearance as an attorney in this case based on signing a document filed in this case. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1(a), an attorney must be a member of the court's bar to make an appearance in a case before the court. The attorney records of the court do not reflect that counsel is a member of the bar. Unless an application for admission to the bar of the court or a motion to withdraw in this case is received within 20 days of the date of this entry, action may be taken by the court. (Text Only Entry)(mfred) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
64 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and to File Combined Response and Reply Brief by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
65 ORDER granting 62 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extensions on their Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 56 and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 50 . Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 56 and their Reply in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 50 is extended up to and including 14 days after the implementation of CDOC Policy AR 650−03. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file a Status Report with this Court within 5 days after the official implementation of CDOC AR 650−30 advising the Court of its implementation and appending a copy of said new Policy to said Status Report. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/24/2014. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
66 ORDER granting 64 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion For Leave to File a Combined Response and Reply Brief of 20 Pages. The Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Combined Response and Reply Brief in connection with the parties cross motions concerning class definition (ECF Nos. 41 and 51 ). Said Combined Brief shall not exceed 20 pages, exclusive of attorney signature blocks and certificate of service. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/24/2014. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
67 BRIEF in Opposition to 51 Cross−MOTION to Redefine the Class and Reply in Support of Motion to Modify Class Definition filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
68 Conventionally Submitted Material by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez: 1 CD − Labeled: Exhibit 1 ( Request 9_Video (Bates 09091), Restritive Housing Draft 04.wav) to 67 Brief in Opposition to Motion. Text Only Entry (alowe) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
69 REPLY to Response to 51 Cross−MOTION to Redefine the Class filed by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
70 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez, Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Fontana, Lauren) Modified filers on 1/14/2015 (alowe). (Entered: 01/13/2015)
71 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez,Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Fontana, Lauren) Modified filers on 1/15/2015 (alowe). (Entered: 01/15/2015)
72 COURTROOM MINUTES for Telephonic Final Pretrial Conference held on 1/20/2015 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. ORDERED: Telephonic

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 9 of 18

01/20/2015 01/23/2015 01/26/2015
02/06/2015 02/09/2015 02/24/2015 02/24/2015 02/25/2015
02/27/2015 02/27/2015

Final Pretrial Conference is continued to March 3, 2015 at 9:15 a.m. The parties shall initiate a conference call and contact chambers at 303−335−2780 at the time of the Final Pretrial Conference. A revised Final Pretrial Order shall be prepared by the parties and submitted to the court no later than February 24, 2015. FTR: KMT C201. (sgrim) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
73 STATUS REPORT Regarding Revisions to Administrative Regulation 650−03 by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
74 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment , 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
75 ORDER granting 74 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Their Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' deadline to file responsive briefs is EXTENDED to February 26, 2015. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 1/26/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmlc1, ) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
76 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 3 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
77 ORDER granting 76 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Appear. Student attorney Kevin Benninger is permitted to appear before this Court representing Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Anthony Gomez and Dominin Duran pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 14(a)(1). By Judge William J. Martinez on 2/9/2015.(alowe) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
78 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment , 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
79 Proposed Final Pretrial Order by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez, Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Fontana, Lauren) Modified filers on 2/25/2015 (alowe). (Entered: 02/24/2015)
80 ORDER granting 78 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for a One Day Extension of Time to File Their Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 56 and their Reply in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 50 . Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 56 and their Reply in support of their Partial Motion for Summary Judgment 50 is extended up to and including February 27, 2015. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 02/25/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
81 BRIEF in Support of 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
82 DECLARATION of Amy F. Robertson regarding Brief in Support of Motion 81 by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Pt. 1, # 2 Exhibit 1 Pt.2, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 24, # 27 Exhibit 24, # 28 Exhibit 24, # 29 Exhibit 24, # 30 Exhibit 24, # 31 Exhibit 24, # 32 Exhibit 24, # 33 Exhibit 24, # 34 Exhibit 24, # 35 Exhibit 24, # 36 Exhibit 24, # 37 Exhibit 24, # 38 Exhibit 24, # 39 Exhibit 24, # 40 Exhibit 24, # 41 Exhibit 24, # 42 Exhibit 24, # 43 Exhibit 24, # 44 Exhibit 24, # 45 Exhibit 24)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/27/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 10 of 18

02/27/2015 03/03/2015 03/03/2015 03/09/2015
03/13/2015 03/16/2015 04/03/2015 04/07/2015 04/07/2015 04/07/2015 04/13/2015

83 RESPONSE to 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18)(Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
84 COURTROOM MINUTES for Telephonic Final Pretrial Conference held on 3/3/2015 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. FTR: KMT C201. (sgrim) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
85 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/3/15. (sgrim) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
86 ORDER: A 4−Day Bench Trial is hereby set to begin on November 9, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom A801. The trial week will be Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, with Wednesday, November 11, 2015, off for Veteran's Day. The Final Trial Preparation Conference is set for October 23, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom A801. The parties shall familiarize themselves with the undersigned's Revised Practice Standards, in general and as they relate to the Court's expectations and requirements with regard to Trials to the Court, and with particular emphasis on WJM Revised Practice Standard IV.B.4. f. 1 &2., which requires the parties to file Preliminary Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, along with a Proposed Order for Judgment and/or relief. All such materials are to be filed no later than 7 days prior to the date of the Final Trial Preparation Conference. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 03/09/2015. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
87 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
88 ORDER granting 87 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment 56 . Defendants' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants' deadline to file their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment 56 is extended up to and including April 6, 2015. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 03/16/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
89 Unopposed Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
90 ORDER denying 89 Defendants' Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time of Seven Days to File Reply. The Defendants' Motion is DENIED without prejudice to refiling given Defendants' counsels' failure to serve a copy of the Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time on their clients, as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(c). SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/07/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
91 Renewed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
92 ORDER granting 91 Defendants' Renewed Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment 56 . Defendants' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants' deadline to file their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment 56 is extended up to and including April 13, 2015. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/07/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
93 ORDER granting 41 Plaintiffs' Motion Modify Class Definition. The class is redefined as follows: "All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise." Defendants' 51 Cross−Motion to Redefine the Class is DENIED. By Judge William J. Martinez on 4/13/2015. (alowe) (Entered: 04/13/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 11 of 18

04/13/2015 04/13/2015 04/14/2015
04/14/2015 05/27/2015
08/18/2015 08/21/2015 08/28/2015 08/31/2015
09/04/2015 09/08/2015
09/17/2015
10/02/2015 10/02/2015 10/05/2015

94 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
95 REPLY to Response to 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−7, # 2 Exhibit A−8, # 3 Exhibit A−11, # 4 Exhibit A−12, # 5 Exhibit A−13, # 6 Exhibit A−14, # 7 Exhibit A−15, # 8 Exhibit A−16)(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
96 ORDER granting 94 Defendants' Unopposed Motion For Leave to Exceed Page Limitations. The Defendants' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants' Reply 95 in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment 56 is accepted as filed SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/14/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
97 Conventionally Submitted Material: CD of Exhibits A−9, A−10−A &A−10−B to 83 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. Text Only Entry (alowe) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
98 ORDER Denying 50 Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Denying Defendants' 56 Motion for Summary Judgment; and This matter REMAINS SET for a 4−day bench trial beginning November 9, 2015, at 8:30 a.m., with a Final Trial Preparation Conference set for October 23, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom A801, by Judge William J. Martinez on 5/27/2015.(evana, ) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
99 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Lauren Louise Fontana (Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
100 NOTICE of Filing by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Previous Ruling That Plaintiffs Have Stated an Eighth Amendment Claim)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
101 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion Requesting That the Court Make a Site Visit to the Colorado State Penitentiary by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
102 ORDER: Before the Court is 101 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion Requesting that the Court Make a Site Visit to the Colorado State Penitentiary. The Court reserves ruling on this motion and will evaluate the need for a site visit following presentation of evidence at trial. SO ORDERED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 08/31/2015. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1, ) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
103 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Vultaggio by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Webb, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
104 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Former Student Attorney 103 . The Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw is hereby GRANTED for good cause shown, Ms. Jenny Vultaggio is allowed to withdraw as counsel in this action. The Clerk shall cease any further electronic notice to Ms. Vultaggio in this case. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 09/08/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
105 ORDER: This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Due to a conflict in the Court's calendar the Final Trial Preparation Conference set for October 23, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. is hereby VACATED and RESET to October 23, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom A801. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 09/17/2015. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
106 NOTICE of Settlement Agreement (Stipulated) by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez (Webb, Lindsey) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
107 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Trial Preparation Conference and Trial by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Webb, Lindsey) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
108 ORDER: This matter is before the Court on the parties' 106 Stipulated Notice of Settlement Agreement and 107 Unopposed Motion to Vacate the Trial Preparation Conference and Trial and Schedule Preliminary Approval Hearing. The Motion is

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 12 of 18

10/05/2015
10/05/2015
10/06/2015 10/06/2015 11/02/2015 11/03/2015 11/04/2015 11/04/2015

GRANTED. The Final Trial Preparation Conference set for October 23, 2015, and the 4−day bench trial set to commence on November 9, 2015, are hereby VACATED. In addition, Plaintiffs' 101 Unopposed Motion Requesting that the Court Make a Site Visit to the Colorado State Penitentiary is DENIED AS MOOT.
With respect to the preliminary approval hearing, the undersigned's usual practice is to decide preliminary approval matters on the papers and only hold a hearing for final approval of the settlement. Nonetheless, the Court will reserve November 13, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., for a preliminary approval hearing. The parties shall file the relevant papers on or before November 2, 2015, at which time the Court will determine whether a preliminary hearing is needed. SO ORDERED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/05/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmlc1, ) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
109 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Text Only Entry Court Hearing set for 11/13/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 801 before Judge William J. Martinez pursuant to 108 . With respect to the preliminary approval hearing, the undersigned's usual practice is to decide preliminary approval matters on the papers and only hold a hearing for final approval of the settlement. Nonetheless, the Court will reserve November 13, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., for a preliminary approval hearing. The parties shall file the relevant papers on or before November 2, 2015, at which time the Court will determine whether a preliminary hearing is needed. SO ORDERED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/05/2015. (cthom, ) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
112 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings pursuant to 108 : Text Only Entry Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 11/13/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 801 before Judge William J. Martinez. With respect to the preliminary approval hearing, the undersigned's usual practice is to decide preliminary approval matters on the papers and only hold a hearing for final approval of the settlement. Nonetheless, the Court will reserve November 13, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., for a preliminary approval hearing. The parties shall file the relevant papers on or before November 2, 2015, at which time the Court will determine whether a preliminary hearing is needed. SO ORDERED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/05/2015. (cthom, ) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
110 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Ryan Decoteau by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
111 Party Ryan Decoteau terminated pursuant to the notice of dismissal or stipulation to dismiss filed in this case on 10/06/2015. Text Only Entry (cthom, ) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
113 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Relevant Documents by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani. (Alber, Christopher) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
114 ORDER granting 113 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension to Submit Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Relevant Documents. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. The Parties' deadline to file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is extended up to and including November 4, 2015. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/3/2015. Text Only Entry(wjmsec, ) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
115 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and for Fairness Hearing by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Webb, Lindsey) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
116 ORDER: The Court has received 115 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Fairness Hearing. In that motion, the parties no longer request a preliminary approval hearing. Moreover, without prejudging the motion's merits, the Court finds that the motion and attachments are sufficient to evaluate the propriety of preliminary approval without a hearing. Accordingly, the preliminary approval hearing currently set for November 13, 2013 is VACATED. An order on the merits of the motion will follow in due course. SO

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 13 of 18

11/16/2015
12/02/2015 12/03/2015
12/30/2015 01/04/2016 01/04/2016 01/11/2016 01/11/2016 01/11/2016 01/12/2016 01/12/2016 01/12/2016 01/14/2016

ORDERED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/04/2015. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1, ) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
117 ORDER re: 115 Requiring Parties to Supplement Motion for Preliminary Approval. The Court continues to RESERVE RULING on Plaintiffs' 115 Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Fairness Hearing. On or before December 2, 2015, the parties shall file an addendum to the proposed settlement agreement [115−1] specifying the process bywhich: (a) notice will be delivered to current class members, and (b) the parties will ensure that notice is delivered to inmates who enter RHM, MCU, or CCTU sometime after the original notices are delivered, by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/16/2015. (cthom, ) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
118 NOTICE re 115 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and for Fairness Hearing OF FILING OF ADDENDUM AGREEMENT CONCERNING NOTICE TO THE CLASS by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
119 ORDER granting 115 Motion for Hearing/Conference Fairness Hearing set for 6/29/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom A 801 before Judge William J. Martinez. Notices shall state that any objections and/or requests to speak at the Fairness Hearing must be in writing and received by the Clerk of the Court on or before May 6, 2016. On or before May 27, 2016 , the parties shall file all papers in support of the Proposed Settlement, including: (a) proof, by appropriate declaration, of the timing and manner of distributing the notices of settlement; and (b) any reply to any timely written objection to the Proposed Settlement. by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/03/2015.(cthom, ) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
120 MOTION to be transported to court on 06/29/2016 to make an appearance before the judge, by Interested Party Chris Green. (cthom, ) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
121 ORDER Requiring Class Member Chris Green to Supplement his Motion for Transportation, by Judge William J. Martinez on 01/04/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
122 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 121 order mailed to; Chris Green #129064, Sterling Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 6000, Sterling, CO, 80751. (cthom, ) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
123 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw Student Attorney Benninger by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Webb, Lindsey) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
124 MEMORANDUM regarding 123 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw Student Attorney Benninger filed by Anthony Gomez, Dominic Duran, Ryan Decoteau. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 01/11/2016. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
125 MOTION to Attend Hearing and Speak, by Interested Party James K. Worosello. (cthom, ) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
126 ORDER Requiring Class Member James Worosello to Supplement re: 125 MOTION to Attend Hearing and Speak to filed by James K. Worosello, by Judge William J. Martinez on 01/12/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
127 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 126 Order mailed to: James K. Worosello #134191, Sterling Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 6000, Sterling, CO, 80751. (cthom, ) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
128 MINUTE ORDER granting 123 Motion to Withdraw. Student attorney Kevin Benninger is relieved from any further representation, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 1/12/16. Text Only Entry(sgrim) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
129 SUPPLEMENT to 120 MOTION to be transported to Court to make an Appearance, by Interested Party Chris Green. (cthom, ) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 14 of 18

01/19/2016
02/01/2016 02/01/2016 02/02/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/10/2016
02/16/2016 02/18/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 03/09/2016 03/11/2016 04/06/2016

130 ORDER: This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Before receiving Chris Green's and James Worosello's Motions for Transportation (ECF Nos. 120 , 125 ), the Court ordered that the parties should file "any reply to any timely written objection to the Proposed Settlement" on or before May 27, 2016. (ECF No. 119 at 4.) The Court concludes that Green's and Worosello's Motions for Transportation are, at least in part, objections to the Proposed Settlement. Thus, the response deadline would normally be May 27, 2016. However, if the Court eventually chooses to grant any request for transportation, the Court wishes to give CDOC and the U.S. Marshals as much time as possible to prepare. Accordingly, with respect to filing a reply to any timely written objection to the Proposed Settlement, the May 27, 2016 deadline is VACATED and RESET to May 16, 2016. No later than that date, Class Counsel and Defendants shall each file a single consolidated reply brief addressing all timely objections and requests for transportation (including those currently pending and any that may be filed by the May 6, 2016 deadline). Given that the Court cannot predict how many objections or transportation requests it will receive, the Court will not set a page limit for the consolidated reply briefs. Such briefs should nonetheless be concise and of reasonable length. SO ORDERED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 01/19/2016. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1, ) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
131 Supplement to 125 by Interested Party James K. Worosello. (cthom, ) Modified to correct document title on 2/2/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 02/01/2016)
132 SUPPLEMENT to 125 by Interested Party James K. Worosello. (cthom, ) Modified to correct title on 2/2/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 02/01/2016)
133 MOTION to be Present and Talk at Hearing by Interested Party Eric Lee Roberts. (cthom, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
134 ORDER requiring class member Eric Lee Roberts to Supplement re: 133 MOTION for Transportation to filed by Eric Lee Roberts. Ordered by Judge William J. Martinez on 02/03/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
135 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 134 Order for Supplement. Order sent to; Eric Lee Robert #127892, Colorado State Penitentiary, P.O. Box 777, Canon City, CO 81215−0777 (cthom, ) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
136 NOTICE re 118 Notice (Other), 115 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and for Fairness Hearing [Notice of Second Addendum to Settlement Agreement by Defendants Rick Raemisch, Travis Trani (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, copy of the Second Addendum to the Settlement Agreement)(Gellar, Nicole) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
137 SUPPLEMENT to 133 MOTION to be Present and Talk at Hearing by Interested Party Eric Lee Roberts. (cthom, ) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
138 MOTION to Attend and Speak at Hearing by Interested Party Emmanuel C Theus−Roberts. (cthom, ) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
139 ORDER Requiring Class Member Emmanuel C. Theus−Roberts to Supplement his Motion for Transportation by Judge William J. Martinez on 02/19/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
140 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 139 Order to Supplement Motion mailed to: Emmanuel C. Theus−Roberts #156128, Unit 7C208, P.O. Box 6000, Sterling, CO, 80751. (cthom, ) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
141 SUPPLEMENT to 138 MOTION for Transportation by Interested Party Emmanuel C Theus−Roberts. (cthom, ) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
142 NOTICE re 120 MOTION for Transport by Interested Party Chris Green (cthom, ) Modified to correct text on 3/14/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 03/14/2016)
143 MOTION to Appear in Court on June 29th, 2016 at 11:00 AM, and OBJECTION to Settlement Agreement Interested Party Herbert Shane Daily. (cthom, ) Modified to correct party text on 4/7/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 04/07/2016)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 15 of 18

04/07/2016 04/13/2016
04/14/2016 04/15/2016 04/25/2016 04/28/2016 04/28/2016 04/28/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 05/02/2016 05/04/2016
05/04/2016

144 ORDER Requiring Class Member to Supplement his Motion re: 143 MOTION to Appear in Court filed by Herbert Shane Daily. ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/07/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
145 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy Robertson with Exhibits, # 2 Declaration of Lindsey Webb with Exhibits, # 3 Declaration of Lauren Fontana)(Robertson, Amy) Modified to add motion event on 7/6/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 04/13/2016)
146 MOTION to Speak at Hearing and Objection to the Settlement Agreement by Interested Party Isaac Benavidez. (cthom, ) Modified to correct filing date on 4/18/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 04/15/2016)
147 ORDER Requiring Supplement re: 146 MOTION for Order to Speak at Hearing filed by Isaac Benavidez, by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/15/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
148 OBJECTIONS by Interested Party Herbert Shane Daily. (cthom, ) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
149 Motion to Attend and Speak at Hearing by Interested Party Terance Wilson (cthom, ) Modified to correct filer and event type on 4/28/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 04/28/2016)
150 MOTION to Attend and Speak at Hearing by Interested Party Loyd Brandon Wheat. (cthom, ) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
151 MOTION to Attend and Speak at Hearing by Interested Party John H. James. (cthom, ) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
152 ORDER Requiring Class Member Terance Dejuan Wilson to Supplement his 149 Motion for Transportation, by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/29/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
153 ORDER Requiring Class Member Loyd Brandon Wheat to Supplement his 150 Motion for Transportation, by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/29/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
154 ORDER Requiring Class Member John J. James to Supplement his 151 Motion for Transportation, by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/29/2016. (cthom, ) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
155 MOTION to Attend and Speak at Upcoming Hearing by Interested Party Douglas Wilson. (cthom, ) Modified to correct name on 5/10/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 05/03/2016)
156 ORDER: Before the Court is a letter received on May 2, 2016, which the Court will refer to as the "Motion for Transportation" 155 . The Motion for Transportation was written by Doucias Wilson, an inmate at the Colorado State Penitentiary who claims to be a member of the inmate class that will be affected by the pending Proposed Settlement Agreement. Wilson requests that he be transported to the June 29, 2016 Fairness Hearing to speak at the hearing. Although the Court has required previous inmates filing similar motions to supplement their motions with specifics, the Court will not do so in this instance because Wilson's motion is already fairly specific and, in any event, there is not enough time for the Court to issue and mail an order, and for Wilson to prepare and mail a supplement, before the May 6 deadline. Class Counsel's and Defendants' obligation to respond is still governed by this Court's order entered January 19, 2016 130 . SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/04/2016. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
157 ORDER: This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Interested party "Doucias Wilson" writes his first name in a unique way that indeed looks like "Doucias." Having looked up his inmate number on CDOC's inmate finder service, however, the Court has concluded that Wilson's first name is actually Douglas. Accordingly, the Clerk shall correct the docket to reflect Wilson's true first name. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/04/2016. Text Only Entry

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 16 of 18

05/09/2016 05/10/2016
05/11/2016 05/13/2016 05/16/2016
05/18/2016 05/19/2016
05/27/2016 05/31/2016
05/31/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016

(wjmlc1) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
158 Supplement to 146 MOTION for Transportation re 147 Order Requiring Supplement by Interested Party Isaac Benavidez. (cthom, ) Modified to correct title on 5/10/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 05/10/2016)
159 ORDER: This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Ten prisoners have requested an opportunity to speak at the June 29, 2016 Fairness Hearing. The Court has yet to decide which, if any, will be permitted to speak. However, to accommodate the possibility that many or most will receive that opportunity, the start time for the Fairness Hearing is RESET from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on June 29, 2016. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/10/2016. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
160 SUPPLEMENT to 149 MOTION for Transportation by Interested Party Terance D. Wilson. (cthom, ) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
161 SUPPLEMENT to 151 MOTION for Transportation by Interested Party John H. James. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Envelope)(cthom, ) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
162 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Joint Response to Court's Minute Orders Dated December 23, 2015 (Doc. 119) and January 19, 2016 (Doc. 130) Seeking Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Decl. of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Decl. of Christopher W. Alber − Part 1, # 3 Decl. of Christopher W. Alber − Part 2, # 4 Decl. of Christopher W. Alber − Part 3)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
163 MOTION for Status Update by Interested Party Charles Hellem. (cthom, ) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
164 ORDER: Before the Court is a letter received from class member Charles Hellem 163 requesting information on the Fairness Hearing that supposedly took place on May 6, 2016. Hellem misunderstands the class notice document. The deadline to object to the Proposed Settlement was May 6, 2016. The Fairness Hearing itself is scheduled for June 29, 2016. Hellem should direct further requests for information to Class Counsel Amy F. Robertson, whose contact information is listed in the "How To Get Further Information" section of the class notice document. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/19/2016. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
165 RESPONSE to 156 Order by Interested Party Douglas Wilson. (cthom, ) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
166 ORDER granting Chris Green's 120 Motion for Transportation; granting Eric Lee Robert's 133 Motion for Transportation; granting in part and denying in part 138 143 146 151 155 Motion's for Transportation; as to Defendant's Emmanuel Theus−Roberts, Herbert Shane Daily, Isaac Benavidez, John James, and Douglas Wilson the motions are GRANTED to speak at the hearing and DENIED as to their request to appear in person. These prisoners may instead appear by video conference or telephone from their respective prison facilities. No prisoner, whether appearing in−person or remotely, will be permitted to speak for more than 5 minutes. ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/31/2016.(cthom, ) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
167 ORDER denying 125 Motion for Transportation by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/31/2016.(cthom, ) Modified to correct judge association on 5/31/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 05/31/2016)
168 ORDER denying 149 Motion for Transportation by Judge William J Martinez on 05/31/2016.(cthom, ) Modified to correct judge association on 5/31/2016 (cthom, ). (Entered: 05/31/2016)
169 ORDER denying 150 Motion for Transportation by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/31/2016.(cthom, ) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
170 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFCANDUM issued pursuant to 166 Order as to Eric Lee Roberts and Chris (Attachments: # 1 WRIT HABEAS

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 17 of 18

06/07/2016 06/08/2016 06/08/2016
06/14/2016
06/17/2016 06/17/2016 06/20/2016 06/20/2016 06/24/2016 06/29/2016

CORPUS AD TESTIFCANDUM) (cthom, ) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
171 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 166 Order on Motion Addressed to Emmanuel Theus−Roberts. (cthom, ) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
172 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 171 Returned Mail. Order 166 has been re−sent to Emmanuel Theus−Roberts with correct inmate number and address at: Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP), #156128, P.O. Box 777, Canon City, CO, 81215−0777. Text Only Entry. (cthom, ) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
173 ORDER: The Court has received a communication from class counsel regarding questioning of objectors, and regarding whether named plaintiffs Gomez and Duran may testify in support of the Proposed Settlement. Concerning objectors, the Court does not view their statements as witness testimony. Accordingly, the Court will not permit the attorneys to question the objectors, although the attorneys will receive an opportunity to respond to each objector's arguments. Concerning testimony from Gomez and Duran, the Court will permit it only by videoconference (or by telephone, if videoconference is not feasible, or is inoperative). The Court understands that Gomez desires to appear in person, but this is a matter that should have been raised by class counsel several weeks earlier as the Court and the attorneys worked out the logistics of accommodating the various objectors in light of the many complicated transportation and security considerations. At this late hour, the Court will not place on the United States Marshals Service responsibility for a third in−person inmate participant at the Fairness Hearing. Accordingly, class counsel is DIRECTED to make all necessary arrangements with Defendants' counsel to enable Gomez and Duran to testify via videoconference (or telephone, if necessary). The Court will permit up to 15 minutes of testimony from each of these witnesses. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 06/08/2016. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
174 ORDER Courts partial grant of Herbert Shane Dailys 166 Motion for Transportation is REVERSED and Dailys Motion for Transportation 143 is DENIED IN FULL. Daily will no longer be permitted to speak at the Fairness Hearing; Dominic Duran is DISCHARGED ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, on or before June 17, 2016,why this Courts grant of his request to testify in favor of the Proposed Settlement 173 should not also be reversed; Defendants may reply to Durans response to this order to show cause on or before June 21, 2016. Show Cause Response due by 6/17/2016. ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 06/14/2016. (cthom, ) (Modified on 6/20/2016 OSC Discharged pursuant to the 178 Order) (evana, ). (Entered: 06/14/2016)
175 NOTICE of Objection by Inmate Keith Murauskus by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
176 RESPONSE to 174 Order,, Regarding Herbert Shane Daily and Dominic Duran by Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
177 ORDER re: 175 Murauskass construed motion for the Court to accept late filing of objections, is DENIED. By Judge William J. Martinez on 6/20/2016. (evana, ) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
178 ORDER re: 174 The Courts Order to Show Cause, is DISCHARGED; Duran may testify at the Fairness Hearing by video conference (or by telephone, if video conference is not feasible or inoperable) for up to 15 minutes; and Class Counsel remains responsible to make the necessary arrangements to enable Duran to testify remotely, by Judge William J. Martinez on 6/20/2016. (evana, ) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
179 OBJECTIONS to 166 Order on Motions for Transportation by Interested Party Douglas Wilson. (cthom, ) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
180 MINUTE ENTRY for Fairness Hearing held before Judge William J. Martinez on 6/29/2016. Court Reporter: Mary George. (dhans, ) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

Case: 1:13-cv-3399 As of: 11/03/2016 08:28 PM MDT 18 of 18

06/30/2016 06/30/2016 06/30/2016 07/06/2016 07/08/2016
07/11/2016

181 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiffs Dominic Duran, Anthony Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Fontana, Lauren) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
182 MEMORANDUM regarding 181 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Anthony Gomez, Dominic Duran. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya by Judge William J. Martinez on 06/30/2016. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, ) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
183 MINUTE ORDER granting 181 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Lauren Louise Fontana is relieved of any further representation, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 6/30/16. Text Only Entry(sgrim) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
184 ORDER granting 145 Motion for Attorney Fees by Judge William J. Martinez on 07/06/2016.(cthom, ) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
185 Objections to Proposed Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and Notice to the Court and Notice to the Court and All Parties Concerned of Murauskas Intent to Appear at June 29, 2016 Hearing and Bear Witness Testimony on said Issues; Plaintiff Murauskas Motion to Order the Defendants and to Order the Clerk of the Court; Cover letter to the Office of the Clerk; "Proof of Service' to Defendant Trani, Certificate of Service by Mail, by Interested Party Keith E Murauskas. (cthom, ) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
186 ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Keith Murauskas's Objections to Proposed Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Notice to the Court and All Parties Concerned of Intent to Appear at the June 29, 2016 Hearing 185 , dated June 15, 2016, and filed July 8, 2016. The deadline for submitting objections was May 6, 2016. The Court held its hearing on June 29, 2016, as scheduled. The Court has already entered its order approving the class action settlement. Murauskas's Objections are therefore STRICKEN. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 07/11/2016. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1) (Entered: 07/11/2016)