Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 1 of 51
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA'EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS, MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, and ANDREW CRAWFORD, on behalfofthemselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, TANESHA WAY, in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, PAT LEPORE, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, TERRY DUFFY, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, JAMES GALLAGHER, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, BRUCE JAMES, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, ELEASE EVANS, in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Passaic County, CHARLES MEYERS, in his official capacity as Warden of Passaic County Jail, STEVEN MYERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of Passaic County Jail, and GEORGE W. HAYMAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No. - - - - - - -

Defendants.

The named plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, through their undersigned attorneys, by way of complaint against the defendants, hereby allege as follows:

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 2 of 51

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Over a century and a half ago, Dostoyefsky wrote that "the standards of a nation's

civilization can be judged by opening the doors of its prisons." Less than twenty miles from this

Courthouse at the Passaic County Jail ("PCJ"), inmates- many of whom are pre-trial detainees

who have not been convicted of any crime - are crammed like sardines into squalid rooms, with

temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees during the summer and plummet to levels described

as "freezing cold" in the winter. Deprived of sleep, they eat undercooked food contaminated

with rodent droppings, within five or six feet of other inmates who are defecating. Terrorized by

barking and snarling dogs, they are subjected to beatings by correction officers, are prevented

from observing the tenets of their religious faiths, and are retaliated against when they dare to

complain about their inhumane conditions of confinement. This occurs in a facility that has been

found time and again to present a serious fire hazard.

2. Federal judges in this vicinage have referred to PCJ as "a notably deplorable

institution" with conditions that are "absolutely intolerable," "degrading," "shameful," "overly

punitive," "not right" and "not human." State officials have described the conditions as "an

embarrassment." Widespread concern has been voiced by groups ranging from Amnesty

International to the Association of the Federal Bar of the State ofNew Jersey.

3.

For their part, inmates describe PCJ as "hell," "a form of torture," and like "a

third world country" where they ·are treated like "animals." Inmates who have been detained at

numerous other correctional facilities report that PCJ is by far the worse place they have ever

experienced, or even imagined. It has become a sad reality that inmates have begun taking plea

bargains they would not ordinarily take in order to get out of the facility - believing that life at

any New Jersey prison would be infinitely better than life at PCJ.

2

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 3 of 51
4. This affront to human decency has been going on for well over twenty years and continues unabated. In short, this facility demonstrates just how uncivilized we as a society have permitted ourselves to become. A recent opinion of this Court asked the question of "how long we continue to tum a deaf ear" to these conditions. Not one minute more is the answer.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of rights secured by the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 6. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in this judicial district and several if not all of the defendants reside in this district.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 7. Plaintiffs have fulfilled the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requiring inmates to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their constitutional rights.
PARTIES The Named Plaintiffs 8. Plaintiff Angel Colon is a 59 year old inmate who currently resides at PCJ in Paterson, New Jersey, and has been detained at PCJ for over four months. He is a pre-trial detainee who has accepted a plea and is awaiting sentencing. As such, Colon is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. 9. Plaintiff Roy Schmitt is a 25 year old inmate who currently resides at PCJ in Paterson, New Jersey, and has been detained at PCJ since January 2008. Schmitt is currently
3

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 4 of 51
serving a sentence of less than 365 days at PCJ. As such, Schmitt is protected by the Eighth Amendment.
10. Plaintiff Jubra'eel Lebron is a 46 year old inmate who currently resides at PCJ in Paterson, New Jersey, and has been detained there since August 2007. He is a pre-trial detainee who has accepted a plea and is awaiting sentencing. As such, Lebron is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
11. Plaintiff Winifred Gates is a 54 year old inmate currently residing at PCJ in Paterson, New Jersey. He has been detained at PCJ since September 2007. He is a pre-trial detainee who has taken a plea and is awaiting sentencing. As such, Gates is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
12. Plaintiff Mark Harkins is a 27 year old inmate who currently resides at PCJ in Paterson, New Jersey. He has been detained at PCJ since May 2008. He is a pre-trial detainee who has pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing. As such, Harkins is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
13. Plaintiff Matthew Carley is a 37 year old inmate who currently resides at PCJ in Paterson, New Jersey. He has been detained at PCJ since August 2005. He is a pre-trial detainee who has pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing. As such, Carley is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
14. Plaintiff Cecilio Toledano is a 50 year old inmate who currently resides at PCJ in Paterson, New Jersey. He has been detained there since January 2008. He is a pre-trial detainee who is awaiting trial. As such, Toledano is protected by the Eighth Amendment.
15. Plaintiff Andrew Crawford is a 22 year old inmate who currently resides at PCJ in Paterson, New Jersey. He has been detained there since May 2007. He is a pre-trial detainee
4

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 5 of 51
who has not been convicted and is awaiting trial. As such, Crawford is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Named Defendants 16. Defendant Passaic County (the "County") is a political and geographic subdivision of the State of New Jersey, organized under state law. The County oversees PCJ operations through the Passaic County Sheriffs Department. Under applicable federal and state law, the County is responsible for the conduct of its governmental subdivisions, including PCJ and the Passaic County Sheriffs Department. 17. Defendant Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders (the "Board") is the governing body of Passaic County. Composed of seven elected members, the Board discharges both executive and legislative responsibilities, including making all funding decisions and appropriating (or failing to appropriate) money for PCJ, pursuant to N.J. Stat. § 40:20-1. 18. Defendant Passaic County Sheriffs Department (the "Sheriffs Department") is the chief law enforcement body of Passaic County. Through its Corrections Division, the Passaic County Sheriffs Department staffs PCJ with correction officers who, pursuant to policy set by the jail administration, oversee virtually every aspect of the inmates' confinement. 19. Defendant Charles Meyers ("Warden Meyers" or "the Warden") is the Warden of PCJ. Warden Meyers is the administrative head of PCJ and is responsible for its daily management, maintenance, and operation, as well as for training and disciplining employees. Warden Meyers is sued in his official capacity. 20. Defendant Steven Myers ("Deputy Myers") is the Deputy Warden of PCJ. Deputy Myers is responsible for assisting Warden Meyers in the daily operations of the jail. Deputy Myers is sued in his official capacity.
5

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 6 of 51
21. Defendant Sonia Rosado is a member and Director of Passaic County's Board of Chosen Freeholders (the "Board"). Defendant Rosado has been a Freeholder since 2000, and currently heads the Board, presides over public meetings, and is responsible for appointing Board members to committees. In her capacity as Freeholder, Defendant Rosado is responsible for funding decisions affecting PCJ. Defendant Rosado is sued in her official capacity.
22. Defendant Tanesha Way is a member and Deputy Director of Passaic County's Board of Chosen Freeholders. Defendant Way has been a Freeholder since 2006. In her capacity as Freeholder, Defendant Way is responsible for funding decisions affecting PCJ. Defendant Way is sued in her official capacity.
23. Defendant Pat Lepore is a member of Passaic County's Board of Chosen Freeholders. Defendant Lepore has been a Freeholder since 2004. In his capacity as Freeholder, Defendant Lepore is responsible for funding decisions affecting PCJ. Defendant Lepore is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant Terry Duffy is a member of Passaic County's Board of Chosen Freeholders. Defendant Duffy has been a Freeholder since 2004. In his capacity as Freeholder, Defendant Duffy is responsible for funding decisions affecting PCJ. Defendant Duffy is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant James Gallagher is a member of Passaic County's Board of Chosen Freeholders. Defendant Gallagher has been a Freeholder since 1997. In his capacity as Freeholder, Defendant Gallagher is responsible for funding decisions affecting PCJ. Defendant Gallagher is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant Bruce James is a member of Passaic County's Board of Chosen Freeholders. Defendant James has been a Freeholder since 2005. In his capacity as Freeholder,
6

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 7 of 51
Defendant James is responsible for funding decisions affecting PCJ. Defendant James is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Elease Evans is a member of Passaic County's Board of Chosen Freeholders. Defendant Evans has been a Freeholder since 2002. In her capacity as Freeholder, Defendant Evans is responsible for funding decisions affecting PCJ. Defendant Evans is sued in her official capacity.
28. Defendant Jerry Speziale is the SheriffofPassaic County. Defendant Speziale (or "the Sheriff') has been the Sheriff since 2002. In his capacity as Sheriff, Speziale is the chief law enforcement officer of Passaic County and is responsible for establishing and enforcing the policies and procedures of the Passaic County Sheriffs Department, including the Corrections Division at PCJ. Defendant Speziale is sued in his official capacity.
29. Defendant George W. Hayman is the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (the "DOC"). Defendant Hayman has been Acting Commissioner of the DOC since 2006 and Commissioner since 2007. In his capacity as Commissioner, Hayman is responsible for overseeing the operation and management of all state prisons and county jails. Defendant Hayman is also responsible for the annual inspections of PCJ, and the granting of waivers of state regulations for correction facilities by the DOC. These waivers have allowed PCJ to continue to operate despite being in violation of numerous state regulations. Defendant Hayman is sued in his official capacity.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 1. This action is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who are now, or will become incarcerated at PCJ during the pendency of this lawsuit.
7

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 8 of 51
2. Upon information and belief, the class consists of a population that has fluctuated in number, with as many as 1,774 inmates in late July 2008 and countless future detainees. As such, the class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable within the meaning ofRule 23(a)(1).
3. There are multiple questions of law and fact common to all Class members, as required by Rule 23(a)(2). Each Class member either has or will be incarcerated at PCJ, and has been or will be subjected to substantially similar conditions of confinement. Each Class member's claim raises the same basic questions: (1) whether the challenged conditions of confinement violate the United States Constitution, and (2) what type of injunctive relief is appropriate and necessary to ameliorate the current conditions of confinement at PCJ.
4. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class, as required by Rule 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs, like all Class members, allege that Defendants violated their rights under the United States Constitution by subjecting them to the challenged conditions of confinement. All Class members will benefit from the amelioration of the conditions at PCJ. Plaintiffs' interests in successfully resolving this action are thus consistent with the interests of all other Class members, and there is no actual or potential conflict between the Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
5. Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced counsel. Plaintiffs, through counsel, will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the all Class members, as required by Rule 23(a)(4).
6. Plaintiffs' counsel, Seton Hall Law School's Center for Social Justice (the "CSJ''), have extensive experience litigating class actions in a wide range of public interest and constitutional matters. Representative class actions handled by the CSJ include Alves v.
8

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 9 of 51
Ferguson, Civ. No. 01-789 (D.N.J, ongoing) (putative class action challenging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and inadequate mental health treatment afforded civilly committed sex offenders) and M.A. v. Newark Public Schools, CV No. 01-3389 (D.N.J. 2003) (class action challenging inadequate special education programs).
7. Plaintiffs' counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (the "ACLU-NJ"), also have extensive experience litigating class actions in a wide range of public interest and constitutional matters. Representative class actions handled by the ACLU-NJ include Jones v. Hayman (ongoing state court action challenging discriminatory conditions of confinement afforded female prisoners) and Sojourner A. v. NJ Dep't. of Human Svcs., 177 N.J. 318, 828 A.2d 308 (N.J. 2003) (challenging New Jersey's welfare cap).
8. Plaintiffs' counsel, Dechert LLP, also have extensive experience litigating class actions in public interest and constitutional matters. Representative class actions handled by Dechert as pro bono counsel include Williams v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2003) (putative class action challenging prison diet provided to Muslim inmates) and Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2001) (class action challenging constitutionality of Pennsylvania's welfare benefits regulations). Dechert has also served as counsel in literally hundreds of private class actions.
9. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief only. Defendants have 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, thereby satisfying the requirement of Rule 23(b)(2).
9

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 10 of 51
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. HISTORY OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS AT PCJ A. The Valentine Litigation
10. Over thirty years ago, PCJ inmates filed a class action against the Board, the Sheriff, the Warden, and their successors-in-office, challenging conditions of confinement at the then-existing jail which violated their constitutional rights. Valentine v. Englehardt, Civ. Action No. 78-270 (D.N.J., filed Feb. 8, 1978). The jail at that time was designed to accommodate 227 inmates, but consistently held many more.
11. The Valentine plaintiffs complained, inter alia, of overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions, inadequate heating, cooling and ventilation, insufficient opportunities for religious worship, inadequate and nutritionally deficient food, and denial of access to the courts.
12. In January of 1978, the Board, Sheriff and Warden agreed to settle the Valentine litigation. Under the settlement, the defendants agreed to, inter alia:
(a) Provide each inmate with a clean mattress, blanket and pillow upon admission, replace or clean these as needed, and provide clean sheets weekly;
(b) Keep all areas of the jail clean and sanitary, keep all plumbing fixtures in operable condition, and provide an adequate supply of hot water for showers and cleaning;
(c) Survey the present ventilation at the jail and provide such improvements as may be necessary in order to bring the existing facility into compliance with the State's Uniform Construction Code and provide "healthful ventilation, heating and cooling";
(d) Provide professional extermination services throughout the jail on a weekly basis to ensure control of insects and rodents;
(e) Provide inmates with adequate supplies and equipment to maintain their housing areas in clean condition, including the cleaning of mops on a regular basis;
10

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 11 of 51
(f) Paint and clean all areas of the jail on a regular basis; (g) Provide all inmates with the opportunity to attend religious services of
all major faiths on a weekly basis. (h) Provide screening devices to ensure that inmates who were eating
meals were not exposed to other inmates in the process of defecating. 13. On April 10, 1979, after the fulfillment of all class action notice and hearing requirements, this Court approved the settlement, stating that: The settlement requires that the defendants take various actions to ensure the cleanliness and suitability of the inmates' living areas, clothing and food, and to improve medical-dental care. . . The disciplinary procedures will be improved.. . . Inmates will be assured of access to toilet facilities and those facilities will be screened from the view of other inmates. In sum, the settlement agreement provides for a vast improvement in the living conditions and treatment of Passaic County Jail inmates. 14. As detailed below, despite the Valentine settlement, the conditions at PCJ did not improve. In fact, they steadily deteriorated. B. Conditions at PCJ After the Valentine Settlement 15. In September of 1981, just eighteen months after the settlement, former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean toured the facility and described the conditions as "an embarrassment." 16. PCJ was constructed in the 1950s. At a recent hearing before one of the Judges in this vicinage, Warden Meyers testified that the "[a]verage life cycle of a public building is 25 years or so" and that the County "should have built a new facility" in the 1970s or 1980s. 17. Instead of building a new facility, however, the defendants adopted a policy of cramming as many inmates as possible into the existing structure. 18. Warden Meyers- who has worked at the facility for over two decades- testified at the recent hearing that PCJ "has been overcrowded for at least 20 years."
11

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 12 of 51
19. At the time of the Valentine settlement in 1979, PCJ held an average of 300 inmates.
20. At the end of April1982, the inmate population had risen to over 500. 21. The following year, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article in which PCJ officials were interviewed. The article reported that PCJ held 587 inmates, more than double its then-design capacity of227, that "[a]s many as six men slept in a cell that measured 8 feet by 10 feet," and that "[t]hirty-eight men were jammed in a cellblock designed for a maximum of 16." 22. The article went on to describe conditions within the prison: Men lay everywhere in a labyrinth of bodies in the second-floor cellblock of the Passaic County Jail. Some sat on steel benches, writing letters or trying to watch television through the bars. They were surrounded by dozens of men on mattresses on the floor. Wrapped in gray blankets or sheets, they tried to sleep despite the constant noise. Some inmates had created makeshift hammocks by tying their sheets to the bars. This allowed them the luxury of resting several feet above the crowded floor. Clotheslines hung with drying laundry crisscrossed the cellblock. With no place to put personal possessions, inmates had crammed their books and shoes between the bars. This cellblock was designed for a maximum of 16; on Feb. 8, it held 36. The three other cellblocks on this wing each held more than 30 men.... In the jail's psychiatric wing on the second floor, 25 men were housed in a dormitory designed to hold a maximum of 12. Guards sit outside the dormitory 24 hours a day on "suicide watch." 23. In May of 1985, the New York Times reported that PCJ was housing 778 inmates, over three times its then-design capacity of 227. 24. In April of 1989, the New York Times quoted then-Sheriff Edwin Englehardt as stating that "as many as 102 women [were] crowded into a day room designed for no more than 40," that "[m]attresses covered almost every bit of floor space."
12

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 13 of 51
25. Even after the jail was expanded in 1991 to accommodate a design capacity of 896 inmates, the jail continued to be severely overcrowded.
26. In 2003, Warden Meyers gave an interview in which he stated that the PCJ was "almost over 200 percent over capacity."
27. In 2005, Sheriffs Department spokesman Bill Maer was quoted in the Bergen County Record as stating that "the jail is designed to have a capacity of 800, but holds more than 2,000 inmates, including immigration detainees, U.S. Marshal prisoners, and county and state inmates."
28. Overcrowding is not the only problem that has long plagued PCJ. PCJ has for many years been considered one of the country's most notorious jails due to the inhumane conditions in which inmates are forced to exist.
29. As long ago as 1983, the then-Sheriff Edwin Englehardt was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Englehardt is proud of running what he calls "the most dreaded jail in New Jersey." "It's a rough life for them. But that's tough. They did it to themselves. I don't want them to be comfortable." "Let them suffer ... Give them what they're entitled to and nothing more." 30. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") began an investigation into conditions at the facility. 31. In July of that year, the Sheriff ejected the federal investigators from the jail, accusing them of arrogance and incompetence. Sheriffs Department spokesman Bill Maer was quoted in the Bergen Record as stating that "[t]hey're arrogant, they don't know what they are talking about, and they are a disgrace to the federal government." According to Maer, "[i]nvestigators ordered jail personnel around, made unfounded accusations and asked the department's Internal Affairs Division to review allegations."
13

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 14 of 51
32. After the federal investigators were authorized to reenter PCJ, they finished their investigation and issued a Report (the "OIG Report"). The OIG Report found numerous deficiencies in the treatment of federal detainees at PCJ, including but not limited to inadequate health care, evidence of rats, mice and cockroaches in the units, inadequate ventilation, and inadequate clothing for inmates. B. Revenue Generation - "Corrections for Profit"
33. Many of the problems at PCJ stem from the deliberate and long-standing policy on the part of the defendants to cram as many prisoners as possible into PCJ. This policy of overcrowding is designed to generate as much revenue as possible for the County, which uses this revenue for non-jail related projects and to balance its general budget.
34. For over 20 years, the PCJ has housed inmates on behalf of the State of New Jersey and the federal government in exchange for a daily fee per inmate.
35. According to the 2007 County budget, the County realized $10,085,615.88 in revenue from the housing of federal inmates in 2006, plus a further $3,900,000 in receivables for the prior year. According to the same budget, the County also realized $4,403,019 in revenue from the housing of state inmates
36. According to the 2008 County budget, the County realized $12,324,290 in revenue from the housing of federal inmates in 2007. According to the same budget, the County also realized $5,238.731 in revenue from the housing of state inmates.
37. However, after the OIG investigation into conditions at the facility, and subsequent reductions in sentences for criminal defendants exposed to those conditions made by Judges sitting on this Court, all federal inmates were removed from the facility by the end of March 2008.
14

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 15 of 51

38. The decision to remove federal inmates meant a projected loss of revenue to the

County of over $1 0 million this year alone.

39. Warden Meyers testified before this Court that the revenue received from PCJ's

housing of inmates on behalf of other government entities "goes into the general funds" of the

County. As Meyers also testified, the "Freeholders have gotten accustomed to the revenue that

comes in, if it were to evaporate very quickly, it would leave a vacuum that would be difficult to

fill ..."

40. Despite reaping over a hundred million dollars over the years from the housing of

inmates at PCJ, a Sheriffs Department spokesman stated in 2004 that "most years the Jail

requests less than $150,000 for maintenance."

41. Instead, the County has used this revenue for other projects. For example:

(a)

In October of 2007, the County opened a new 41,000 square foot

Investigative Headquarters for the Passaic County Prosecutor's Office.

The County spent $4.9 million to build the facility and a further $4.7

million on "state of the art" equipment;

(b)

The County recently constructed a three story, 196,000 square foot

addition to the Preakness Healthcare Center in Wayne. According to

the County, this facility "provides residents' rooms & sitting areas

overlooking courtyards with lush gardens & walking paths, covered

walkways, and a 'Main Street' with shops & amenities for residents

and visitors";

(c)

The County has also spent tens of millions of dollars over the last

decade on acquiring tracts of land as "open space" and on park

restorations, including the creation of skateboard parks and Botanical

Gardens.

42. Joseph Hartmann, the Coordinator of the New Jersey Department of Corrections'

Office of County Services, has characterized Passaic County's policy regarding revenue derived

from PCJ as "corrections for profit."

15

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 16 of 51
43. In response to the recent loss in revenue from the housing of federal inmates, the defendant Board responded in two ways. First, it cut the Sheriffs Department budget. Second, it authorized defendant Speziale to replace the lost revenue by identifying other government entities willing to enter into contracts to house out-of-state inmates at PCJ.
44. To that end, Sheriffs Department spokesman Bill Maer was quoted as stating that: "[Speziale] has been in contact with various public entities in our region including Philadelphia ... The Sheriff has continued to work toward identifying as many revenue sources as possible." In March of 2008, Maer was quoted as stating that "Now that the jail has been hovering around 1,500, we certainly feel that there is capacity for additional inmates without having issues of overcrowding ..."
45. Defendant Speziale's contacts eventually led to an agreement with the City of Philadelphia in June of 2008 to house 300 Philadelphia inmates. On June 1, 2008, 98 Philadelphia inmates were transferred to PCJ. Passaic County Auditor Steven Wielkotz was quoted as stating that "another 200 inmates are expected to arrive by July 1," and that the agreement would "restore more than $5 million in revenue to the County's budget."
46. Ironically, the City of Philadelphia entered into this agreement as part of its effort to comply with a federal court injunction requiring it to take "affirmative steps to redress the unconstitutional conditions" stemming from overcrowding in its own correctional system. See Bowers v. City of Philadelphia, No. 06-CV-3229 (Memorandum and Order) (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2007).
16

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 17 of 51
II. UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS AT PCJ TODAY A. Persistent Overcrowding
47. In September and October of2007, the Honorable Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J., held a hearing in connection with the application of a criminal defendant for a downward departure under the federal sentencing guidelines on the basis that the conditions of confinement at PCJ constituted punishment in themselves ("the Sutton hearing"). Warden Meyers, Joseph Hartman from the DOC, and Inspector Samuel Gaita of the City of Paterson Fire Department all testified at the hearing.
48. Warden Meyers testified that PCJ has a design capacity of 896 inmates, yet the facility then housed an average of"1900 [inmates], give or take 10 or 15 percent."
49. He also testified that there are two types of inmate housing at PCJ - large dormitory-style units that house an average of 64 inmates, and units made up entirely of cells. According to the Warden, most inmates are housed in the dormitory-style units, where they spend an average of 23 hours per day, and eat, sleep, bathe, urinate and defecate.
50. A diagram provided to the Court in connection with a recent hearing illustrates the configuration of a typical dormitory-style unit:
17

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 18 of 51

I

..'. ~~ f' Trtl.>lt I+- crz"-t...__,~~ BEo~;. (, ,''"~ /

S'i'

TASLf; i' to113

li'TII&I!)

I

u· r~ k!!J

I.

I
~

I .
51. As the diagram illustrates, these units measure approximately 54 feet by 40 feet. To accommodate the overcrowded conditions, many of these units contain double and triple bunk beds that are 22 inches apart. Inmates currently detained at PCJ report that some beds are now as little as 12 to 18 inches apart.
52. These conditions violate state regulations governing correctional facilities, which are set forth in the New Jersey Administrative Code (the "Code").
53. The Code requires that multiple occupancy sleeping units "contain a minimum of 25 square feet of unencumbered floor space per inmate," N.J.A.C. 10A:31-3.6 (b), (g) (2008). The Code also provides that "all adult correctional facilities shall have dayrooms, and that these dayrooms contain "35 feet of floor space per inmate, exclusive of lavatories, showers and toilets

18

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 19 of 51
... separate and distinct from the sleeping area, but immediately adjacent and accessible therefrom." N.J.A.C. 10A:31-3.6 (j). As the diagram illustrates, the dormitory units at PCJ do not contain a separate dayroom, far less the required amount of space. In fact, the DOC's annual inspection report in 2007 noted that due to the overpopulation at PCJ, inmates had begun sleeping in the portion of the unit where the tables are located.
54. The Code also requires that dayrooms "provide sufficient seating, writing, and eating surfaces for every inmate using the dayroom at one time." N.J.A.C. 10A:31-3.6(k). As the diagram again illustrates, the most dormitory units at PCJ contain three tables, which Warden Meyers testified can seat five or six people. Thus there is no possible way that 64 inmates can sit down to eat at the same time. Instead, inmates eat standing next to or sitting on their bunks. Many inmates assigned to triple bunks are unable to eat sitting on their bunks, since there is not enough space between the beds to allow an adult to sit up straight. Those inmates must share someone else's bunk during mealtime.
55. As discussed in detail below, the overcrowding at PCJ has resulted in conditions which pose a substantial and ongoing risk to inmates' physical and mental health. B. Threat of Inmate Violence
56. This persistent overcrowding at PCJ creates a dangerously tense atmosphere, leading to a disproportionately high level of tension and violence.
57. As long ago as 1989, then-Sheriff Edwin Englehart described conditions of overcrowding in PCJ, reporting that "the atmosphere was very tense," with inmates fighting among themselves.
19

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 20 of 51
58. More recently, Joseph Hartmann testified at the Sutton hearing that overcrowding "raises the level of assaults of violence among the inmate population ... everybody is just on top of each other and that certainly raises the tension level ..."
59. As one former PCJ inmate testified: [Y]ou had more assaults in my dorm because of the overcrowding. People who were agitated at the slightest little thing, they would fight. The slightest, you know, like cut in front of somebody in the line to use the urinal. I seen fights generated because of that ... There's been fights in every month since I have been there. 60. The ensuing violence has caused inmates to suffer physical harm, and poses an ongoing substantial risk that many inmates will be similarly harmed in the future. C. Unsanitary Living Conditions 61. Inmates are also forced to exist in squalid and unhygienic living conditions. 62. In the dormitory-style units, the toilet and shower facilities are located within the same room in which the inmates eat and sleep. 63. As the diagram above illustrates, a typical dormitory-style unit has only three toilets, one urinal, three showers, and four sinks for what the Warden testified at the time of the hearing was an average of 64 inmates. As the diagram further illustrates, the toilets are located in close proximity to the tables at which the inmates are expected to eat. 64. During the Sutton hearing, the following colloquy took place between counsel for the defendant and Warden Meyers:
Q. [I]n fact, the toilets are within a few feet of the dining tables, is that correct? A. The nearest is about six or seven feet. Q. Okay. And there's just a perforated divider between the toilets and the dining tables, is that right? A. Yeah, a half wall with steal perforations in it, yes.
20

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 21 of 51
Q. So if an inmate was dining on- at the table they could be within six feet of a person that was using the commode? A. That's likely. Q. And is there any kind of a vapor barrier to try to use the best word? A. No,no. 65. Almost thirty years ago, almost precisely the same colloquy took place between the then-Warden and the Court in the Valentine litigation. THE COURT: Does somebody go to the bathroom while somebody is eating there? Is that right? THE WARDEN: They could. THE COURT: If somebody has to go to the bathroom. THE WARDEN: They would. THE COURT: They'd do that, wouldn't they? THE WARDEN: That's right. THE COURT: I see ... THEWARDEN: It is not a dining room. THE COURT: Do the prisoners have any place else to eat? THEWARDEN: No. 66. As one inmate has testified, inmates would pull their t-shirts over their faces in order to avoid the smell of feces while they are eating. 67. The Code provides that "living units shall be located and designed to safeguard the privacy of inmates." N.J.A.C. 10A:31-3.4G). It also provides that "[d]ining areas shall not contain exposed toilets in the same room or in the view of inmates dining." N.J.A.C. 1OA: 313.13(c).
21

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 22 of 51
68. The Code further provides that "[t]he minimum ratio of toilets, wash basins and mirrors in multiple occupancy sleeping units shall be:
1. One toilet for every 12 inmates in male sleeping units (one half of these toilets may be urinals);
2. One toilet for every eight inmates in female sleeping units; 3. One operable wash basin with hot and cold running water for every 12
inmates; and 4. One unbreakable mirror per wash basin." N.J.A.C. 10A:31-3.6(i). 69. The Code further provides that "[t]here shall be at least one operable shower with temperature controlled hot and cold water available for every 16 inmates." N.J.A.C. 10A:313.7(a). 70. The conditions at PCJ violate all of these regulations. 71. In addition, the floor drains in the units frequently become clogged, which results in sewage backup flooding into the cells. 72. The few toilets and showers available to the inmates often do not function. For example, an inmate recently testified that one of the showers in the units was not working for seven months and that no attempt was made to repair it. 73. When inmates are able to actually access a functioning shower, the water is often either scalding hot or unbearably cold. 74. In 2006, the OIG Report noted that "female detainees interviewed at PCJ complained that when toilets, showers, and sinks were in use at the same time, water temperature in the shower became excessively hot." The Report went on to state that "[w]e confirmed this unsafe condition in the female housing units during our review."
22

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 23 of 51
75. The filthy conditions that have long been a daily reality at PCJ are unsanitary, and pose a serious risk to the inmates' physical health. D. Rodent and Insect Infestation
76. Warden Meyers testified at the Sutton hearing that there are mice, insects and rodents in the facility, and that inmates sometimes find that food in the unit has been eaten by m1ce.
77. The OIG Report likewise indicated that of nine pest control service reports made available for the inspectors' review, eight of the nine reports indicated evidence of rats/mice and cockroaches at PCJ.
78. PCJ is also infested with insects. Inmates have to swat away bugs when they are using the toilet. Food trays, which often remain in the units for more than an hour after meals, attract fruit flies. Inmates have observed insects crawling from the ceilings and out of their mattresses, and have begun stuffing toilet paper in their ears and nostrils in order to keep the bugs from crawling into their ears and noses.
79. Inmates have attempted to keep their units clean to deter mice and insects, but the defendants do not provide the inmates with adequate cleaning materials. PCJ provides inmates with a mop, a brush and one bucket of water which quickly becomes dirty. PCJ provides no disinfectant and PCJ correction officers have denied inmates' requests for additional clean water, disinfectant, and other cleaning materials.
80. These unsanitary living conditions pose a serious, ongoing risk to the inmates' physical health. E. The Spread of Contagious Disease
81. Overcrowding prevents PCJ from segregating inmates with communicable diseases that could pose a serious risk to other inmates. For example, an inmate with shingles
23

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 24 of 51
was placed in one of the units. Although shingles is a highly contagious and serious illness, correction officers simply told the inmates in the unit to "be careful."
82. It has also been reported that at least one inmate and one correction officer have contracted methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus ("MRSA"), which can be fatal. Upon information and belief, the correction officer was hospitalized with the disease.
83. The failure to screen and segregate inmates with communicable diseases has exposed innumerable inmates to a serious, ongoing risk to their physical health. F. Unsafe and Inadequate Food
84. The food provided to inmates at PCJ is unsafe and inadequate. 85. As a result of the infestation, inmates have observed rodent feces in their cereal, and rodent bite marks on loaves of bread, bags of pretzels, and jelly packets. 86. In addition, inmates report that the food they are given has gone bad, recalling meals of brown turkey, juice with "stuff floating in it," and other food that is has been described as "off color and stinky." Inmates also report that they suffer gastronomic distress after eating the food at PCJ. 87. The OIG Report examined two instances where undercooked poultry was served to PCJ detainees. It reported: In the first instance, on October 14, 2005, a detainee gave us a piece of undercooked poultry served on the previous day. When presented with the undercooked piece of poultry, both PCJ officials and PCJ food service contractor agreed it was undercooked.... In the second instance, on October 28, 2005, a PCJ detainee gave us a grievance form, signed by 57 male detainees, stating that 10 people got sick from eating chicken. We reviewed the completed checklist for that day, which indicated that the oven temperature used to cook the poultry was not according to the new checklist procedures.
24

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 25 of 51
88. Inmates also report that they receive an inadequate amount of food, and the paltry amount of food they do get lacks the nutrition necessary for the basic human needs of adult inmates; several inmates relate that the amount of food is enough to sustain only a small child. As a result, those inmates with enough money purchase the expensive commissary food, or barter for additional food, in order to obtain enough nutrition to maintain their physical health. One inmate reported that he has spent over $1,000 on commissary food in seven months at PCJ because he cannot survive on the food he is given; he is grateful to have the means to afford this supplemental nutrition, whereas many inmates do not. Those that are unable to access those alternative food sources are being subjected to a substantial risk of serious harm to their physical health due to this lack of adequate nutrition. G. Inadequate Ventilation
89. During the Sutton hearing, Warden Meyers testified that the ventilation system at PCJ is "inadequate" because it was "designed for a certain population and we have exceeded that population." As a result, the Warden testified that "[i]fit was 90 degrees ambient outside, it is probably closer to 100 inside, maybe a little bit more."
90. Inmates describe their living conditions during the summer months as "oppressive," "brutal," "unbearable," "hellish," "maddening," and "a form of torture." Those who have been detained in other jails in New Jersey are genuinely perplexed at why those facilities provide air conditioning during the hot summer months, but PCJ does not.
91. This inadequate ventilation also contributes to high levels of humidity, which further increases the inmates' discomfort. Inmates report seeing the floor of their units "sweating," and covered with puddles of water due to the incredibly high levels of heat and humidity; some report slipping on floors that become slick in the heat.
25

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 26 of 51
92. The Warden acknowledged during the Sutton hearing that it is "typical for inmates to walk around in their jockey shorts" to escape the heat in the summer months.
93. In August of 2006, a PCJ inmate in his mid-30s died during a heat wave. The autopsy was inconclusive but, the coroner was unable to rule out the extreme heat at PCJ as the cause of death.
94. The excessive heat contributes to a further increase in inmate violence. During a heat wave in late July 2008, one inmate reported there were five serious fights in one unit within a span of three days.
95. Many inmates also report that they are unable to sleep on particularly hot days, or are unable to sleep for more than a half an hour at a time because they become so hot that they wake up drenched in a "pool of sweat."
96. Those inmates who are assigned to the top of a triple bunks suffer the most, since the hot air rises toward the ceiling. As a result, some inmates assigned to the top of triple bunks sleep on the floor, seeking relief from the intense heat.
97. The extreme heat is particularly difficult for inmates with certain medical conditions. For example, Plaintiff Angel Colon is 59 years old and has a severe asthma condition. In the four months that Colon has been detained at PCJ, he has had multiple asthma attacks due to the extreme heat, including one attack so severe that he was hospitalized in July 2008. As a result of the heat, Colon has experienced trouble breathing, audible wheezing, pain in his chest, and difficulty sleeping. Colon reports that the fumes coming into his housing unit through the ventilation system made his condition worse and that, for much of the summer of 2008, he feared that he would suffer an asthma attack so severe that he would die. Inmates in
26

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 27 of 51
Colon's unit, who observed the deterioration in his physical health during the hot summer months, harbored the same fears about his well-being.
98. The extreme heat at PCJ has caused Plaintiff Roy Schmitt to suffer serious psychological harm. Schmitt is a young man who suffers from severe depression and, has been treated with prescription anti-depressants for approximately ten years. Because of the heat, Schmitt - like so many other inmates - has experienced trouble sleeping throughout the summer months. This lack of sleep has aggravated Schmitt's depression, and he reports feeling suicidal.
99. During June and July 2008, the heat at PCJ was so unbearable that several lawyers from Passaic County Public Defender's Office had to leave the jail, cutting short planned visits with their clients. One attorney had to leave the jail because she was feeling faint due to the extreme heat in the visiting areas - which are estimated to be well over 100 degrees and lacking any ventilation whatsoever. Another Public Defender had to discontinue a client meeting and left the jail because his sweat was dripping all over his legal papers. This attorney was promised a fan during his next legal visit; on his next visit, no fan was provided. A woman who works as an investigator for the Public Defender's Office had to end a meeting with a client because she was feeling ill.
100. The inadequate ventilation at PCJ has caused inmates to suffer physical and psychological harm, and represents a serious, ongoing threat to their physical and mental health. H. Inadequate Heating Systems
101. PCJ's heating system is also insufficient to provide inmates with reasonable warmth during the winter months.
102. One inmate has testified that the walls of the unit frequently had condensation running down them and that inmates could see their breath in the cells. Warden Meyers himself
27

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 28 of 51
testified that inmates are not provided any additional clothes- beyond their thin, short-sleeved uniforms - to keep them warm during the winter months. Upon information and belief, the cold temperatures have contributed to an alarmingly high rate of inmate illness during the winter months. For example, Plaintiff Carley has experienced several serious and extremely painful sinus infections during his stay at PCJ, despite never having suffered from that illness before being detained at the jail.
103. The failure to provide inmates at PCJ with adequate heating during the winter months has caused inmates to suffer physical harm, and poses an ongoing, serious threat to their physical health. I. Unsafe Air Quality
104. In addition to these conditions, the ventilation system at PCJ results in extremely poor air quality that poses serious risks to inmate health.
105. PCJ's primitive ventilation system is operated by a "red light/green light" blower system. When activated, the "red light" is supposed to bring in air from outside, while the "green light" is supposed to pull out the internal air. But, the system functions so poorly that when the "red light" is activated, the system blows dust, dirt, fiber, and fumes into the units, often leaving a coating of dust, dirt, and fiber particles on the bunks and other surfaces.
106. The OIG Report also noted that "[w]e observed obstructed air vents in the male units at PCJ, and several large industrial fans in front of male detainee units that were unplugged and had a substantial amount of dust build-up.
107. The inadequate ventilation system also causes condensation to accumulate and mold to grow on the ceilings .and walls of the units.
28

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 29 of 51
108. This dangerously poor air quality exposes inmates to a substantial risk of serious physical harm, and inmates report that they suffer disproportionately frequent respiratory illnesses as a result of the unhealthy air conditions at PCJ.
109. For example, Plaintiff Mark Harkins had three head colds during the months of June and July 2008 alone which he attributes to the poor air quality in his unit.
110. Inmates with serious medical conditions, such as Plaintiff Angel Colon- who has a serious asthma condition - are particularly vulnerable to physical harm as a result of the poor air quality to which they are subjected every single day. J. Inadequate Clothing
111. The Code requires PCJ to issue its inmates "climatically suitable" clothing, N.J.A.C. 10A:31-12.1(a). PCJ, however, provides its inmates with only one uniform consisting of a short-sleeved shirt and draw string pants. As discussed above, PCJ does not provide inmates with any additional clothing articles during the winter.
112. The Code also requires PCJ to provide laundry services that "permit the exchange of inmate clothing." N.J.A.C. 10A:32-12.3(a). However, PCJ does not provide its inmates with spare clothing articles while their uniforms are being laundered. As a result, inmates must wait in their underwear for hours (often more than six hours, and sometimes up to twelve hours) until their uniforms are returned to them.
113. The OIG Report confirmed this fact, stating that "[a]t PCJ, we observed that when it is time for laundry to be done, detainees are not given clean clothes in exchange for dirty clothes. Instead, the detainees remain in their undergarments, or shorts, until their clean laundry is returned, which can take from 2 to 6 hours. Interviews with detainees confirmed that this was standard practice."
29

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 30 of 51
114. At the Sutton hearing, Warden Meyers testified that the lack of available storage space prevents PCJ from issuing more than one uniform to any inmate. K. Inadequate Sleep
115. Warden Meyers testified during the Sutton hearing that the last inmate count at PCJ takes place at 11 p.m. and can last up to 45 minutes. He further testified that breakfast is distributed at 4:30a.m. Some inmates report being served breakfast as early as 3:00a.m.
116. In the intervening period, inmates are frequently prevented from sleeping by other factors. As one inmate recently explained:
[B]ecause of this small proximity of the dorm the noise level is excruciating because people always making noise.· Not everybody sleeps at the same time. So between the guys making noise, which you can't tell them not to make noise, that would only invite trouble .... It is very nerve racking 117. Persistent loud noises - roll call, the blare of televisions until they are finally shut offbetween 2:00a.m. and 3:00a.m., and the loud clanking of the breakfast wagons which arrive between 3:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. - create an unrelenting cacophony that does not allow the inmates sufficient sleep. 118. The resulting sleep deprivation that inmates experience at PCJ has caused them to experience physical and psychological harm, and poses a serious and ongoing threat to their physical and mental health. L. PCJ Presents a Deadly Risk of Harm from Fire 119. PCJ also presents a serious fire hazard. Samuel Gaita, the City of Paterson Fire Inspector, testified at the Sutton hearing that (a) that PCJ does not have a sprinkler system except in the basement, offices and the medical unit, (b) that smoke detectors are missing, (c) that the overcrowding in PCJ has increased the risk of a fire, (d) that smoke would make evacuation and response very difficult, and (d) that these deficiencies all violate the applicable fire regulations.
30

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 31 of 51
120. According to Inspector Gaita, fire regulations require a passive sprinkler system throughout PCJ. PCJ, however, does not comply.
121. Instead, the only fire suppression system available for use in the units consists of fire extinguishers and a hose at the end of the corridors. This is supplemented by a "fire watch," which Inspector Gaita characterized as "men that just patrol the jail just looking for fires." In the event of a fire, someone other than an inmate would "have to grab the hose [in the corridor or stairwell] and pull it off the rack and tum the value on manually to open up the water."
122. Inspector Gaeta also indicated that the fire alarm system at PCJ "is in trouble" and that he couldn't even tell if the system would even function or not. A recent inspection also found that some smoke detectors in the facility were missing and others had to be replaced.
123. Fire Inspector Gaita called the absence of sprinklers and working fire alarm systems in the units "serious violations" of the local fire code. He also testified that the overcrowding at PCJ "increase[s] the risk of fire." When Gaita was asked, "do you consider the situation to be of crisis proportions," he responded, "[y]es. Because the way I feel, the human response could always be delayed in any situation especially if there's a fire and it's heavy smoke, you would have to try and find it. As having these either sprinkler system or fire alarm system in place, it will pick it up earlier and at least the suppression system would try to put it out."
124. The City of Paterson Fire Department has issued PCJ numerous fire and safety code violations, including a continuing violation for the absence of a sprinkler system in the units, a violation for failing to maintain a working fire. alarm system, and a violation for inoperable smoke detectors. As late as May ofthis year, PCJ still had 23 fire code violations.
31

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 32 of 51
125. Despite being fully aware of the problem, Defendants have failed to remedy the dangerous situation and continue to subject inmates to substantial risk of serious physical harm. M. Use of Dogs To Intimidate Inmates
126. PCJ uses dogs to patrol the facility. Both Warden Meyers and Joseph Hartmann from the DOC testified at the Sutton hearing that PCJ is the only New Jersey jail they are aware of that uses canine units.
127. In 2004, National Public Radio ("NPR") broadcast a report detailing the use of dogs to terrorize inmates at PCJ. The next day, the federal government prohibited use of canine units with federal detainees. However, PCJ continued to use dogs for what a Sheriffs Department spokesman has characterized as "behavior modification."
128. Dogs are routinely permitted to bark ferociously, growl, snarl, and lunge at PCJ inmates. There have also been instances in which PCJ inmates have been bitten and required hospital treatment.
129. Even visitors are not immune from the canine patrols. For example, an attorney interviewed on the NPR broadcast described how, during a client visit, a dog was permitted to lunge at him, barking ferociously, coming within an inch ofhis leg.
130. Upon information and belief, defendants have long been aware of the danger that the canine units present, but have failed to adopt the policies, provide the training, and institute the supervision necessary to prevent the dogs from causing the PCJ inmate population unwarranted psychological and physical harm. N. Excessive Force by Correction Officers.
131. It is a sad fact of life for inmates at PCJ that correction officers have created a "culture of violence." Many inmates report that they have been subjected to assaults and beatings at the hands of the abusive PCJ correction officers, and that "crazy beat downs" occur
32

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 33 of 51
"all the time" at PCJ, and for no reason. PCJ inmates speak about correction officer violence as ordinary events. Many PCJ inmates have either been beaten by a correction officer without provocation, or have seen an inmate being beaten by a correction officer without provocation.
132. Inmates consistently report that these beatings follow a familiar pattern: the inmate has done little or nothing to provoke the officer, the inmate is then removed from the housing unit and taken to a location where there are no security cameras, and is then beaten by a correction officer or a group of officers. Many of these beatings occur while the inmate is handcuffed, lying face down on the ground, or standing with his hands against the wall, as directed by an officer.
133. There also appears to be a pattern of covering up the most serious beatings: inmates report that those who have suffered visibly severe injuries are placed in "the hole" (i.e., in segregation) until their wounds have healed. Inmates who have been beaten are also routinely charged with offenses such as abusive language, or threatening an officer, in order to make the excessive use of force appear justified. Those who have seen the events leading up to inmate beatings report that such charges are often bogus, and are sometimes brought against inmates who did no more than use a curse word in the course of a conversation with an officer.
134. Plaintiff Carley reports that he has been beaten by correction officers without provocation on two occasions. The first beating occurred shortly after Plaintiff was detained at PCJ: Plaintiff was taken by an officer, shoved into an area that was under the security camera, and thus out of the camera's sight, and hit four times in the abdomen. A similar incident happened approximately ten days later.
135. On another occasion, Carley reports that he was touched inappropriately by a correction officer. Specifically, during a "pat down," the officer groped and fondled Carley's
33

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 34 of 51
genitals with his right hand for several seconds. After three years of detention at PCJ, Carley had experienced a sufficient number pat downs to know that this was not routine behavior on the part of the correction officer.
136. Plaintiff Andrew Crawford recalls a particularly heinous beating that he suffered at the hands of several PCJ correction officers. First, one officer punched him in the ribs without provocation. Then, several other officers then joined in the beating, jumping on Crawford, hitting him with their fists, and kicking him in his body and his face. As a result, Crawford sustained injuries to his nose and lip, and bled from his face. When the officers were finished beating Crawford, he was simply instructed to clean himself up.
137. Plaintiff Roy Schmitt was also beat by several correction officers during an incident in early February 2008; shockingly, the beating occurred immediately after he had tried to commit suicide. Earlier in the day, Schmitt - who suffers from severe depression, and was taking prescription anti-depressants- had informed correction and medical staff members that he was feeling suicidal. He was taken to a part of the jail known as the "receiving area," where he was held for several hours. At some point, he was told that he would be put in "the hole" if he was feeling suicidal. Feeling hopeless and depressed, Schmitt took a sheet, tied one end around his neck and the other to a metal piece at the top of a nearby door, climbed on a bench, and succeeded in hanging himself momentarily. Several correction officers immediately rushed to him and held Schmitt up so that he would not hang. Before taking Schmitt down, however, the officers punched him. After the officers untied him, and placed him on the floor, the officers then kicked Schmitt numerous times in the body. The officers then took the sheet, which was still tied to Schmitt's neck, and dragged him down the hallway. When Schmitt was taken past a nur~e's office, the nurse on duty noticed what was happening and told the officers to stop, telling
34

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 35 of 51
them "you can't do that, you guys are going to get in trouble." The nurse then asked the officers to bring Schmitt to the medical area, where she examined him and became concerned that his neck had been seriously injured when he attempted to hang himself. Schmitt was then taken to St. Joseph's Hospital, and given a neck brace. Thereafter, he was taken to a psychiatric facility, where he remained for approximately five weeks. When Schmitt returned to PCJ, he requested to speak with someone from the Internal Affairs office on several occasions, but his requests were never granted.
138. This was not the first time that Schmitt had experienced violence at the hands of a PCJ correction officer. Schmitt had been detained at PCJ in 2004, and was placed in "the hole" after telling an officer that he was feeling suicidal. Thereafter, Schmitt became agitated and began to bang his head against the wall. Instead of trying to help him, or taking him to a medical professional, a correction officer simply kicked Schmitt in the groin and hit him.
139. Upon information and belief, PCJ correction officers also use guns loaded with rubber pellets, and have fired the pellets at inmates during roll calls - causing inmates to experience pain and scarring at the site of the injuries. Inmates report that correction officers often handcuff inmates before shooting the pellets at them. Recently, inmates report that an inmate was shot in the eye by a correction officer, and that the inmate required intensive medical treatment as a result.
140. Those inmates who have spoken with correction officers about specific incidents of violence report that the officers are glib, telling the inmates that they will never get in trouble because their "lawyers are too good," or taunting inmates by saying "if I did that [to you], why wasn't I charged?" Inmates report that the correction officers at PCJ appear defiant and invulnerable, treating them "like dogs," and acting as if the law does not apply to them. One
35

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 36 of 51
inmate stated that an essential difference between PCJ and other jails at which he has been detained is that the inmates are "scared to death" of the correction officers at PCJ.
141. This culture of violence has already caused many inmates at PCJ to suffer serious physical and psychological harm, and exposes all PCJ inmates to a substantial and continuing risk of such harm.
142. Upon information and belief, the defendants are aware of the PCJ correction staffs misconduct, or have failed to adopt the policies, provide the training, and institute the supervision necessary to prevent such misconduct. 0. Pattern of Indifference to Inmate Violence and to Inmates' Medical Needs.
143. Although correction officers have a duty to protect inmates from violence perpetrated by other inmates, PCJ officers often fail to do so. Numerous inmates report that it is well-known that PCJ officers refuse to stop fights between inmates, and one surmised that an inmate could get killed and the correction officers would not do anything to stop it.
144. Likewise, inmates at PCJ have observed a pattern of indifference toward their medical needs. Multiple inmates have reported that an inmate housed in 4 Main Annex had a severe diabetic seizure. Although several inmates called for an officer, and even kicked at a door to try to get an officer's attention, no one came to assist the seizing inmate for at least fifteen minutes.
145. Plaintiff Angel Colon, an inmate with a serious asthma condition, has himself experienced this deliberate indifference on the part of the PCJ correction staff. On August 1, 2008, Colon began experiencing the symptoms of an asthma attack, including having difficulty catching his breath. Because he was scared that he would become entirely unable to breathe, he told the first officer he encountered what was happening and asked to go to the medical unit for
36

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 37 of 51
treatment with a nebulizer- which he had received on other hot summer days. The officer ignored him and simply walked away.
146. Plaintiff Roy Schmitt has also experienced the PCJ correction officers' indifference to inmate medical conditions on numerous occasions. Although it is well-known that he suffers from chronic and severe depression, his complaints about feeling suicidal either fall on deaf ears, or result in Schmitt being thrown in "the hole," where inmates with disciplinary problems are placed. The PCJ medical staff is aware of this pattern of indifference: when Schmitt told a PCJ doctor that he was feeling suicidal, the doctor responded that he knew what would happen if Schmitt told an officer- he would be thrown in "the hole."
147. Upon information and belief, numerous other inmates have experienced this pattern of indifference toward severe medical and psychiatric conditions.
148. The defendants are aware of the PCJ correction staffs misconduct, or have failed to adopt the policies, provide the training, and institute the supervision necessary to prevent such misconduct. P. Retaliation Against Inmates Who File Grievances, Frustration Of The Grievance
Process, And Deliberate Interference With Inmates' Access To The Courts 149. Many inmates are unable to formally complain about the array of conditions problems at PCJ because correction officers frequently refuse to provide them with grievance forms or refuse to accept such forms, and/or retaliate against those who do file grievances. The frustration of the inmate grievance process is so common at PCJ that it reflects a clear pattern of behavior on the part ofPCJ correction officers. 150. Almost all of the Plaintiffs have experienced the frustration of the grievance process. The most common complaint is that when inmates request a grievance form, correction officers respond that none are available, or simply ignore the request.
37

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 38 of 51
151. For example, PlaintiffWinifred Gates requested a grievance form in July of2008, but was never given a form. When Gates finally obtained a copy of the PCJ Grievance Form from his attorney, and tried to submit it, a correction officer initially refused to accept it. When the officer finally agreed to take the form, Gates asked him to sign it on a line designated for an officer's signature, but the officer refused.
152. Similarly, when Plaintiff Roy Schmitt attempted to file a grievance challenging the conditions of confinement at issue in this lawsuit, the officer on duty refused to sign the grievance form, and suggested that someone "higher up" needed to sign them. However, the Inmate Handbook - which sets forth the grievance procedure - states that a grievance may be submitted to a correction officer on the floor.
153. When Plaintiff Andrew Crawford initially attempted to file a gnevance complaining of the conditions of confinement at issue in this lawsuit, the grievance form was returned to him because it was "not one page." However, nothing in the Inmate Handbook states that a grievance must be limited to a single page.
154. Inmates consistently report that they are only able to obtain grievance forms from correction officers who are "sympathetic" - leaving them to the whim of the particular officers with whom they come into contact to determine whether they will be able to obtain a grievance form.
155. Many PCJ inmates who are able to secure and file grievances are subjected to a pattern of retaliation, which leaves the inmate population frightened to formally complain about instances in which their rights were violated. Several of the plaintiffs named in this lawsuit have experienced retaliatory acts immediately after, or within a few days, of filing a grievance.
38

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 39 of 51
156. Soon after Plaintiff Andrew Crawford filed his grievance, a correction officer approached him and ordered him to report to "the bars," (the area where the correction officer was supervising the inmate living areas) with all of his legal papers. Crawford was extremely frightened, but immediately complied. When Crawford arrived at the bars, he was ordered to hand over all of his legal papers, including copies of grievance forms that his counsel advised him to retain as proof that he had filed the grievance. Crawford's legal papers were confiscated, and were never returned. Crawford became fearful that he would be harmed physically as a result of filing his grievance, and worried that he would be mistreated if he filed any future grievances.
157. Plaintiff Jubra' eel Lebron was also a victim of this pattern of retaliation at PCJ. On June 17, 2008 - the very same day that he met with his attorneys and then filed a grievance challenging the conditions of confinement that are at issue in this lawsuit - Lebron was transferred from the "2 Main Trustee" unit to the 3-5 unit. The transfer resulted in a loss of privileges because the "Trustee" units are reserved for inmates who are hand selected based on their good behavior. Once selected, trustee inmates are paid $10 per week to do certain jobs, enjoy greater freedom of movement on their units, are given extra food at meal times, and are granted access to a remote control to change the channels on the television. When Lebron was transferred, he was placed in an ordinary housing unit - thus losing his trustee position and the associated privileges. To his knowledge, Lebron had not done anything to warrant the transfer, other than filing a grievance. In fact, one officer warned Lebron about the consequences of his actions, telling him "you better stop filing grievances."
158. Plaintiff Winifred Gates also experienced a retaliatory transfer after he met with his attorneys and filed a grievance complaining of the conditions of confinement at issue in this
39

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 40 of 51
lawsuit. Gates filed the grievance on July 27, 2008. The next day, he was approached by a correction officer who acknowledged that Gates filed the grievance and said that he seemed to have a lot of "problems." The officer then told Gates that he would "teach [him] what happens to inmates who file grievances," and informed Gates that he would be transferred the next day. The following day, Gates was ordered to pack up his belongings, and was transferred from the 4 Main Annex unit to the 3-6 unit. This transfer was significant because 4 Main Annex is the "older guys' unit" (i.e., a unit populated largely by inmates who are 45 years old and above) and, as a result, is considered calmer and less violent than other dormitory style units. Gates, who is 54 years old, was assigned to 4 Main Annex for months before being transferred. By contrast, Gates' new unit, unit 3-5, is known as the "gang unit," and is populated by gang members. Not surprisingly, unit 3-5 is a far more dangerous place, and inmates who are not gang memberslike Gates- are particularly vulnerable to violence. Moreover, while in 4 Main Annex, Gates was assigned to a bottom bunk for medical reasons, because he suffers from problems with his neck and back. However, when Gates was moved to unit 3-5, he was assigned to sleep on the top of a triple bunk, which required him to climb almost seven feet to reach his bed.
159. Plaintiff Mark Harkins also experienced retaliatory treatment very soon after he filed a grievance challenging his conditions of confinement at PCJ. Specifically, within days of filing his grievance, Harkins was told that he would no longer be given a pain medication that he has been taking for close to a year - and which is necessary to treat intense pain that he experiences as a result of a gunshot wound to his arm that left shrapnel and caused serious nerve damage. Harkins received his pain medication for ten months without interruption while incarcerated in New York, and also received the medication without a problem during the first three weeks of his incarceration at PCJ. However, after he filed his grievance, he was denied the
40

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 41 of 51
medication without explanation. When he tried to a file a grievance form, he was told by a correction officer that there were no forms available. Harkins proceeded to file a grievance on his own paper, but has received no explanation for the denial of his pain medication.
160. It has become a fact of life for many inmates at PCJ that the consequence of filing a grievance - if they can obtain one - is that they will be "beaten down" by correction officers determined to suppress complaints and avoid lawsuits. While some inmates elect to file grievances despite the danger, often because they are particularly determined to make their complaints known, many other inmates simply accept that the grievance system available to inmates at every other jail and prison in New Jersey is not available to inmates at PCJ.
161. Of course, the consequence of not being able to file grievances is that inmates are not able to challenge their conditions of confinement in court. As such, the pattern of refusing to provide grievance forms and retaliating against those inmates who are able to obtain and file grievances prevents many PCJ inmates from accessing the courts.
162. Upon information and belief, the defendants are aware of this pattern of retaliation and frustration of the grievance process, and either participate in it or are deliberately indifferent to it. The defendants have failed to adopt the policies, or provide the training and supervision necessary to ensure that correction officers are not perpetuating this unlawful pattern of behavior. Q. Denial of Inmates' Right To Practice Essential Elements Of Their Religion
163. Many PCJ inmates report that they are deprived of the ability to practice essential elements of their religious faiths.
164. Christian inmates report that they are routinely denied the opportunity to attend group prayer services. For example, Plaintiff Winifred Gates reports that although Catholic
41

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 42 of 51
services have been called in the eleven months since he has been detained at PCJ, only one nonCatholic Christian service has been provided during that time.
165. Muslim Inmates report that they are routinely denied the opportunity to engage in aspects of their faith. Of most concern to the inmates is that PCJ deprives them of the opportunity to gather for weekly Friday afternoon prayers, called the "Jumu'ah Prayer," which is required by the Koran, and must involve a congregation. Plaintiff Jubra' eel Lebron has been at PCJ for one year, but has been able to attend only three Jumu'ah Prayer sessions during that twelve month period. Even during the month of Ramadan, the holiest week in Islam, PCJ has not provided inmates the opportunity for Jumu'ah Prayer.
166. Upon information and belief, one reason that inmates are not afforded the opportunity to observe their religion in congregational settings is that there is insufficient space in the jail to accommodate them. In fact, Plaintiff Jubra'eel Lebron was told as much by a PCJ correction officer.
167. In fact, Warden Meyers testified at the Sutton hearing that "[i]t's difficult sometimes to run the programs and there's limit[ed] space."
168. Also upon information and belief, there is no other reason- other than lack of space - for denying inmates an opportunity to pray in a congregational setting, a fundamental component of many major religions.
169. Some Muslim inmates have also complained that they are not being afforded Halal meals in the proper ways. For example, inmates have reported that their Halal meals come unwrapped, which renders them unable to eat the meals. When inmates inform correction officers of the problem, and request a proper Halal meal, their requests are often ignored and they are forced to go without food.
42

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 43 of 51
170. Upon information and belief, the defendants are aware of the practice of denying inmates the opportunity to observe their religious faiths, and either participate in it or are deliberately indifferent to it. Also upon information and belief, the defendants have failed to adopt the policies or provide the training and oversight necessary to ensure that correction officers are not perpetuating this unlawful pattern of behavior. III. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS COMPLICIT IN ENABLING
THESE APPALLING AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS TO PERSIST 171. The DOC is complicit in enabling the unconstitutional conditions to persist at PCJ. 172. The DOC is responsible for inspecting each county correctional facility in the State, in order to ensure it complies with the relevant administrative regulations. It is wellknown that PCJ is not compliant with a host of State regulations, including those governing: overcrowding ~. the number of inmates that are housed in each unit and the required amount of square footage per inmate that must exist in the living areas); the amount of day room space that must be provided, separate and apart from the sleeping areas; the number of toilets, sinks, and showers per inmate; the existence of exposed toilets in the vicinity of the inmate living area; and the fire system (including the lack of sprinkler system, failure to maintain a working alarm system, and inoperable smoke detectors). 173. The DOC allows PCJ to continue to operate despite its lack of compliance with numerous regulations by granting the facility "waivers," thus formally exempting PCJ from the regulations it has violated. In fact, PCJ has been operating on waivers since the 1970s, and continues to do so. PCJ is the only correctional facility in New Jersey that has functioned on waivers in this way.
43

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 44 of 51
174. Joseph Hartmann testified at the Sutton hearing that the unwillingness ofthe DOC to apply the immediate remedy of "depopulation" to address overcrowding was based on Passaic County's reliance on the revenue stream from housing non-local prisoners.
175. While the DOC has recently altered its stance on granting waivers, it has failed to take any enforcement action against the County for its non-compliance with state regulations.
176. While the County's exemptions relating to overcrowding expired on January 1, 2008, and while requests for extensions were denied on February 15, 2008 and April 15, 2008, the County has still not taken any steps to rectify the situation. Indeed, as noted above, the County has deliberately expanded the inmate population to generate additional revenue.
177. PCJ officials have taken the position that DOC's waivers allowing the facility to operate absolve them from liability and place responsibility for PCJ's pervasive problems squarely on the State. For example, when Plaintiffs Carley and Crawford finally received a response to a grievance complaining of the inadequate conditions described herein, PCJ officials responded that they should raise their concerns with the State.
178. By granting waivers to PCJ for more than three decades and by failing to take any enforcement action, the DOC is complicit in exposing PCJ inmates to these heinous and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. IV. DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE OF THESE CONDITIONS
179. These appalling conditions of confinement are well-known to the defendants and have been for decades. In addition to the consistent barrage of complaints from inmates, the media, advocacy groups and lawyers, the conditions have been the frequent comment by judges on this Court.
44

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 45 of 51
180. In 2006, the Honorable William G. Bassler, U.S.D.J., found that the conditions at
PCJ were so notorious as to become the subject ofjudicial notice in a sentencing proceeding:
THE COURT: It is out of the ordinary. I can take judicial notice of that. Because in the years I've been sitting here meting out sentences, I had affidavits - now I don't have one here, but I certainly can take judicial notice that the conditions in that facility are intolerable. I had a defense attorney come up from the south and he said he's never seen anything like it yet in his practice. It's not right. It's not human. It's just not fair to put somebody in that kind of a facility.
I'm not sure that we need to impose a sentence of 70 months. To me that is harsh, in view of the amount oftime that was spent in Passaic County Jail. I don't care what you say, the conditions that have been reported to me over the years indicate to me that it's absolutely intolerable, and to impose months on top, or even giving reflection - to impose a sentence in light of the amount of time this defendant spent in Passaic County Jail isn't necessary to provide adequate deterrence. Any amount oftime in Passaic County Jail will provide that.
181. In 2008, the Honorable William J. Martini, U.S.D.J., referred to PCJ m an
opinion as "a notoriously deplorable institution."
182. In October of 2007, based on the hearings at which Warden Meyers testified, the
Honorable Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J., opined that:
It has become a tired fact of life in these courtrooms that Passaic County Jail is overcrowded, is breaking down, and is a very rough place to serve time. "Tired" because these observations come up so often and alternative resources are so scarce, that the reaction has been a shrug that there is nothing one can do.
183. After detailing in painstaking fashion the numerous disconcerting inhumane
conditions that existed as a result not only of the overcrowding at PCJ, but also the deteriorated
physical condition of the facility, Judge Hayden asked the following question: "how long we
continue to tum a deaf ear [to the conditions at PCJ]?"
184. Absent court intervention, it is clear that Passaic County officials will continue
these unlawful practices, and that the Department of Corrections will stand idly by. This is clear
from recent statements of the defendants which demonstrate their continuing recalcitrance. For
45

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 46 of 51

example, on March 18, 2008, a spokesman for the Sheriff's Department was quoted in the media

as stating that "[n]ow that the jail has been hovering around 1,500, we certainly feel that there is

capacity for additional inmates without having issues of overcrowding." In June of 2008, the

same spokesman described PCJ as "one of the most organized, professional and safely run

0

institutions in the state ofNew Jersey."

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I (Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment)

185. Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 184 as though fully set forth

herein.

186. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment affords pretrial detainees

at least the same rights as those afforded convicted prisoners, if not greater rights. In light of the

totality of the circumstances discussed in detail above, Defendants - acting under color of state

law - have subjected Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated pre-trial detainees at PCJ, to

conditions of confinement that expose them and the other members of the Class to a substantial

risk of serious physical and psychological harm and, as such, constitute unlawful punishment in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

187. Defendants are either themselves directly responsible for the unlawful conditions

described herein, or caused those unlawful conditions by failing to adopt necessary policies and

training programs, and by failing to properly supervise PCJ correction staff.

COUNT II (Violation of the Eighth Amendment)

188. Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 187 as though fully set forth

herein.

46

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 47 of 51
189. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that state actors take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety and well-being of inmates in their custody.
190. In light of the totality of the circumstances discussed in detail above, Defendants - acting under color of state law - have subjected Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated inmates at PCJ, to conditions of confinement that expose them and the other members of the Class to a substantial risk of serious physical and psychological harm and, as such, constitute cruel and unlawful punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
191. Defendants are either themselves directly responsible for the unlawful conditions described herein, or caused those unlawful conditions by failing to adopt necessary policies and training programs, and by failing to properly supervise PCJ correction staff.
COUNT III (Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution) 192. Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 191 as though fully set forth herein. 193. The Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures that no state actor shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. That essential First Amendment protection applies even to those individuals who are incarcerated. As such, Defendants are prohibited from restricting Plaintiffs from practicing their religion, unless they have a legitimate penological interest for doing so. 194. By preventing Class members from practicing their religions without any legitimate penological interest, Defendants have engaged in widespread violations of the First Amendment.
47

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 48 of 51
195. Defendants are deliberately indifferent to this pattern of First Amendment violations. Defendants are also responsible for this misconduct because they have failed to adopt the policies or provide the training and oversight necessary to ensure that inmates are afforded the right to observe their religious faith.
196. Defendants are either themselves directly responsible for the unlawful practices described herein, or caused those unlawful practices by failing to adopt necessary policies and training programs, and by failing to properly supervise PCJ correction staff.
COUNT IV (Violation of the First Amendment, Retaliation) 197. Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 196 as though fully set forth herein. 198. The First Amendment to the Unites States Constitution ensures that no state actor shall retaliate against any person for engaging in protected speech. In the context of jails and prisons, inmates engage in protected conduct when they file grievances. As such, by engaging in a pattern of retaliating against inmates who file grievances - or by enabling such retaliation by condoning it, being deliberately indifferent to it, failing to adopt the policies, or provide the training and supervision necessary to prevent such retaliation - Defendants violate the First Amendment. 199. Defendants are either themselves directly responsible for the unlawful practices described herein, or caused those unlawful practices by failing to adopt necessary policies and training programs, and by failing to properly supervise PCJ correction staff.
48

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 49 of 51
COUNTV (First Amendment, Restriction on Access to the Courts) 200. Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 199 as though fully set forth herein. 201. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures that inmates in jails and prisons retain the right to access the courts to challenge their conditions of confinement. 202. By engaging in a pattern of frustrating the inmate grievance process, enabling such misconduct, condoning it, being deliberately indifferent to it, and by failing to adopt the policies, or provide the training and supervision necessary to prevent such misconduct, Defendants have prevented Class members from filing grievances. Since inmates are legally required to file grievances before bringing lawsuits challenging their conditions of confinement, this frustration of the grievance process has prevented many Class members from accessing the courts. 203. Defendants are either themselves directly responsible for the unlawful practices described herein, or caused those unlawful practices by failing to adopt necessary policies and training programs, and by failing to properly supervise PCJ correction staff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class that they represents respectfully request that this Court: A. Certify this lawsuit as a class action; B. Enter a declaratory judgment that:
(1) Defendants' conduct has violated Class members' Fourteenth Amendment rights to safe, sanitary, and healthy prison conditions, and to be free from punishment, and Eighth Amendment rights to be free of cruel and usual punishment;
49

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 50 of 51
(2) Defendants' conduct has violated Class members' First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion;
(3) Defendants' conduct has violated Class Members' First Amendment rights to be free from retaliation when engaging in protected conduct, such as filing grievances;
(4) Defendants' conduct has violated Class members' First Amendment rights to access the courts to challenge their conditions of confinement;
C. Enjoin the defendants, their officers, agents, employees and successors in office, along with those acting in concert with them, from engaging in the unlawful practices described herein;
D. To the extent that PCJ is permitted to continue housing inmates in excess of its capacity, order the defendants to undertake all action necessary to correct the unlawful conditions of confinement described herein, including but not limited to renovation, repair, and the acquisition and/or installation of all necessary devices and equipment; adoption of necessary policies, provision of training to correction staff, and instituting supervision and monitoring/oversight procedures;
E. Award Plaintiffs all litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's fees recoverable under federal law; and
F. Award all such other relief as this Court deems just and proper, including but not limited to convening a three-judge panel in accordance with the 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(3) to determine whether PCJ must be ordered to close if it cannot be operated in such a way as to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement.
50

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 51 of 51
E~m:i~l.8Gol~d~beIrC~'#M
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 833 McCarter Highway Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 642-8700

Dated: September 3, 2008

Suite 500 902 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6531 (609) 620-3200
Edward L. Barocas, Esq. Jeanne LoCicero, Esq. Nadia Seeratan, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION P.O. Box 13259 Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 642-2084
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

51

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 1-2 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 1 of 1

•~Js 44 (Rev. 12/07. NJ 5108)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required )>Y law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form. approved by the JudJcJal Conference of the Umted States m September 1974, IS reqmred for the use of the Clerk ofCourt tor the purpose ofm1hatmg the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Passaic County

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Passaic County

(c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, Telephone Number and Email Address)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE

Christopher J. Michie, Dechert LLP, 902 Carnegie Ctr., Princeton,

LAND INVOLVED.

NJ 08540. Tel: (609) 620-3200. E-mail: chris.michie@dechert.com Attorneys (IfKnown)

(NOTE: co-counsel listed on Complaint)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Piacean"X"inOneBoxOnly)

0 I U.S. Government Plaintiff

1!'11 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Piace an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEF

PTF DEF

Citizen of This State

1:!( I 1!'11 I Incorporated or Principal Place

0 4 04

of Business In This State

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant

0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Citizen of Another State

0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State
0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation

0 5 05 0 6 06

IV NATURE OF SUIT !Place an "X" in One Box Only)

CONTRAGT' '

T ·I· TORTS

I ·••·

0 II 0 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY

0 120 Marine

0 310 Airplane

0 362 Personal Injury -

0 130 Miller Act

0 315 Airplane Product

Mcd. Malpractice

0 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

0 365 Personal Injury -

0 !50 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel &

Product Liability

& Enforcement ofJudgmcnt

Slander

0 368 Asbestos Personal

0 151 Medicare Act

0 330 Federal Employers'

Injury Product

0 !52 Recovery of Defaulted

Liability

Liability

Student Loans

0 340 Marine

PERSONAL PROPERTY

(ExcL Veterans)

0 345 Marine Product

0 370 Other Fraud

0 !53 Recovery of Overpayment

Liability

0 371 Truth in Lending

of Veteran's Benefits

0 350 Motor Vehicle

0 380 Other Personal

0 160 Stockholders' Suits

0 355 Motor Vehicle

Property Damage

0 190 Other Contract

Product Liability

0 385 Property Damage

0 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal

Product Liability

0 196 Franchise

Injury

I

REAL PROPERTY

CIVJL RIGHTS •.c PRISONER PETITIONS

0 21 0 Land Condemnation

0 441 Voting

0 510 Motions to Vacate

0 220 Foreclosure

0 442 Employment

Sentence

0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing!

Habeas Corpus:

0 240 Torts to Land

Accommodations

0 530 General

0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 444 Welfare

0 535 Death Penalty

0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities- 0 540 Mandamus & Other

Employment

0 550 Civil Rights

0 446 Amcr. w/Disabilitics - 0 555 Prison Condition

Other

IX 440 Other Civil Rights

FORFEITIIREIPENAiiTY • " BANKRUPTCY, I

0 610 Agriculture

0 422 Appeal 28 USC !58

0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 625 Drug Related Seizure

0 423 Withdrawal
28 usc 157

of Property 21 USC 881

0 630 Liquor Laws

. PRU PERTY RIGHTS

0 640 R.R. & Truck

0 820 Copyrights

0 650 Airline Regs.

0 830 Patent

0 660 Occupational

0 840 Trademark

Safety/Health

0 6900thcr

..ABOR 0 710 Fair Labor Standards

socIAL SECURITY 0 861 HIA (1395fl)

Act

0 862 Black Lung (923)

0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))

0 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 0 864 SSID Title XVI

& Disclosure Act

0 865 RSI (405(g))

0 740 Railway Labor Act

:;: FEDERAL TAX SUITS

0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

0 791 Empl. Ret. Inc.

or Defendant)

Security Act

0 871 IRS-Third Party
26 usc 7609

IMMIGRATION

0 462 Naturalization Application

0 463 Habeas Corpus -

Alien Detainee

0 465 Other Immigration

Actions

OTHER STATUTES
0 400 State Reapportionment 0 41 0 Antitrust 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 450 Commerce 0 460 Deportation 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations 0 480 Consumer Credit 0 490 Cable/Sat TV 0 8 I0 Selective Service 0 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange 0 875 Customer Challenge
12 usc 3410
0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 891 Agricultural Acts 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 894 Energy Allocation Act 0 895 Freedom of Information
Act 0 900Appeal of Fee Determination
Under Equal Access to Justice 0 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
~I Original Proceeding

(Place an "X" in One Box Only)

0 2 Removed from

0 3 Remanded from

State Court

Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict

Reopened

another dJstnct

Litigation

s eci

C~!l~.'S~C~i~~~'tW)VJ 'f§!JJhich you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Appeal to District

0

7

Judge from Magistrate

Jud ment

VI. CAUSEOFACTION~---------------------------------------------------------------------­ Brief description of cause: Class action challenging conditions ot continement at 1-'assaic county Jail.

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

~ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

0 Yes ~No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions):

JUDGE

Hon. Kathleen S. Hayden, U.S.D.J.DOCKETNUMBER Crim. No. 07-426 (D.N.J.)

Explanation: In U.S. v. Sutton, Crim. No. 07-426 (D.N.J.), U.S. v. Ortiz, Crim. No. 06-858 (D.N.J.) and U.S. v. Garcia, Crim. No. 07-256 (D.N.J.), Judge Hayden held hearings regarding the conditions which are the subject of this lawsuit.

3, 2oo6

 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGEL COLON et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PASSAIC COUNTY et al., Defendants.

:

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

:

:

OPINION

:

:

Civil Action No. 08-CV-4439 (DMC)

:

:

:

:

:

:

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.:

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and upon Defendant George Hayman’s (“Hayman”) motion to dismiss under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, no oral argument was heard. After considering

the submissions of t he parties, and base d upon the following , it is t he finding of this Court that

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is granted, and Hayman’s motion to dismiss is denied.

I.

BACKGROUND

This matter arises due to the squalid conditions alleged by Plaintiffs to exist at the Passaic

County Jail (“PCJ”). Plaintiffs are a group of eight current or former inmates at PCJ. Plaintiffs

complain that PCJ suffers from: (1) overcrowding, leading to a lack of privacy, loss of sleep and

the threat of inmate violence; (2) unsanitary living conditions; (3) inadequate medical care; (4)

unsafe and inadequate food; (5) inadequate temperature control and ventilation; (6) inadequate

clothing; (7) inadequate fire detection and alarm systems; (8) use of excessive force by

Correction Officers, including the use of dogs for intimidation; (9) restrictions on religious freedom; and (10) retaliation for airing grievances.
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court on September 3, 2008 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under various constitutional claims, including: (1) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition on unlawful punishment of pre-trial detainees; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment of sentenced inmates; (3) violation of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion; (4) violation of the First Amendment due to alleged retaliation against inmates; and (5) violation of the First Amendment due to alleged restrictions on inmate access to the courts. Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of “all persons who are now or will become incarcerated at PCJ during the pendency of this lawsuit.” Defendant Hayman also moves to dismiss all claims as against him because he held only “permissive” authority over PCJ and thus is not responsible for the care, custody or control of PCJ. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Class Certification Standards The requirements for class certification are outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. See Johnston v. HBO Film Mgmt., Inc., 265 F.3d 178, 183–84 (3d Cir. 2001). Under Rule 23, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating not only that the proposed class satisfies the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), but also that the action can be maintained under at least one subsection of Rule 23(b). See id.; see also Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613–14 (1997).
2

The four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied where: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) questions of law or fact exist that are common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Commonly referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, these four requirements are “meant to assure both that the class action treatment is necessary and efficient and that it is fair to the absentees under the particular circumstances.” Banda v. Corzine, 2007 WL 3243917, *15 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2007) (quoting Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 55 (3d Cir. 1994)).
Upon satisfying Rule 23(a), the moving party must then show that the putative class falls under at least one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). In this case, Plaintiff has pled certification under subsection (b)(2), which permits class actions for declaratory or injunctive relief where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class.” See Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 614.
Courts deciding whether to certify a class under Rule 23 must undertake a “rigorous analysis” and consider all relevant evidence and arguments presented by the parties. See In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Lit., 552 F.3d 305, 307 (3d Cir. 2008). Decisions to certify a class require “findings by the court, not merely a threshold showing” by the moving party, that the requirements of Rule 23 are met. Id. Factual determinations supporting Rule 23 findings must be made by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Furthermore, the Court must resolve all factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification, even if they overlap with the merits. Id.
3

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard In deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), all allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc., v. Mirage Resorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 1998). If, after viewing the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it appears beyond doubt that no relief could be granted “under any set of facts which could prove consistent with the allegations,” a court shall dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). In Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court clarified the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard. See 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). Specifically, the Court “retired” the language contained in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim, which would entitle him to relief.” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1968 (citing Conley, 355 U.S. at 45–46). Instead, the Supreme Court instructed that “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. III. CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) of “all persons who are now or will become incarcerated at PCJ during the pendency of this lawsuit.” Defendants oppose the motion by arguing that the named class representatives do not adequately represent the full spectrum of inmates incarcerated at PCJ, thus making the proposed class overbroad. Because the Court finds that the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23, however, Plaintiffs’ motion for class
4

certification is granted. A. Numerosity The proposed class meets the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a). “Numerosity
requires a finding that the putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 183 (3d Cir. 2001). Numerosity is generally met “if the named plaintiff demonstrates that the potential number of plaintiffs exceeds 40.” Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 226–27 (3d Cir. 2001). Here, because the proposed class includes an inmate population of roughly 1500 to 2000 members, the Court finds that numerosity is met.
B. Commonality The proposed class also satisfies Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. Commonality is “easily met,” Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 56, and is satisfied where “plaintiffs share at least one question of fact or law with the grievances of the prospective class.” Newton, 259 F.3d at 183. “All that is required is that the litigation involve some common questions and that plaintiffs allege harm under the same legal theory.” Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 58. Furthermore, injunctive actions “by their very nature” present common questions because they typically do not require the individualized inquiry necessary for a determination of damages. See Dittimus-Bey v. Taylor, 244 F.R.D. 284, 290 (D.N.J. 2007) (quoting Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 57 (3d Cir. 1994)). Here, Defendants object to commonality on the basis that the detention circumstances for the named Plaintiffs are not “common” to all class members, and that, as a result, the proposed class is overbroad. Defendants rely in their argument on the fact that the named Plaintiffs are all
5

male, that they apparently reside in dormitory-style units representing only 10% of PCJ’s housing units, and that an apparent disparity exists in the treatment of prisoners. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs constitutional claims under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments all arise out of the overcrowding and otherwise squalid conditions alleged to exist at PCJ. Each of these claims, including those based upon cruel and unusual or unlawful punishment, the free exercise of religion, and unlawful retaliation, require the demonstration of common proofs relating to the detainment conditions at PCJ. See, e.g., Dittimus-Bey, 244 F.R.D. at 290 (commonality satisfied where inmates sought to vindicate Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a “safe and healthy environment” because claims required a showing that defendants were deliberately indifferent to inmate safety and health). Indeed, other courts have found “commonality” satisfied where inmates held a shared interest in enjoining objectionable conduct. Id.; see also Jones v. Goord, 190 F.R.D. 103, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (finding that commonality is satisfied where “inmates have a common interest in preventing the recurrence of the objectionable conduct”). Accordingly, because the named Plaintiffs share significantly more than “at least one question of fact or law” with the proposed class, and because injunctive actions present common questions “by their very nature,” the Court finds that commonality is satisfied.
C. Typicality The proposed class also satisfies Rule 23(a)’s typicality requirement. Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the “claims or defenses of the representative parties [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Typicality centers on whether “the named plaintiff[s’] individual circumstances are markedly different or . . . the legal theory upon which the claims are based
6

differs from that upon which the claims of other class members will perforce be based.” See Newton, 259 F.3d at 183.
Here, typicality is satisfied because neither the individual circumstances of the named Plaintiffs nor the legal theories upon which their claims are based are “markedly different” from those of the remaining class members. Defendants argue that the named Plaintiffs are atypical because the class representatives include men only, live in cells representing only 10% of PCJ’s overall housing units, and because, as Plaintiffs’ themselves argue, some inmates are better off than others. However, Rule 23 does not require an exact identity of claims and injuries among the putative class members. See Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 786 (3d Cir. 1985); Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169, 177 (3d Cir. 1988). Rather, the Rule requires “only that the harm complained of be common to the class,” and that the named representatives demonstrate “a personal interest or threat of injury . . . [that] is real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” See Dittimus-Bey, 244 F.3d at 291. Here, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are based on conditions at PCJ that include common harms such as, inter alia, overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions, and inadequate ventilation and temperature control. Whether these conditions were experienced in “precisely the same manner” by the all of the class members or not, see Hassine, 846 F.2d at 177, it can hardly be disputed that these types of conditions would nonetheless affect the entire prison population, and that they would likely form the basis for any constitutional claims arising thereunder. See, e.g., Newton, 259 F.3d at 183–84 (typicality is established where the claims “involve the same conduct by the defendant, . . . regardless of factual differences”); Dittimus-Bey, 244 F.R.D. at 291 (typicality focuses on whether the
7

representatives “suffered a similar injury from the same course of conduct”). In any event, it is certain that the entire class of inmates would benefit from relief enjoining such conditions.1 Accordingly, because the circumstances of the named Plaintiffs do not appear “markedly different” from the rest of the putative class, and because the class claims appear to involve the same conduct by the Defendants, the Court finds that typicality is satisfied.
D. Adequacy of Representation Defendants also argue that the named Plaintiffs are inadequate representatives for the class because, due to alleged differences in detention conditions, conflicts of interest exist that prevent them from representing the interests of the entire class. Defendants are wrong. Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the representatives “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Courts must determine: (1) whether the representatives’ interests conflict with those of the class; and (2) whether the class attorney is capable of representing the class. See Newton, 259 F.3d at 185. The named plaintiffs must have “the ability and incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously,” and there must be “no conflict between the individual claims and those asserted on behalf of the class.” See Hassine, 846 F.2d at 179. Here, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin conditions at PCJ that include overcrowding, unsanitary
1Nor is the Court persuaded by Defendants’ argument that the named Plaintiffs are improper representatives because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Plaintiffs have produced evidence showing that all of the named Plaintiffs did in fact file grievances complaining of their conditions of confinement, or, alternatively, that they were prevented from utilizing the grievance process. See Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires exhaustion only of such administrative remedies “as are available”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to exhaust their administrative remedies does not prevent certification.
8

living conditions, inadequate medical care, unsafe and inadequate food, the use of excessive force by Correction Officers, restrictions on religious freedom, retaliation for airing grievances, and others. As the Court has already noted, these are predominantly common harms likely to affect the entire inmate population, be it directly or indirectly. At the very least, the named Plaintiffs appear to be directly affected by such conditions, and, as such, their incentive to eradicate such conditions can hardly be questioned. Nor does the Court believe that the interests of the named Plaintiffs conflict with those of other class members. While the Complaint does identify some discrepancies in the treatment and identity of inmate groups, including that some units receive air conditioning while others do not, such differences are relatively minor when viewed beside the breadth of troublesome conditions alleged to exist at PCJ, and the Court finds that they are unlikely to create conflicts for the class representatives. See, e.g., Kanter, 43 F.3d at 58 (“Where an action challenges a policy or practice, the named plaintiffs suffering one specific injury from the practice can represent a class suffering other injuries, so long as the injuries are shown to result from the same practice.”); see also Dittimus-Bey, 244 F.R.D. at 292 (noting that “it does not matter for purposes of Rule 23(a)(4) that the named plaintiffs allegedly suffered different manifestations of the prison’s unconstitutional overcrowding”). In any event, such differences certainly do not create an interest for the named representatives in seeing that the challenged practices continue against other class members. See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 403 n.13 (1975). Accordingly, because the Court finds that no differences exist among class members that would create a fatal conflict of interest for the named representatives, and because it is undisputed that the attorneys in this case are more than capable of providing the necessary
9

legal assistance,2 the Court finds that Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and that Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied.
E. Rule 23(b)(2) Because the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been met, the Court next considers whether the proposed class also meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) permits class actions for declaratory or injunctive relief where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Defendants again object on the basis that the proposed class is overbroad, arguing that Defendants cannot be said to have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the entire class because not all units of the jail suffer from the same conditions. However, Rule 23(b)(2) does not require that all members of the class be already injured for the class action to proceed. See Dittimus-Bey, 244 F.R.D. at 293. Instead, a defendant’s action or inaction will be viewed as having been directed towards a class “even if it has taken effect or is threatened only as to one or a few members of the class, provided it is based on grounds which have general application to the class.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs allege a series of actions taken by Defendants against the entire inmate population at PCJ, including, inter alia, allowing overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions, poor ventilation and temperature control, as well as alleged
2Plaintiffs are represented by counsel from the Center for Social Justice (“CSJ”) at Seton Hall Law School, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (“ACLU-NJ”), and Dechert LLP. All three have extensive experience litigating class actions, including several cases involving prisoner rights. See, e.g., Alves v. Ferguson, No. 01-CV-789 (D.N.J., ongoing) (CSJ), Jones v. Hayman, No. C-123-07 (N.J. Super. Ct., ongoing) (ACLU-NJ), and Williams v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2003) (Dechert).
10

beatings, retaliatory actions, and religious suppression.3 As found by the court in Dittimus-Bay in addressing a similar complaint based upon prison overcrowding, such cases are “a paradigm of the type of class suitable for certification under Rule 23(b)(2).” See Id.; see also Amchem, 521 U.S. at 614 (noting that “[c]ivil rights cases against parties charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination are prime examples”). In this case, Plaintiffs assert class-wide grievances against PCJ authorities in an effort to enjoin the policies and actions leading to these conditions. As such, this case is a prime candidate for class treatment under Rule 23(b)(2) because it seeks injunctive relief against actions, or inactions, affecting the prisoners detained at PCJ as a whole. The Court thus finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied.
Accordingly, because the Court finds that the proposed class satisfies all of the requirements under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), the Court will certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) defined as: All persons who are now or will become incarcerated at PCJ during the pendency of this lawsuit.4
IV. MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Hayman, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections
3References in the Complaint to discrepancies in living standards among prison groups, specifically that some units receive air conditioning while others do not, appear to be an effort by the Plaintiffs to show that Defendants have the ability to provide such services, rather than an attempt to pit one set of inmates against another. In any event, such claims pale in comparison to the class-wide complaints of overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and inadequate food.
F4 urther discovery is unnecessary for the Court to decide this motion. While Hydrogen Peroxide
requires the Court to conduct a “rigorous analysis” and to resolve all factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification, see 552 F.3d at 307, the Court finds that the current record is sufficient to support its findings that each of the Rule 23 requirements are met.
11

(“NJDOC”), moves for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that his authority over PCJ is only “permissive” and that he is not responsible for the care, custody or control of PCJ. Defendant’s argument relies heavily on MacNeil v. Klein, a 1976 decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division holding that the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies (NJDOC’s predecessor) could not be held liable for deprivation of inmate rights at a county correctional facility because he held only “permissive” responsibilities with respect thereto. See 358 A.2d 488, 492–93 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976). Defendant fails to recognize, however, that significant changes have been made to the Commissioner’s authority in the years since MacNeil, not the least of which being the creation of the NJDOC in 1976. See N.J.S.A. 30:1B-1. Under the current statutory scheme, the Commissioner of the NJDOC appears to bear a series of mandatory responsibilities towards the county jails, including, with relevance here, to “order a phased restriction of admission of new inmates” upon finding that a county jail “is in willful and continuous disregard of the minimum standards,” and to “locate inmates assigned to any facility so restricted by such order within other State or county penal facilities.” See N.J.S.A. 30:8-57, 58. These statutes appear to impose mandatory responsibilities on the Commissioner with respect to the county jails that did not otherwise exist at the time MacNeil was decided.5 Accordingly, because the Court finds that the Defendant Hayman, as Commissioner of the NJDOC, may bear mandatory responsibilities towards the
5The Court notes that Defendant Hayman declined to reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss, and thus declined to address Plaintiffs’ arguments with respect to the changes in the laws and the apparent mandatory duties imposed by them upon the NJDOC Commissioner.
12

inmates at PCJ, his motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied.

V.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, it i s the finding of this Court that Plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification is granted, and Defendant Hayman’s motion to dismiss is denied. An appropriate

Order accompanies this Opinion.

Date: Orig.: cc:

May 27 , 2009 Clerk All Counsel of Record Hon. Mark Falk, U.S.M.J. File

S/ Dennis M. Cavanaugh Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.

13

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 45 Filed 05/28/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1220

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGEL COLON et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PASSAIC COUNTY et al., Defendants.

:

:

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

:

:

ORDER

:

:

Civil Action No. 08-CV-4439 (DMC)

:

:

:

:

:

This matter coming before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and upon Defendant George Hayman’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and the Court having further reviewed all submissions; and for the reasons stated in its Opinion issued on this day,
IT IS on this 27th day of May, 2009; ORDERED that the following class is hereby certified:
All persons who are now or will become incarcerated at Passaic County Jail during the pendency of this lawsuit. ORDERED that the following claims are hereby certified for class treatment: a. Plaintiffs’ Count I claim for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; b. Plaintiffs’ Count II claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment; c. Plaintiffs’ Count III claim for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; d. Plaintiffs’ Count IV claim for unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 45 Filed 05/28/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1221

e. Plaintiffs’ Count V claim for restriction on access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment.
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Angel Colon, Roy Schmitt, Jubra’eel Lebron, Winifred Gates, Mark Harkins, Matthew Carley, Cecilio Toledano and Andrew Crawford are hereby appointed Class Plaintiffs.
ORDERED that Dechert LLP, the Center for Social Justice at the Seton Hall University School of Law, and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation are hereby appointed class counsel.
ORDERED that Defendant Hayman’s motion to dismiss is denied.

Original: cc:

S/ Dennis M. Cavanaugh Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.
Clerk’s Office All Counsel of Record The Honorable Mark Falk, U.S.M.J. File

 
 COLON et al v. PASSAIC COUNTY et al, Docket No. 2:08-cv-04439 (D.N.J. Sept 03, 2008), Court Docket
Multiple Documents
Part Description 1 2 pages 2 Proposed Order Directing Notice of Settlement 3 Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement 4 Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement 5 Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement 6 Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement 7 Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement 8 Exhibit F to the Settlement Agreement 9 Exhibit G to the Settlement Agreement
© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Service http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6L15D9VO2?documentName=127.xml // PAGE 1

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1431

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1432

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 28 PageID: 1433

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA’EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS, MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, and ANDREW CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.

PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, TANESHA WAY, in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, PAT LEPORE, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, TERRY DUFFY, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, JAMES GALLAGHER, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, BRUCE JAMES, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, ELEASE EVANS, in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Passaic County, CHARLES MEYERS, in his official capacity as Warden of Passaic County Jail, STEVEN MYERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of Passaic County Jail, and GEORGE W. HAYMAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections,

ORDER DIRECTING NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
Case No. 08-4439 (DMC-MF)

Defendants. ________________________________________________

WHEREAS individual plaintiffs filed this class action suit on September 3, 2008, against

the Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of inmates at the

Passaic County Jail as well as the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs; and

WHEREAS, the Complaint was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking redress for alleged violations of the First, F ifth, Eighth a nd Fourteenth Amendments of the United Sta tes Constitution; and

1

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 28 PageID: 1434

WHEREAS, the matter was certified as a cl ass action on May 27, 2009, and the class was defined as “all persons who are now or will becom e incarcerated at PCJ during the pendency of the lawsuit”; and

WHEREAS, Defendants have filed Answers in which they deny Plaintiffs’ allegations; and

WHEREAS, the litigants have engaged in informal discovery; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defe ndants acknowledge that, to the extent possible, it is in their best interests to r esolve the is sues raised in the Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, by m eans other than litigation and, to th is end, have agreed to enter into a federally enforceable Settlement Agreement, consistent with the requirem ents of the Prison Litigatio n Reform Act, 18 USC § 3626; and

WHEREAS, the Settle ment Agreement incorporates the following documents: the

Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Fire Safety Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit

A to Settle ment Agreement); the Mem orandum of Understanding Co ncerning Environmental

Health Issues at the Pass aic County Jail (Exhi bit B to Settlem ent Agreement); the Memorandum

of Understanding Concerning Correctional Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit C to

Settlement Agreement); the Mem orandum of Unders tanding Concerning Me dical Issues at the

Passaic County Jail (Exhibit D to Settlem

ent Agreement); and the Memorandum of

Understanding Concerning Mental Health Services at the Passaic Count y Jail (Exhibit E to

Settlement Agreement);

2

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 28 PageID: 1435
WHEREAS, the terms of the Confidentiality and Protective Order entered by the Court on February 25, 2010 (“Confidentialit y Order”), a copy of which is attached to the Settlem ent Agreement as Exhibit F, rem ains in full force and effect as to any d ocuments or inform ation disclosed during the course of the litigation;
WHEREAS, the claims agains t George W . Hayman, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Departm ent of Corrections, are not part of the Settlem ent Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Settlem ent Agreement shall be applicab le to, and binding upon, all parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns and their successors in office.
THIS MATTER having com e before the C ourt on the parties’ Joint Motion, and the Court having considered the papers and for good cause shown; IT IS O N THIS ______ day of ______, 2012, ORDERED:
1. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, one (1) copy of the following documents shall be p rovided in a sealed e nvelope to each inmate in the Passaic County Jail: (a) The plain language summ ary of the Settlement Agreement in both English and Spanish, as describ ed in § XIV(A) of the Settlement Agreement and a copy of which (in English) is attached to the Settlem ent Agreement as Exhibit G (hereinafter, “summaries”);
3

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 28 PageID: 1436
(b) A comment sheet, which shall include a statement that class members shall have the right to comm ent on/object to th e proposed Settlem ent and that all comments/objections to the proposed Settlement must be (1) provided to a Passaic County Jail ombudsman or (2) mailed directly to Jennifer B. Condon, Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, 833 McCarter Highway, Newark, NJ 07102 no later than March 1, 2010; and
(c) A return envelope addressed to Jennifer B. Condon, Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, 833 McCarter Highway, Newark, NJ 07102.
2. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, the following docum ents shall be posted in all day room s, common a reas, and th e law library and shall be electronically available on the law library com puters until the Court’s Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement: (a) The attached Settlement Agreement; and (b) The summaries.
3. Upon request by an inmate, a Passaic County Jail ombudsman shall provide a copy of the Settlement Agreement to the reques tor no late r than four (4) days from the date of the request.
4. Upon the Court’s Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and for the duration of the Settlement Agreement:
4

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 28 PageID: 1437
(a) Two (2) lam inated copies of the S ettlement Agreement and summaries shall be posted in the law library and shall be elec tronically available on the law libra ry computers. Defendants shall be responsib le for replenishing any m issing copies on a monthly basis; and
(b) The summaries shall be printed as a subsection of the Inmate Handbook. 5. Class member comments/objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement that were
provided to a Passaic C ounty Jail ombuds man shall be sent by the Jail to Jennifer B. Condon, Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, 833 McCarter Highway, Newark, NJ 07102 by no later than March 2, 2012 . Class counsel shall provide copies of all written comments to the Court and counsel for the Defendants no later than March 15, 2010. These comments/objec tions will be rev iewed by the Court prior to the Fairness Hearing. 6. The Court will conduct a Fairn ess Hearing on the entry o f the propos e Settlement on _____, 2012 before the Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh, at which tim e counsel shall appear and the Court will ev aluate the merits of the Settlement for the purpose of final approval of this Class Action Settle ment, and the resolutio n of the litigation pursu ant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2 3(e), in light of any written comm ents received from class members and any statements of counsel pertaining to the Settlement.
___________________________________ Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.
5

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 28 PageID: 1438
Exhibit 1

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 28 PageID: 1439

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 28 PageID: 1440

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 9 of 28 PageID: 1441

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 10 of 28 PageID: 1442

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 11 of 28 PageID: 1443

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 12 of 28 PageID: 1444

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 13 of 28 PageID: 1445

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 14 of 28 PageID: 1446

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 15 of 28 PageID: 1447

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 16 of 28 PageID: 1448

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 17 of 28 PageID: 1449

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 18 of 28 PageID: 1450

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 19 of 28 PageID: 1451

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 20 of 28 PageID: 1452

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 21 of 28 PageID: 1453

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 22 of 28 PageID: 1454

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 23 of 28 PageID: 1455

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 24 of 28 PageID: 1456

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 25 of 28 PageID: 1457

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 26 of 28 PageID: 1458

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 27 of 28 PageID: 1459

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 28 of 28 PageID: 1460

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-2 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1461
Exhibit A

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-2 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 1462

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING FIRE SAFETY ISSUES AT THE PASSAIC COUNTY JAIL
Whereas, the CounW of Passaic, the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and the Passaic County Sheriff’s Department (collectively "Defendants") are parties to the action captioned Colon, et al. v. Passaic County, et ai., Case No. 2:08-ev-04439, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Dislrict of New Jersey (the "Action"), and the Plaintiff class of inmates who are now or will become incarcerated at the Passaic County Jail during the pendeney 0fthe Action are also parties to the Action ("Plaintiffs") (Defendants and Plaintiffs, collectively the "Parties"); attd
Whereas, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants (1) do not provide or perform the services and functions addressed in this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"); (2) do not comply with the referenced standards; and (3) have not provided information or doeumentaiion evidencing their performance of the services and fanctious addressed herein and evidencing their compliance with the referenced standards; and
Whereas, Defendants contend that they (1) already provide and perform many of the services and ftmctious addressed in this MOU; (2) already comply with many of the standards referenced in this MOU; and (3) have provided information and documents evidencing such performance and compliance to Plaintiffs;
Whereas, Defendants and Plaintiffs are desirous of entering into the MOU as of this ~ day of May, 2011.
The purpose this MOU is to set forth in writing the interim understanding of the Parties with respect to certain issues related to fire safety at the Passaic County Jail ("PCJ" or the "facility"). This MOU is not binding on the Parties unless and until a comprehensive agreement is reached by the Parties and merged into a final comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed by the Parties and approved by the Court. This MOU is entered into for settlement purpose ordy pursuant to Fed. tL Evid. 408 and shall not be either deemed admissible on behalf of the Parties, nor construed as an admission of liability by the Parties. Further, this MOU, any actions to carry out the MOU, and/or any negotiations or court proceedings relating to this MOU shall only be admissible in proceedings related to the enforcement of any Settlement Agreement in this Action.
II. Areas of Substantive Agreement
A. Fire Detection, Fire Suppression and Alman Systems.
Defendants will oversee the completion of the New Fire Detection and Alarm Systems and Phase I Fire Suppression Upgrades, as described in the bid documents produced as PCJ 5500 - PCJ 5865 (hereinafter referred to as "Phase I") and take reasonable action to e~force the contract so that it is complcted by May 30, 2011.

~ik~g e

070 438 998

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-2 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 1463
Defendants agree to produce to the Monitor the following documents called for in the contract:
(1) Agendas and MSnutes of Project Meetings (see, e.g., PCJ 5726~,"
7733)
(2) Progress Schedules and Reports (see, e.g., PCJ 5736)
(3) Fire Alarm Routine Inspection Reports (see, e.g., PCJ 5802)
Defendants will oversee the completion of the New Fire Detection, Alarm, Suppression Systems and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System Upgrades (hereinafter referred to as "Phase II"). Barring a legal challenge by a third party to the bidding process, Defendants will take reasonable action to enter into a contract for Phase II by December 31,2011. Defendants will further take reasonable action to ensure that the contract is completed by June 1, 2013.
Defendants agree to produce to the Monitor bid documents when they are made available to the public.
To the extent applicable, Defendants will provide the Monitor with the documents listed in section II.A.l.a. that are generated as a result of the Phase II contract.
o For both Phase I and Phase II contracts, Defendants will advise their contractors of the existence of this MOU and the need to complete both phases in a timely manner.
Defendants agree to closely monitor both Phase I and Phase II contracts and enforce their contractual rights regarding the progress and timely completion of the contracts, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding liquidated damages.
o The Phase I contract currently provides for three years of testing, maintenance and repair of the newly installed systems. See PCJ 5726, PCJ 5802. Defendants agree to purchase testing, maintenance and repair services for all of its fire systems and equipment for a period of ten years, and provide documentation of such to the Monitor.
o Defendants agree to maintain adequate documentation of all fire systems and equipment, including, but not limited to:
An inventory of all sprinkler heads, fire alarm pull boxes and smoke detector units, including their location;
References to page numbers are for descriptive purposes only. Defendants agree to prodtme all of the type of documents fisted that will be generated as a result of the contracts.
-2-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-2 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 1464
A master caiendar of all inspections, including internal inspections (e.g., routine equipment inspections) and external inspections (e.g., Department of Corrections, Paterson Fire Department);
Logs of all inspection and testing, inchiding date, name(s) of staff conducting inspection, and status of functionality.
Compliance with PCJ Key Control Policy (N.J.A.C. 2:3.1.8)
1. Defendants will amend the Key Control Policy to reflect the following:
The key rings will be reeonfigured so that each ring contains keys associated with a specffie section of the jail, rather than the entire floor.
The key rings will have a card attached to it that lists each key number and the door/lock that key fits. Each key will be color coded to match a color-coded dot on the card. The dot will be placed next to the name of the door/lock that the key unlocks. For example, if a key is color-coded blue, Corrections Staff could look at the card, see a blue dot next to the name of a door/lock, and know that the blue key unlocks that door (without checking the key numbers on the key and the card).
The first key on the ring will be color-coded red and will unlock the first emergency door Corrections Staff has to go through. The actual lock on that first door will also be color-coded red. The other keys will then be arranged in order on the ring to take the Corrections Staff from the perimeter to the interior.
Pursuant to existing PCJ policy, Defendants will test emergency keys on a quarterly basis, and provide adequate documentation of such testing to the Monitor.
Defendants will provide annual training to relevant staff specific to use of emergency keys and provide adequate documentation of such training to the Monitor.
Fire Watch
Until the completion of Phase I, Defendants will continue to staff PCJ’s Fire Watch, including at least one fire watch officer per shift who is responsible for continuous tours of the facility ("Fire Watch Officer").
In addition to their current doeamentation of Fire Watch, i.e:, Fire Watch Officer’s Round Checklist, Defendants will provide a mechanism at each location on the checklist for Fire Watch Officers to document the time they visited that location. For example, Stair, veil 07 will have a place for the Fire Watch Officer on duty to indicate each time he visited that location. As the Phase I installation is completed for each location, and the fire alarm for such
-3-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-2 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 1465
location has been tested and is fully operational, Fire Watch location documentation will no longer be required for such location.
Fire Watch location documentation will be collected at regular intervals (e.g., biweekly) and compared with the Round Checldist to ensure adequate compliance with the Fire Watch.
Staffing & Training
Defendants will develop and implement policies to reflect the following agreements:
Fire Safety Officers: fire safety officers shall receive annual training equivalent to that required of fire inspectors, as described in N.J.A.C. 5:71-4.5(c)(1).
Fire R.esponders: Until the completion of Phase II PCJ shall have at least one (1) certified fire fighter (who has been designated as "Firefighter I" pursuant to applicable state regulations) on duty at all hours of operation and said responder shall have his or her fire fighting gear available while on duty.
After the completion of Phase II, in the event of a fire alarm and turnout by the Paterson Fire Department, PCJ shall, through its on-duty Tour Commander, designate either a "Fireftghter F’ or an officer of a rank of Sergeant or above to meet the responding Paterson Fire Department personnel at the entrance of the facility in order to facilitate their loeating the site of the fire alarm.
Every new member of the Corrections Staff shall receive a minimum of three hours of traiuing with regard to fire fighting response including use
offire fighting equipment and evacuation. Additionally, on an annual
basis, each member of the Corrections Staff who is a full time employee at PCJ shall receive a half hour refresher course on the use of fire fighting equipment.
PCJ shall have a minimum of twelve fire drills per annum at PCJ, which shall include a review of the policies and practices regarding the evacuation and movement of inmates.
Defendants will maintain adequate documentation regarding training content and attendance.
Fire Code
As of the completion of Phase II, Defendants agree that PCJ shall be compliant with the New Jersey Uniform Fire Safety Act ("NJUFSA") and all applicable fire codes and regulations.
-4-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-2 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 1466
Defendants agree that PCJ shall remain within compliance of the NJUFSA and all applicable fire codes and regulations going forward. Defendants agree to provide annual certifications to the New Jersey Department of Correclions regarding its compliance of NJUFSA and all applicable fire codes and regulations until 2020 and to the Monitor tmtil 2015.
One Riverf~ont Plaza, Snite 800 Newark, New Jersey 07102
(9.73) 623-1000
Ezra osen!f g Regard. Cro
Jennie B. Krasner DECIIERT LLI~ Suite 500 902 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6531 (609) 955-3200
w~d L. Barocas Jeanne LoCicero AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Ol~ NEW JERSEY I~OUNI)ATION P.O. Box 32159 Newark, NJ 07102
(,~)~ 642-2086 ~
Jenny-Brooke Condon SETON ][~ALL UNIVERSITY SCI~IOOL O]r LAW, CENTER FOR SOCIAL dUSTICE 833 McCarter Highway Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 642-8700
-5-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1467
Exhibit B

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 1468

M~MORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
AT THE PASSAIC COUNTY JAIL
Whereas, the County of Passaic, the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, mad the Passaic County Sheriff’s Department (collectively "Defendants") are parties to the action
captioned Colon, et al. v. Passaic County1 et al., Case No. 2:08-ev-04439, which is pending in the
Uaited States District Court for the Distriot of New Jersey (the "Action’S), and the PlaintiffClass of inmates who are now or will become ineareemted at the Passaic County Jail during the pendeney of the Action are also parties to the Action ("Plaintiffs’~ (Defendants and Plaintiffs, collectively the "Parties"); and
Whereas, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants (1) do not provide or perform the services and functions addressed in this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"); (2) do not comply with the referenced standards; and (3) have not provided information or documentation evidencing their performance of the services and functions addressed herein and evidencing their compliance with the referaneed standards; and
Whereas, Defendants contend that they (1) already provide and perform many of the services and functions addressed ia this MOU; (2) already comply with many of the standards referenced in this MOU; and (3) have provided information and documents evident’rag such performance and compliance to Plaintiffs;
Whereas, Defendants and Plaintiffs are desirous of entering into the MOU as of this [O day of May, 2011.
I. Purpose
The purpose this MOU is to set forth in writing the interhn understanding of the Parties with respect to certain issues related to environmental health at the Passaic County Jail ("PCJ’~ or the "facility"). This MOU is not binding on the Parties unless and until a comprehensive agreement is reached by the Parties and merged into a fmai comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed by the Parties and approved by the Court. This MOU is entered into for settlement purpose only pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 408 and shall not be either deemed admissible on behalf of the Parties, nor construed as an admission of liability by the Parties. Further, this MOU, any actions to carry out the MOU, and/or any negotiations or court proceedings relating to this MOU shall only be admissible in proceed’rags related to the enforcement of any Settlement Agreement in this Action.
H. Policies
To the extent consistent with applicable state and federal statutes and regulations governing the facility’s operations, PCJ will adopt end implement any and ail new policies and/or emend any existing policies if necessary to conform to the areas of substantive agreement below, notwithstanding whether specific reference is made below tu the revision or adoption of specific policies.

13936588.1

kwiktag ~

070 438 997

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 1469
HI. Areas of Substantive Agreement
A. Ventilation
Defendants will oversw the complotion of the Main and Marshall Street HVAC and Fire Protection System Upgrades for the Passaic County Jail, as described in the revised bid documents published in March 2011 together with any supplemental bid documents (hereinafter refen’ed to as "Phase II"), and complete Phase II as previously set forth in Section II, A.2 of the Fire Safety MOU.
Upon request, Defendants will provide copies to counsel for Plaintiffs of the following types of documents called for in the Phase II contract: progress schedules and reports, agendas and minutes of project meetings; inspection reports; reports associated with the completion of the project.
Until Phase II, as described above, is fully operational in all parts of the facility, Defendants will measure and log the temperature in inmateocoupied Phase II areas during the months of January, February, March, June, July, August, September, November, and December once per day. The temperature will be measured at 12:00 pan. during June, July, August and September and at 12:00 ~.m. during January, February, November, and December with a thermometer appropriate for measuring ambient temperature.
PCJ will plan for the maintenance, cleaning.and rebalaneing of its ventilation system at least every seven (7) years.
Until the completion of Ptmse II, from Jtme to August, inmates will be housed in acenrdance with Medical MOU Article III, Paragraph A, 9.
From October 1 through April 30, PC.I will maintain a temperature that is no less than 68 degrees Fahrenheit between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., and no less than 65 degrees Fahrenheit between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Once Phase II is completed, from May 1 to September 30, PCJ will maintain ventilation and temperature of no more than 80 degrees Fahrer2aeit to all inmate ocoupied areas. PCJ will maintain temperatures as set forth hereh~ absent an emergency or mechanical failure.
B. Food Preparation and Service
PCJ’s policies will reflect the following agreements regarding food preparation end service
2

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 1470

3Ite Policy will be designed to avoid the following five major risk factors for food borne illness, as set forth in the Food Code established by the United States Public Health Service.

ao

Food held at improper temperature and/or for improper length of

time;

b.

Inadequately cooked or undercooked food;

c. Cross-contamination of food equipment;

d. Food t~om unsafe sources including use of expired food;

e. Poor personal hygiene.

In order to effectuate the goals set forth in Section 1 (a) above, PCJ agrees that:

Inmate workers responsible for food preparation and service will change into deanjumpsults (or jail issued uniforms) prior to every shiR;

So

Soap and towels will be available in lavatories and in food

preparation areas. PCJ will demand that those who handle and/or

transport food will wash their hands with soap and warm water for

20 seconds before handling foods, after using the toilet, and after

changing operations. Failure to do so w’tll result in removal of the

inmate from the food services crew. The use of hand sanitizers

will be permitted when soap and towels are not readily available;

Each pallet of food will be labeled with the date on which it was received and must be served to inmates prior to the expiration date
on the food packaging or in accordance with storage times permitted by the Food Code;

Operational thermometers for ambient temperature will be located in refi’igerators and freezers and Defendants will log the temperatures at the begirming of~e first shift of each day and at the end of the second shift of each day;

Systems will be put in place designed to ensure that food temperature at the point of service will measure 45°F or less for
cold foods and 140°F or more for warm/hot foods on a validated thermocouple thermometer. Under no circumstances will warm/hot foods at the point of service be less than 135°F;

If the food service is not contracted out to a third pm’ty vendor, one or more of PCJ’s corrections officers will be trained and certified

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 1471
as a food protection manager, having passed a test that is part of an acercdited program;
If the food service is not contracted out to a third party vendor, at least one food protection manager, as described in subsection (f.) above, will be present for and supervise each meal preparation and service. Defendants will create a schedule to ensure that each shift is covered.
Housekeeping
PCJ’s policies will reflect the following agreements regarding housekeeping:
The written housekeeping policy and procedure will be revised for all areas of the facility so that it accurately reflects PCJ practices;
Inmates and the corrections officers who instruct them on same will be provided with instruetious regarding the use of equipment and supplies;
Inmates will be offered persomal protective equipment (e.g., gloves, masks, eye protection) indicated for use with undiluted or caustic chemicals, including paint, as indieated by the material safety data sheets and/or the labels of the material(s) being handled;
All chemicals will be maintained in their original eontalners itmsmuoh as possible. Whan chemicals are decanted and otherwise diluted for use, the centainers in which these chemicals are kept will be clearly labeled as to content in accordance with Hazard Communication standards;
Cleaning materials will be made available to trustees so that dormitories, including the sinks, toilets, and shower facilities, may be cleaned at least once each day, including during periods of look-down exceeding twelve hours;
Cleaning materials will be made available to inmates assigned to cells, except those in SDU, so that cells, including the sinks and toilets, maybe cleaned at least once each week, including during periods of lock-down exceeding twelve hours;
A program designed to ensure that cells and dormitories are cleaned as provided in subsections (5) and (6) above will be maintained;
Inmate housekeeping crews responsible for general eleauing and assigned to specific tasks will be provided with appropriate deauing and safety instructions on terminal cleaning of cells and specialty housing areas;
4

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 1472
Individuals responsible for dusting will be provided with a schedule and detailed information regard’rag how to dust inaccessible surfaces (to occur approximately onco per year);
10. A specific cleaning schedule will be established to ensure achievement and maintenance of adequate sanitation.
Laundry & Bedding
PCJ’s policies will reflact the following agreemertts regarding laundry:
Systems will be used to mimmize surface and airborne contamination of Staphylocoeens and other disease organisms in the handling and transportation of soiled laundry and distribution of dean laundry;
PCJ will use precautions, similar to those used by the Federal Bureau of Prison, when handling linens contaminated with bodily fluids to ensure minimum risk to inmate workers and supervisory personnel;
Wash water will be greater than or equal to 140°F and laundry chemicals will be available at all times during the operation of the laundry. These chemicals will be periodically titrated for proper dilution to prevent sldn irritation;
At all times during the laundry operation, a person trained and certified as a certified laundry technician by the Association for Linen Management (www.almnet.org) will be present. PCJ will create a schedule to ensure that each shift is covered; 5. All inmates will be provided with a mesh laundry bag or lanndry loop;
A minimum of at least par-two levels of all iustitationally-issued garments, including, but not limited to, boxers or briefs for men and underwear and bras for women, will be provided to each inmate, and this will be documented; 7. Laundering for towels will be offered at least twice per week;
Laundering for clothing will be offered to all inmates, at least two tunes per week;
9. Laundering for linens will be offered at least once per week; 10. Laundering for blankets will be offered at least once per week;
11. Each inmate will be issued a mattress with integrated pillow, a blanket, and two sheets;
5

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 1473

12. Mattresses will be in good repair, ciean and free of graffiti; serviceable; and fire retardant. Mattresses will be cleaned and sanitized between uses;

13. Until Phase IL as described above, is fully operational in all parts of the facility, the following steps will be taken:

a. Thermometers will be placed in each living area, visible to corrections officers;

b. Sweatshirts will be made available to all inmates upon request, and
at no cost to indigent inmates, when the temperature inside the facility is 66 degrees or lower between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m.;

When the temperature inside the facility is 80 degrees or warmer, ice will be provided to inmates and fans in existing locations will be turned on.

Eo

Plumbing

I. A licensed plumber will evaluate the facility within 60 days of the execution of the Settlement Agreement to determine whether the facility is in compliance with the Plumbing Code provisions regarding cross connectinn and baek-siphonage. If the facility is in violation of such provisions Defendants will, to the extent possible, prepare and follow a remediation schedule to bring the facflity into compliance.

Within 30 days of the execution of the Settlement Agreement, a licensed
plumber will conduct an initial survey of all plumbing fixtures including, but not limited to, toilets, sinks, showers, water fountains and utility sinks, and a corrections officer will make a log of all fixtures. All non- and margmally-operational fixtures will be returned to working conditions, based upon a priority schedule to be established. If replacements are needed, a remediation schedule will be prepared and followe&

Adequate pressure and quantity will be maintained to provide normal operation of toilets, sinks, showers and drinking fountains. If jail conditions permit, this will be: toilets and utility sinks, 3 gpm; showers, 5 gpm; lavatory sinks, 2 gpm; and drinking water fountains, 8 gallons per hour.

Hot water will not exceed 120QF in inmate domicile areas.

All combination faucets or mixing valves will have 10 second uninterrupted flow.

Inmates will have access to toilets 24 hours/day, 7 days a week, including in boo!dng~ holding, and medical unit areas.

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 1474

Fo

Velmin Control

PCJ’s policies will reflect the following agreements regarding vermin control:

1. PCJ will use Integrated Pest Management practices;
Passaic County will ensure that a licensed Pest Control Technician will inspect PCJ on a monthly basis and document same;

Safe pesticide application, including written protocols from the contract pest control vendor, will be used;

4. "Economic Poison" safety will be used in all areas of the facility.

Personal Hygiene

All inmates wilI be issued a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, and comb upon admission to the facility. It will be ensured that these supphes are provided tmfil the inmate’s commissary order is processed or other arrangements are made for indigent inmates.

Restricted inmates will be given the opportunity to shower at least five limes each week. Shower times should be logged.

Grooming Services

PCJ’s policies will reflect the following agreements regarding grooming services:

a. All iustruments will be inspected and sanitized betw~a uses;

Inmate barbers and the female equivalent will be provided with training and safety information for personal hygiene practices and the blood-borne disease control standards;
On an annual basis, PCJ will ensure that the training and safety
information referenced in subsection (b) is consistent with the information provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for its detention facilities;

PCJ will post a notice and provide instructions to inmate barbers and the female equivalents that disposable neck papers or single use towels are required to be used. PCJ will provide sufficient supplies of disposable neck papers or single use towels for the barbering needs of each unit. PCJ will prohibit neck brushes.

Electrical Power and Supply

Within 30 days of the execution of the Settlement Agreement, a licensed electrician will evaluate the facility to determine compliance with the

7

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 1475
National Fire Protection Association electrical code or equivalent local code. If any violations are found, Defendants will, to the extent possible, prepare and follow a remediation schedule. PCJ’s policies will reflect the following agreements regarding electrical equipment:
Only electrical and electronic equipment (with the exception of battery-operated components) that are UL approved or equivalent will be used within the facility;, All portable eleetrical equipment will be double iusulated or grounded. For emergency operation purposes, PC1 will prepare a detailed inventory of all critieal equipment and electrical outlets that are connected to emergency power operations, including, but not limited to: locking devices, medical equipment, refrigerators-freezers, emergency lighting, and alarms- enmmunication. In-Service Training All inmates (a) who handle undiluted hazardous materials or (2) are assigned to a work detail such as laundry, housekeeping, kitchen or maintenance will receive appropriate hazardous communication training regarding handling chemicals, inoluding paint, in accordance with the OSHA Hazard Communication standard CFR 19t0.1200. Inmates who handle chemicals, including paint, will be offered the personal protective equipment as required by the material safety data sheets and/or the labels of the material(s) being handled. Self-lnspection In the event that the Environmental. MOU sunsets prior to the termination of the Settlement Agreement, then PCJ will develop and implement a self-inspection program for quality assurance, quality enntml and quality improvement for the areas addressed herein.
8

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 1476
¯ "
HILDNI~R, COCOZIELLO AND CHATTMAN One Riverfi’ont Plaza, Suite 800 Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 623-1000
For ~/,~/ti :
R6~on H. Crotfy Jennie B, Krasner DECHERT LLP Suite 500 902 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6531 (609) 955-3200
[~-xtward L. Barocas JeaIlllo LoCioero AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION P.O. Box 32159 Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 642-2086 ~
Patricia Perlmuttcr Jenny-Brooke Condon SETON HALL ~RSITY SCHOOL O1~ LAW, CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 833 McCarter Highway Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 642-8700
9

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1477
Exhibit C

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 1478

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING CORRECTIONAL ISSUES
AT THE PASSAIC COUNTY JAIL
Whereas, the County of Passaic, the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and the Passaic County Sheriff’s Department (collectively "Defendants") are parties to the action captioned Colon, et al. v. Passaic Count’c, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-04439, which is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Action"), and the Plaintiff class of inmates who are now or will become incarcerated at the Passaic County Jail during the pendency of the Action are also parties to the Action ("Plaintiffs") (Defendants and Plaintiffs, collectively the "Parties"); and
Whereas, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants (1) do not provide or perform the services and functions addressed in this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"); (2) do not comply with the referenced standards; and (3) have not provided information or documentation evidencing their performance of the services and functions addressed herein and evidencing their compliance with the referenced standards; and
Whereas, Defendants contend that they (1) already provide and perform many of the services and functions addressed in this MOU; (2) already comply with many of the standards referenced in this MOU; and (3) have provided information and documents evidencing such performance and compliance to Plaintiffs;
Whereas, Defendants and Plaintiffs are desirous of entering into the MOU as of this ~/~ day of December, 2011.

The purpose this MOU is to set forth in writing the interim understanding of the Parties with respect to certain issues related to the operation of the Passaic County Jail ("PCJ" or the "facility"). This MOU is not binding on the Parties unless and until a comprehensive agreement is reached by the Parties and merged into a final comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed by the Parties and approved by the Court. This MOU is entered into for settlement purpose only pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 408 and shall ~ot be either deemed admissible on behalf of the Parties, nor construed as an admission of liability by the Parties. Further, this MOU, any actions to carry out the MOU, and/or any negotiations or court proceedings relating to this MOU shall only be admissible in proceedings related to the enforcement of any Settlement Agreement in this Action.
II. Policies
To the extent consistent with applicable state and federal statutes and regulations governing its operations, Defendants will adopt and implement any and all new policies and/or amend any existing policies to conform to the areas of substantive agreement below, notwithstanding whether specific reference is made below to the revision or adoption of specific policies.
A. Use of Force

kwiktag ~

070 437 663

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 1479
The Parties agree that in certain situations, the use of force by corrections staff may be required in PCJ. The Parties further agree that the force used should be avoided except where reasonably determined to be required and the amount of force employed should be the minimum amount required in the circumstances.
Training: Defendants will develop and implement mandatory six (6) hours of annual use of force training for all corrections staff. Where possible, training will focus on the types and circumstances of actual use of force incidents that occurred within PCJ during the prior year, and will be apportioned as follows:
At least three (3) hours of annual use of force training will be dedicated to practical exercises that will include any of the following topics: defensive tactics, cell extractions, handcuffing, pat-searches, chemical/natural agents, less than lethal weaponry, judgmental use of force exercises, and corrections staff safety. In any three (3) year cycle, training will be provided on each of the pre6eding topics.
At least three (3) hours of annual use of force training will be dedicated to classroom training that will include the following topics: PCJ policy review, deployment procedures, SORT operations, K-9 operations, follow-up care (medical treatment and injury assessment), reporting and documentation procedures, actual use of force incident critiques, de-escalation techniques and alternatives to use of force, corrections staff safety, and dealing with inmates who suffer from serious mental illnesses. In any three (3) year cycle, training will be provided on each of the preceding topics.
(1) Of the classroom training, up to two (2) hours may occur
via computer and may cover the following topics: PCJ policy review, follow-up care (medical treatment and injury assessment), reporting and documentation procedures, and corrections staff safety.
Use of Force Report Form: Defendants will revise the current use of force reporting form to supplement narrative descriptions of incidents (in which the corrections staff shall describe the incident in their own words) with check boxes or other appropriate easily discernable data identifiers including, at a minimum, the following information:
The time and specific location of the incident;
Witnesses and other staff present, including medical staff;
Any alternatives/de-escalation techniques used prior to the use of force, including whether any distance was created between the corrections staff and the inmate so that a physical confrontation
2

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 1480
could be avoided and whether the corrections staff called for/radioed for backup prior to using force, and if not, why not;
d. Specific reasons why corrections staff used force;
If force was used to enforce facility regulations, the immediate threat to personal safety or facility security;
The type(s) of force used, including specific techniques employed and commands/directives issued while using force;
If hand or foot strikes were used, the areas of the body to which they were directed;
Any resistance offered by inmate prior to, during, or after the use of force;
Any physical or mental disabilities of the inmate on whom force was used and whether staff was aware of these disabilities or medical conditions prior to the use of force;
Actions taken by other corrections staff, as well as what the corrections staff perceived the threat to be;
The resultant effect of the application of force on the subject, i.e., compliance, further resistance. Describe the manner of compliance and/or continued resistance;
The correction staff’s involvement in follow-up medical care (if any), including what actions he or she took and when; and
m. Any physical injuries asserted by the inmate during the incident;
n. Whether the use of force was video-recorded with a handheld or other type of video camera, and if not, why not.
Defendants will also incorporate into the Jail Management System (JMS) data fields to capture the above information and be able to generate routine reports of same. The JMS system will be fully operaflonal by no later than thirty (30) days from the Court’s final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Investigation: Defendants will ensure that, when reviewing use of force incidents, SID will, in addition to considering the Use of Force Report Forms completed in connection with the incident, consider the following:
Whether the corrections staffs actions Complied with the PCJ policy and procedures regarding use of force, including the requirement that

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 1481
all corrections staff who used force or witnessed an incident involving a use of force submitted incident reports;
b. Whether de-escalation techniques were used or why they were not;
Whether the corrections staff practiced good officer safety techniques, including creating distance between themselves and the inmate where possible and calling for/radioing for backup;
Whether the corrections staff attempted to secure other cooperative inmates in their cells or instructed them to remain on their bunks while awaiting backup;
e. Whether the techniques employed were consistent with training;
If force was used to enforce facility regulations, whether the reports described in detail the immediate threat to personal safety or facility security;
Whether there was an opportunity to video-record the incident and, if so, whether the incident was recorded or why it was not;
Whether the corrections staff received training in any applicable use of force policy and specific techniques to be used during a use of force within the past year;
Whether at the time of the incident PCJ was staffed according to its post coverage plan;
Whether any related/applicable department policies and training are sufficient, and if not, recommended changes;
Whether the corrections staff and inmate involved had previous histories of conflict; and
Whether the corrections staff involved had previously been involved in use of force incidents that were submitted for SID review.
Software: The Defendants will purchase and implement software that will assist in the early identification of corrections staff who may be using excessive or inappropriate force. This system will be implemented and fully operational no later thanthirty (30) days fromthe Court’s final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Management Review of Use of Force Reports: All use of force reports will be reviewed and such review will be documented. A Lieutenant.may conduct the first-level review of such reports; the Warden and/or Deputy Warden must conduct a second-level review no later than the business day
4

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 1482
subsequent to the use of force incident. If the Warden and/or Deputy Warden determine that a corrections staff member’s conduct was inappropriate or identify areas for improvement, the Warden and/or Deputy Warden will request an SID investigation or take those corrective actions they/he deem to be appropriate. In addition, if the use of force resulted in an inmate losing consciousness, receiving sutures, having a positive x-ray, and/or being transported to a hospital for evaluation or treatment (other than for an x-ray), jail administration will request an SID review.
Use of Canines: Defendants’ canine policy will reflect that canines may be used for "deterrence" purposes, but that canines will not be used for any purpose in the mental health unit ("1-2") absent an emergency and approval from the highest ra~king officer present at the facility at that time.
Cell Extraction and Planned Use of Force: All planned use of force situations, including cell extractions, will be performed by as many SORT officers as are available at the time of the incident. All planned use of force situations, including cell extractions, will be video-recorded with a handheld or other type of video camera.
Management Review/Oversight: Defendants will create a form and/or system that captures the following information:
a. Average daily population for each month;
b. Number of use of force incidents;
Location(s) (e.g., floor or area) of use of force incidents and inmate assaults;
d. Shift on which incidents occurred;
e. Restraint chair uses;
Verbal commands, orders, or ultimatums given to canines to deploy them as a use of force against inmates;
g. Disciplinary hearings conducted;
h. Pre-hearing detentions;
i. On the spot adjudications;
Closed custody unit (e.g., SDU or MCU) admissions by reason (e.g., suicide watch, pre-hearing detention, disciplinary detention, intake holding, administrative segregation, other);
5

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 1483
k. Cell extractions;
Detail regarding offender medical referrals as a result of injuries sustained including: inmate/inmate assaults, use of force incidents;
Medical referrals as a result of injuries sustained by corrections staff in use of force incidents or as a result of inmate assaults;
Differentiate between grievances received and numbers substantiated by category; and
Strip searches conducted on (a) non-indictable inmates upon entry into the jail and (b) inmates within the jail for reasonable suspicion purposes other than (i) upon placement in SDU, MCU, suicide watch or protective custody, or (ii) after their return to PCJ from an outside location (court, work detail, etc.) unless suspicionless searches become permissible pursuant to New Jersey statute.
Defendants will compile this information each month and the Warden or Deputy Warden (or in their absence, a single designated Captain) will review this data monthly.
10. Lo~s: Until the appropriate software system has been implemented as described above, Defendants will generate the following five (5) separate logs (not one log containing all of the information): (1) restraint chair usage, (2) use of force, (3) cell extractions, (4) verbal commands, orders, or ultimatums given to canines to deploy them as a use of force against inmates and/or incidents involving canine deployment or bites, and (5) strip searches conducted on (a) non-indictable inmates upon entry into the jail and (b) inmates within the jail for reasonable suspicion purposes, other than (i) upon placement in SDU, MCU, Suicide watch or protective custody, or (ii) after their return to PCJ from an outside location (court, work detail, etc.) unless suspicionless searches become permissible pursuant to New Jersey statute.
Population Management
1. Safety and Security Criteria for Housing Areas
Triple bunks may only be utilized, when necessary, when in conformance with the other applicable safety and security criteria subsections under section (B)(1).
(1) Triple bunks may only be utilized where the top of the top
bunk mattress is no less than four (4) feet from a soffit or ceiling.
6

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 1484
(2) The Medical Director will establish a policy regarding
accommodating inmates with disabilities who would have difficulty mounting or dismounting an upper or triple bunk. The Medical Department shall notify custody staff of any inmate who should be offered a bottom bunk. However, an inmate offered this accommodation shall have the right to waive the assignment.
(3) The aisle width between triple bunks at the time of the
execution of this MOU will not be reduced.
(4) Defendants shall install ladders at the foot of every triple bunk.
Dorms
(1) Beds shall not interfere with visibility into the dorms, and
shall only be located along or perpendicular to a perimeter wall. The single exception to this provision is in the Jail Annex (also known as the Grand Street Annex, also known as the Grand Street Female area).
(2) Corrections staff must be able to see inmates on all bunks from the officer viewing area. The single exception to this provision is the Jail Annex (also known as the Grand Street Annex, also known as the Grand Street Female area), where corrections staff must enter the unit and conduct security rounds on the upper and lower levels no less than every thirty (30) minutes. Should this area be used to house inmates other than those classified as minimum security, such rounds must be conducted no less than every fifteen (15) minutes.
(3) Beds shall not be closer than eighteen (18) feet to a toilet
and/or urinal, except in the following five (5) units, where beds shall not be closer than twelve (12) feet to a toilet and/or urinal: 2-T-4, 3-D-10, 3-D-11, 3 Main, and 1-2. Defendants will install pemaanent privacy screens in front of the toilet/urinal areas in these five units.
(4) Inmates must have sufficient space to eat at a table.
(5) Where triple bunks are not permitted in dorms, they will be
removed or replaced by double or single bunks.
(6) Excess bunks shall be removed so as to create more usable
square footage/day space.
7

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 1485
c. Triple Celling
(1) Triple celling will be permitted only where (a) the cells
house minimum security inmates who have been cleared as compatible by the classification officer, (b) beds in minimum security dorms are not available, and (c) the inmates have continuous access to a dayroom (and/or work areas in the case of trustees) between 7:45 am and 10:30 pm, excluding during counts.
Barriers to visibility (e.g., laundry/sheets hanging off of bunks, impeding visibility into the unit) shall not be permitted in any units.
Population Management Study: Beginning thirty (30) days after the Court’s final approval of the Settlement Agreement, if the average monthly population of the facility exceeds one-thousand and twenty-two (1022) inmates for four (4) or more months out of every six (6) month period (on a rolling basis), Defendants will hire a consultant to perform a population management study and issue recommendations, at a cost not to exceed $65,000.00. In consultation with the Monitor, Defendants will implement the reasonable recommendations of the population management consultant.
NIC Classification Validation Study: Defendants will undertake a preliminary classification validation review performed by the National Institute of Corrections ("NIC") at no cost. Defendants will make a good faith effort to implement the reasonable recommendations of the NIC review, after discussion with the Monitor, in his or her consultative role. In the event that the Monitor is not in place when PCJ receives the review’s recommendations, PCJ will review such with the Monitor within six (6) months of his/her appointment.
Inmates from Other Jurisdictions: Defendants will not accept inmates from other jurisdictions except on one-to-one trade, or where necessary for the inmates’ safety and security. Any such arrangement (where inmates are accepted for their safety and security) will last no longer than necessary to ensure the inmates’ safety and security. Even under such circumstances, Defendants will abide by the provisions of this MOU.
Plaintiffs will refrain from seeking court relief regarding subsection II B should PC J, during the implementation and construction of Phase II (as defined in the Environmental MOU), temporarily relocate inmates to cells and dorms so as to exceed the limitations otherwise set forth herein. In the event that any such relocation exceeds the limitations otherwise set forth herein, PCJ shall give notice to Plaintiffs and the Monitor within fortyeight(48) hours of any said relocation regarding the number of inmates relocated, the location, and anticipated duration.
8

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 1486

Closed Custody Units

1. Ombudsman, Nurse, and Social Worker Rounds

The medical staff will log their visits to closed custody units (e.g., SDU or MCU) in the logbooks specific to each closed custody unit.

A mental health staff member will visit all closed custody units five (5) days per week. When an inmate is housed in a closed custody unit on suicide watch, a mental health staff member will visit the unit seven (7) days per week. The mental health staff member will log his or her visits to the unit in the logbook specific to that unit.

An ombudsman will visit all closed custody units five (5) days per week. The ombudsman will log his visits to the closed custody unit in the logbook specific to that unit.

Recreation: Inmates temporarily released from SDU between concurrent sentences (for 24 hours after serving 30 days) will be afforded at least one hour of outside recreation before being placed back in the closed custody units.

30-day Limit: Defendants will follow PCJ’s policy with respect to maximum time allowed in SDU. See 2:5.5.11 ("No inmate will be confined in disciplinary detention continuously for more than 30 days without the approval of the Warden"); 17.2(b) ("Inmates found guilty of multiple disciplinary charges may receive up to 15 days Disciplinary Detention for each charge provided that the total time to be served does not exceed 30 days.").

Double-Ceiling: Inmates will not be double-celled in SDU unless the classification officer and a social worker evaluate the history of the
inmates that Defendants propose to double-cell in SDU and both determine that those inmates do not pose a risk of physical harm to each other.

Do

Inmate Management

CCTV Coverage: Defendants will install CCTV to cover all dorms, day rooms, and closed custody units, and the recreation, gym, entrance, and booking areas. These cameras will cover most areas other than toilet/showering facilities. All CCTV coverage will be fully operational by no later than thirty (30) days of the Court’s final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 1487
2. Sexual Assault Prevention:
Within thirty (30) days of the Court’s final approval of the Settlement Agreement, PCJ will develop and commence implementation of policies, procedures and practices to safeguard inmates from sexual assault while in custody, consistent with generally accepted correctional practice and applicable state law. These policies, procedures and practices will be implemented within one-hundred eighty (180) days of the Court’s final approval of the Settlement Agreement. These policies, procedures and practices shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A commitment to a zero tolerance position regarding
inmate/inmate sexual assault and staff/inmate sexual assault and misconduct;
Appropriate screening of new employees to assure no history of behaviors related to sexual assault or misconduct;
(3) Training of new employees;
(4) In-service re-training of all employees;
(5) Orientation of contract staff and obtaining all contractors’
conmaitment to abide by PCJ’s policies and procedures relating to sexual safety;
(6) Orientation of all arriving inmates (as well as those in custody at the time the policy is adopted) regarding their right to be safe and how to report allegations of sexual assault and/or misconduct;
(7) Preiiminary screening during the classification process of all incoming arrestees to assess them as potential victims or predators;
(8) Housing assignments consistent with findings of screenings;
(9) Mandatory reporting by employees of any suspicions of sexual assault and/or misconduct;
(10) Prompt investigation of all allegations of sexual assault and/or misconduct;
(11) Referral of inmate victims to medical and mental health services;
I0

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 1488

(12) Removal of staff under investigation for sexual assault and/or misconduct from inmate contact;
(13) Referral for prosecution as indicated by the reports;
(14) Disciplinary action for staff found to have violated facility rules regarding sexual conduct;
(15) Data collection ’and analysis of records;
(16) Periodic assessment of the physical plant to reduce opportunities for assaults.
Within sixty (60) days of the publication of the final regulations published pursuant to the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA"), the Monitor will make recommendations regarding the actions that PCJ must take to comply with those regulations which are legally binding on PCJ and will provide such in writing to the parties. The Monitor will then monitor the facility’s compliance with such recommendations until the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("DOC") adopts state regulations regarding the implementation of the federal PREA regulations. On the date such DOC regulations are adopted, the Monitor will cease monitoring her recommendations and begin monitoring the jail’s compliance with the DOC regulations.

Eo

Grievance System

Grievance Form Copies: Each grievance form will consist of three colors of carbon paper and contain a unique identification number. The inmate will submit one colored form to the ombudsman or other PCJ staff and will retain the other color copy for his or her records. The ombudsman or other PCJ staff member will sign the inmate’s copy upon receipt.

Grievance Form Availability: In addition to grievance forms already supplied by PCJ staff, grievance forms will be available from at least the following individuals during their rounds to the units: ombudsman, social worker, nurse, and chaplain.

Confidential Grievance Policy: Defendants will make locked grievance boxes available at the chapel, library and recreational/gym areas for inmates to submit confidential grievances.

Grievance Referrals: In the event that a grievance alleges verbal abuse or physical abuse that did not result in the need for medical treatment, it will be referred to the tour commander for investigation. In the event that a

11

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 1489
grievance alleges physical abuse that resulted in an inmate losing consciousness, receiving sutures, having a positive x-ray, and/or being transported to a hospital for evaluation or treatment (other than for an xray), it will be referred to SID.
Grievance Timing: Defendants will respond to grievances relating to health and safety within three (3) business days of receipt of the grievance form and all other grievances within seven (7) business days. Such time periods will be measured by the date corrections staff signs for the receipt of the grieva0, ce form.
Additional Issues
Headphones: On a pilot basis, Defendants will install RF equipment or similar technology on televisions within portions of the facility so that the sound may only be heard through wireless headphones. Inmates will be permitted to purchase these headphones from the commissary at a reasonable price (i.e., the purchase price will be in line with other facilities in New Jersey or surrounding states). Indigent inmates will be supplied headphones without charge, but will have their account debited for the price of the headphones if/when they do acquire funds. Defendants will consult with the Monitor to determine whether this program may be implemented on all televisions throughout the facility on a permanent basis.
Inmate Written Statements: Inmates will be permitted to compose their own witness statements for SID investigations on separate pieces of paper.
Shakedowns: Whenever reasonably feasible, the highest ranking available officer under the on-duty tour commander will be present at all shakedowns and shakedowns will be video-recorded with a handheld or other form of video camera. Once CCTV has been completely installed pursuant to this agreement, shakedowns need not be video-recorded, provided that they are captured via CCTV.
Document and Video Retention: All documents as specified herein, (including but not limited to use of force forms, documents related to SID reviews of use of force, logs, NJ Significant Incident Summary Reports) must be maintained for two (2) years. Media (including tapes, videos, CDs DVDs) that are relevant to Internal Affairs/SID investigations will be maintained for two (2) years.
Access to Law Materials: All inmates shall have the right to access the materials and research capabilities of the law library or, where denied access, the right to receive assistance and materials from assigned persons trained in the law. Defendants will designate at least two (2) computers in the law library through which inmates can obtain full access to their
12

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-4 Filed 01/06/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 1490

case files and in addition will ensure that seven (7) computers in the law library allow access to electronic legal databases. Defendants will provide
a rule book, lawyers’ diary, and a Lexis User’s Guide. Defendants will comply with N.J.A.C. 10A:31-15.3. Legal research and legal papers are confidential documents and shall not be copied, saved, or destroyed by PCJ staff.

J. Ba~ Coco~v
POD MEANC CATENACCI,
HILDI’ ~R, COCOZINLLO AND CHATTMAN One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 800 Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973) 623-1000

For the Plaintiffs:
Eza-a D. l~osenberg Regan H. Crotty Michael Planell DECHERT LLP Suite 500 902 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6531 (609) 955-3200

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY P.O. Box 32159 Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 642-2086 ~
Patricia Perlmutter Jenny-Brooke Condon SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 833 McCarter Highway Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 642-8700

13

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1491
Exhibit D

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 1492

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 1493

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 1494

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 1495

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 1496

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 1497

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 1498

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 1499

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 1500

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 1501

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-5 Filed 01/06/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 1502

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1503
Exhibit E

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 1504

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 1505

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 1506

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 1507

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 1508

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 1509

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 1510

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 1511

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 1512

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-7 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1513
Exhibit F

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 2Poafg1e61Poafg1e5ID: 1514

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 3Poafg1e62Poafg1e5ID: 1515

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 4Poafg1e63Poafg1e5ID: 1516

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 5Poafg1e64Poafg1e5ID: 1517

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 6Poafg1e65Poafg1e5ID: 1518

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 7Poafg1e66Poafg1e5ID: 1519

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 8Poafg1e67Poafg1e5ID: 1520

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 9Poafg1e68Poafg1e5ID: 1521

Case 2:0C8a-csve-024:0483-9c-vD-0M4C4-3M9-FDMDCo-cMuFmenDto9c4u-m7 enFtil5e8d 01F/i0le6d/1022/2P5a/g1e0 10Paogf e169 Poaf g1e5ID: 1522

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 1P1aogfe1160Poafg1e5ID: 1523

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 1P2aogfe1161Poafg1e5ID: 1524

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 1P3aogfe1162Poafg1e5ID: 1525

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 1P4aogfe1163Poafg1e5ID: 1526

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 1P5aogfe1164Poafg1e5ID: 1527

Case 2:0C8a-scev-20:40483-c9v-D-0M44C3-9M-FDMDCo-McuFmeDnot c9u4m-7enFt i5le8d 0F1i/l0e6d/1022/2P5a/1g0e 1P6aogfe1165Poafg1e5ID: 1528

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-8 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1529
Exhibit G

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-8 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 1530
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING The following is a summary of the proposed settlement agreed to by the parties in
Colon, et al. v. Passaic County, et al., a class action suit brought on behalf of all inmates at the Passaic County Jail (“Jail”) to improve conditions within the Jail. The suit brought claims for alleged violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The suit did not seek money damages.
The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are all current and future inmates of the Jail. You are a member of the plaintiff class because you are incarcerated at the Jail. You and the other plaintiffs have been represented in this lawsuit by attorneys from the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice, the ACLU of New Jersey, and the law firm Dechert LLP. The Defendants in this lawsuit are Passaic County and officials responsible for running and funding the jail.
The purpose of this summary is to give you a better understanding of the basic elements of the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”). The description below is not intended to alter in any manner the Settlement, and this document will not be taken into account in interpreting the Settlement. The summary does not contain a complete description of all elements of the Settlement and omits completely certain parts of the Settlement. Please review the Settlement to learn its full details. A full copy of the Settlement is available on the computers in the law library and from the Ombudsman, as well as in all day rooms and common areas of the Jail.
A federal judge will need to approve the fairness of the Settlement before it can be implemented. The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for ______, 2012, and has requested that all inmates who would like to comment on the settlement mail their comments to Plaintiffs’ counsel by _____ or return them to the Jail Ombudsman who will return them to your attorneys. Comments mailed after ___ will not be considered by the Court in determining the fairness of the Settlement. Accordingly, you are invited — but not required – to submit your comments. You can do so on the form provided with this packet or on any other piece of paper and may use the enclosed pre-addressed envelope. Please note that your comments will not be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Your attorneys must forward copies of all comments to attorneys for the Jail and to the Court.
1

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-8 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 1531
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TERMS
• Plaintiffs and the Jail agreed to settlement terms which concern (1) fire safety; (2) environmental health; (3) correctional issues; (4) medical issues; and (5) mental health services. These terms are contained in five documents, each called a “Memorandum of Understanding” and the Jail has agreed to comply with them. (p. 3)
• An independent monitor will monitor compliance with the Settlement Agreement. (p. 4)
• The Monitor will be able to tour the Jail, talk to inmates and staff and review documents, including individual inmate records, to evaluate the Defendants’ progress. (p. 5)
• The Monitor will first visit the Jail to develop a monitoring plan and then conduct two inspections each year. If the Monitor determines that additional site visits are necessary, she may conduct additional visits to the Jail. (pp. 6-8)
• After each inspection, the Monitor will prepare a written report which will assess whether the Jail is meeting the requirements of the settlement. (pp. 9-10) Portions of the Monitor’s report may be designated as confidential. The reports cannot be used as evidence in other lawsuits or be used as a reason to file another lawsuit. (p. 13).
• If the Jail is not complying with the Settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel may ask a judge to enforce the Settlement. If that happens, the parties and the Monitor will first try to resolve the dispute. (p. 11)
• Defendants will notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel of a serious incident at the Jail. (p. 11)
• Plaintiffs’ counsel may request individual classification and medical and mental health records from Defendants provided that the inmate has submitted a grievance. (Typically, Plaintiffs’ counsel requests records if an inmate asks for counsel’s assistance with a problem at the Jail). (p. 12)
• The Monitor, consultants and attorneys may have access to medical and mental health records of some class members in order to monitor Defendants’ compliance. The individual consent of an inmate is not required. Individual inmates may refuse disclosure of their records by contacting their attorneys. (pp. 15-16; Exhibit G)
• The Settlement will end when Defendants achieve Substantial Compliance for each of the categories or 5 years from the date of the Settlement Agreement, whichever comes first. If the Jail is closed, the Settlement Agreement will end. (p. 17)
• The Settlement is not evidence of or an admission of fault or liability on the part of the Jail. (p. 18)
• Defendants will pay for a portion of expert expenses and Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees. (p. 19)
2

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-8 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 1532
FIRE SAFETY ISSUES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, EXHIBIT A
• The Jail will oversee the completion of the New Fire Detection and Alarm Systems and Phase I Fire Suppression Upgrades (hereinafter referred to as “Phase I”). (p. 1)
• The Jail will oversee the completion of the New Fire Detection, Alarm, Suppression Systems and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System Upgrades (hereinafter referred to as "Phase II"). (p. 1)
• The Jail will purchase testing, maintenance and repair services for all of its fire systems and equipment for a period of ten years. (p. 2)
• As of the completion of Phase II, PCJ will be compliant with the New Jersey Uniform Fire Safety Act (“NJUFSA”) and all applicable fire codes and regulations and PCJ will remain within compliance of the NJUFSA and all applicable fire codes and regulations going forward. (pp. 2-5)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, EXHIBIT B
• The Jail will complete the Main and Marshall Street HVAC and Fire Protection System Upgrades (see Fire Safety Issues Memorandum of Understanding, “Phase II”).
• From October 1 through April 30, the Jail will maintain a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit between 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., and no less than 65 degrees Fahrenheit between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Once Phase II is completed, from May 1 to September 30, the Jail will maintain a temperature of no more than 80 degrees Fahrenheit to all inmate occupied areas. (p. 2)
• Until Phase II is fully operational in all parts of the facility, sweatshirts will be made available to all inmates upon request, and at no cost to indigent inmates, when the temperature inside the facility is 66 degrees or lower between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. When the temperature inside the facility is 80 degrees or warmer, ice will be provided to inmates and fans in existing locations will be turned on. (p. 2)
• Food temperature at the point of service will measure 45°F or less for cold foods and 140°F or more for warm/hot foods. (p. 3)
• Inmates who work with certain chemicals will be offered personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves, masks, eye protection) that is recommended for use with undiluted or caustic chemicals, including paint, as indicated by the material safety data sheets and/or the labels of the material(s) being handled. All chemicals will be maintained in their original containers as much as possible. (p. 4)
• Cleaning materials will be made available to trustees so that dormitories, including the sinks, toilets, and shower facilities, may be cleaned at least once each day. (p. 4)
3

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-8 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 1533
• The Jail will provide two sets of all institutionally-issued garments, including, but not limited to, boxers or briefs for men and underwear and bras for women. (p. 5)
• Laundering for clothing and towels will be offered at least twice per week. (p. 5) • Laundering for linens and blankets will be offered at least once per week. (p. 5) • Each inmate will be issued a mattress with attached pillow, a blanket, and two sheets.
(p. 5) • Mattresses will be in good repair. Mattresses will be cleaned and sanitized between
uses. (p. 6) • A licensed plumber will conduct an initial survey of all plumbing fixtures and a
corrections officer will make a log of all fixtures. All non- and marginally-operational fixtures will be returned to working conditions. (p. 6) • The Jail will provide adequate pressure and quantity of water for the normal operation of toilets, sinks, showers and drinking fountains. (p. 6) • Hot water will not exceed 120°F in inmate areas. (p. 6) • Inmates will have access to toilets 24 hours/day, 7 days a week, including in booking, holding, and medical unit areas. (p. 6) • PCJ will use Integrated Pest Management practices. A licensed Pest Control Technician will inspect PCJ on a monthly basis. (p. 7) • All inmates will be issued a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, and comb upon admission to the facility. (p. 7) • A licensed electrician will evaluate the facility. If any violations are found, Defendants will, to the extent possible, prepare and follow a remediation schedule. (pp. 7-8)
4

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-8 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 1534
CORRECTIONAL ISSUES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, EXHIBIT C
• Officers will receive annual use of force training. (pp. 2-3) • Officers will use a use of force reporting form every time use of force is used, and the
information from the form will be captured in an electronic Jail Management System. (pp. 3-4) • The Jail will implement software that will assist in the early identification of corrections officers who may be using excessive or inappropriate force. (p. 4) • All use of force reports will be reviewed and documented by (1) a Lieutenant and (2) the Warden and/or Deputy Warden, no later than the business day subsequent to the use of force incident. If an officer’s conduct was inappropriate or identifies areas for improvement, the Warden and/or Deputy Warden will request an SID investigation or take those corrective actions they/he deem to be appropriate. (pp. 4-5) • If the use of force resulted in an inmate losing consciousness, receiving sutures, having a positive x-ray, and/or being transported to a hospital for evaluation or treatment (other than for an x-ray), jail administration will request an SID review. (pp. 4-5) • PCJ’s canine policy will reflect that dogs may be used for “deterrence” purposes. Dogs will not be used in the mental health unit absent an emergency. (p. 5) • Triple bunks may only be used, when necessary, where the top of the top bunk mattress is no less than 4 feet from a soffit or ceiling. (p. 6) • The Medical Director will establish a policy regarding accommodating inmates with disabilities who would have difficulty mounting or dismounting an upper or triple bunk. (p. 7) • The Jail will install ladders at the foot of every triple bunk. (p. 7) • Beds will not interfere with visibility into the dorms, and will only be located along or perpendicular to a perimeter wall, except in the Jail Annex. (p. 7) • Officers must be able to see inmates on all bunks from the officer viewing area, except in the Jail Annex. In the Jail Annex, officers must enter the unit and conduct security rounds on the upper and lower levels no less than every 30 minutes (and more frequently if the unit houses inmates other than those classified as minimum security). (p. 7) • Beds will not be closer than 18 feet to a toilet and/or urinal, except in the following 5 units, where beds will not be closer than 12 feet to a toilet and/or urinal: 2-T-4, 3-D-10, 3-D-11, 3 Main, and 1-2. The Jail will install permanent privacy screens in front of the toilet/urinal areas in these 5 units. (p. 7) • Inmates must have sufficient space to eat at a table. (p. 7) • Triple celling will be permitted only where (a) the cells house minimum security inmates who have been cleared as compatible by the classification officer, (b) beds in minimum
5

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-8 Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 1535
security dorms are not available, and (c) the inmates have continuous access to a dayroom (and/or work areas in the case of trustees) between 7:45 am and 10:30 pm, excluding during counts. (p. 8) • If the average monthly population of the facility exceeds 1022 inmates for a given period, the Jail will conduct a Population Management Study and will implement the reasonable recommendations of the population management consultant. (p. 8) • The Jail will not accept inmates from other jurisdictions except on one-to-one trade, or where necessary for the inmates’ safety and security. (p. 8) • The Jail will install Closed Circuit Television cameras (CCTV) to cover all dorms, day rooms, and closed custody units, and the recreation, gym, entrance, and booking areas. These cameras will cover most areas other than toilet/showering facilities. (p. 9) • The Jail will develop and implement policies, procedures and practices to safeguard inmates from sexual assault while in custody, consistent with generally accepted correctional practice and applicable state law. (pp. 10-11) • The Jail will make locked grievance boxes available at the chapel, library and recreational/gym areas for inmates to submit confidential grievances. (p. 11) • The Jail will respond to grievances relating to health and safety within 3 business days of receipt of the grievance form and all other grievances within 7 business days. (p. 12) • Inmates will be permitted to compose their own witness statements for SID investigations on separate pieces of paper. (p. 12) • For shakedowns, the highest ranking available officer will usually be present. Shakedowns will be video-recorded, either using video cameras or CCTV cameras (once they are installed). (p. 12)
6

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 94-8 Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 1536
MEDICAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, EXHIBIT D
• Inmates will receive confidential treatment except to the extent there are specific security concerns. (p.4)
• At reception, inmates will receive a confidential intake screening. Inmates with emergent health problems or chronic diseases will be medically evaluated within 24 hours by an advanced practice clinician (a doctor or nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant) or referred to the Emergency Room if needed. (p. 4)
• At reception, the medical staff will screen inmates for alcohol and drug withdrawal and sexually transmitted diseases. Medical staff will perform laboratory testing for inmates with chronic diseases and will refer such inmates to the Chronic Disease Clinic. (p.4)
• Inmates will not be charged for co-payments for chronic disease appointments (including mental health), for prescriptions for chronic disease or for injuries from inmate assaults. (p.5)
• When an inmate reports a medical emergency, officers will contact medical staff. The inmate will be transferred to the emergency room when necessary.
MENTAL HEALTH MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, EXHIBIT E
• At intake, inmates will be screened to identify those inmates in need of mental health services and/or at risk for suicide. (p. 2)
• Mental health services provided to inmates will be confidential unless the inmate poses a security risk. (p. 2)
• The Jail will maintain a dedicated phone number for family and friends who wish to contact the Jail about health and safety concerns regarding individual inmates.(p. 2)
• Inmates receiving psychotropic medications will receive a comprehensive psychiatric examination within 7 days of first receiving medication. (p. 3)
• The psychiatrist will obtain each patient’s informed consent for treatment. (p. 3) • The Jail will provide treatment for inmates on Special Watch (1-2) including daily clinical
rounds, therapeutic activities and training of staff. Acutely mentally ill female inmates will have access to comparable mental health services. (pp. 6-7) • The Jail will provide discharge planning for mentally ill inmates to provide for continuity of care, access to medication for up to two weeks and assistance with securing benefits if eligible. (pp. 7-8)
7

COLON et al v. PASSAIC COUNTY et al, Docket No. 2:08-cv-04439 (D.N.J. Sept 03, 2008), Court Docket
General Information

Docket Number Status Court Nature of Suit Date Filed

2:08-cv-04439 Closed United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Civil Rights: Other 2008-09-03 00:00:00

© Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Service http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6L15D9VO2?documentName=127.xml // PAGE 1

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 95 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1537

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA'EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS, MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, and ANDREW CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, TANESHA WAY, in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, PAT LEPORE, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, TERRY DUFFY, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, JAMES GALLAGHER, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, BRUCE JAMES, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, ELEASE EVANS, in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Passaic County, CHARLES MEYERS, in his official capacity as Warden of Passaic County Jail, STEVEN MYERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of Passaic County Jail, and GEORGE W. HAYMAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner ofthe New Jersey Department of Corrections,

ORDER DIRECTING NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
Case No. 08-4439 (DMC-MF)

Defendants.

WHEREAS individual plaintiffs filed this class action suit on September 3, 2008, against the Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of inmates at the Passaic County Jail as well as the recovery of attorney's fees and costs; and

WHEREAS, the Complaint was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking redress for alleged violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 95 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1538
WHEREAS, the matter was certified as a class action on May 27, 2009, and the class was defined as "all persons who are now or will become incarcerated at PCJ during the pendency of the lawsuit"; and
WHEREAS, Defendants have filed Answers in which they deny Plaintiffs' allegations; and
WHEREAS, the litigants have engaged in informal discovery; and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge that, to the extent possible, it is in their best interests to resolve the issues raised in the Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit l, by means other than litigation and, to this end, have agreed to enter into a federally enforceable Settlement Agreement, consistent with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 USC§ 3626; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement incorporates the following documents: the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Fire Safety Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit A to Settlement Agreement); the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Environmental Health Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit B to Settlement Agreement); the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Correctional Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit C to Settlement Agreement); the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Medical Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit D to Settlement Agreement); and the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Mental Health Services at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit E to Settlement Agreement);
2

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 95 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1539
WHEREAS, the terms of the Confidentiality and Protective Order entered by the Court on February 25, 2010 ("Confidentiality Order"), a copy of which is attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit F, remains in full force and effect as to any documents or information disclosed during the course of the litigation;
WHEREAS, the claims against George W. Hayman, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, are not part of the Settlement Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement shall be applicable to, and binding upon, all parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns and their successors in office.
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion, and the
""" Court having considered the papers and for good cause shown; IT IS ON THIS ~_: day of 1,..1-(., 2012, ORDERED:
1. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, one (l) copy of the following docwnents shall be provided in a sealed envelope to each inmate in the Passaic County Jail: (a) The plain language summary of the Settlement Agreement in both English and Spanish, as described in § XIV(A) of the Settlement Agreement and a copy of which (in English) is attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit G (hereinafter, "summaries");
3

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 95 Filed 01/13/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1540
(b) A comment sheet, which shall include a statement that class members shall have the right to comment on/object to the proposed Settlement and that all comments/objections to the proposed Settlement must be (1) provided to a Passaic County Jail ombudsman or (2) mailed directly to Jennifer B. Condon, Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, 833 McCarter Highway, Newark, NJ 07102 no later than March 1, 2010; and
(c) A return envelope addressed to Jennifer B. Condon, Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, 833 McCarter Highway, Newark, NJ 07102.
2. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, the following docwnents shall be posted in all day rooms, common areas, and the law library and shall be electronically available on the law library computers until the Court's Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement: (a) The attached Settlement Agreement; and (b) The summaries.
3. Upon request by an inmate, a Passaic County Jail ombudsman shall provide a copy of the Settlement Agreement to the requestor no later than four (4) days from the date of the request.
4. Upon the Court's Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and for the duration of the Settlement Agreement:
4

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 95 Filed 01/13/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1541
(a) Two (2) laminated copies of the Settlement Agreement and summaries shall be posted in the law library and shall be electronically available on the law library computers. Defendants shall be responsible for replenishing any missing copies on a monthly basis; and
(b) The summaries shall be printed as a subsection of the Inmate Handbook. 5. Class member comments/objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement that were
provided to a Passaic County Jail ombudsman shall be sent by the Jail to Jennifer B. Condon, Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, 833 McCarter Highway, Newark, NJ 07102 by no later than Mat-ch 2, 2012. Class counsel shall provide copies of all written comments to the Court and counsel for the Defendants no later than Mat·ch 15, 2010. These comments/objections will be reviewed by the Court prior to the Fairness Hearing. 6. The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on the entry of the propose Settlement on 1.1 MA~C~ 2012 before the Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh, at which time counsel shall appear and the Court will evaluate the merits of the Settlement for the purpose of final approval of this Class Action Settlement, and the resolution of the litigation pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), in light of any written comments received from class members and any statements of counsel pertaining to the Settlement.
5

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 97 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1547

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA'EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS, MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, and ANDREW CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

V.
PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, TANESHA WAY, in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, PAT LEPORE, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, TERRY DUFFY, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, JAMES GALLAGHER, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, BRUCE JAMES, in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, ELEASE EVANS, in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Passaic County, CHARLES MEYERS, in his official capacity as Warden of Passaic County Jail, STEVEN MEYERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of Passaic County Jail, and GEORGE W. HAYMAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections,
Defendants.

Case No. 08-4439 (DMC-MF)
CONSENT ORDER

CONSENT ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS AND AMEND CAPTION This matter having been opened to the Court jointly by counsel for the Plaintiffs
(Patricia Perlmutter, Esq. of the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice, Jeanne LoCicero, Esq. of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Regan Crotty, Esq. of Dechert, LLP) and counsel for the Defendants (J. Barrry Cocoziello, Esq. of the law firm Podvey, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner, Cocoziello & Chattman, P.C.,); and

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 97 Filed 01/25/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1548

The Court having considered the application and the terms of the proposed Order,

it is hereby

of~ ORDERED this ,2 ::;> day

2012, as follows:

1. The claims against the specific individuals named in the Complaint as

holding the positions of Sheriff of Passaic County, Warden of the Passaic County Jail,

Deputy Warden of Passaic County Jail, and Passaic County Freeholder (Jerry Speziale,

Charles Meyers, Steven Meyers, and Freeholders Sonia Rosado, Tanesha Way, Pat

Lepore, Terry Duffy, James Gallagher, Bruce James, and Elease Evans) are hereby

dismissed.

2. The Sheriff of Passaic County, the Warden of the Passaic County Jail and

the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders shall at all times remain defendants in

their official capacities.

3. The caption in this matter is hereby amended to delete the names of the

individual defendants.

Dated: (- 2..)-Jl-
The undersigned counsel consent to the form and entry of this Order:
2

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 97 Filed 01/25/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1549

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 100 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1573

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF NEWARK

ANGEL

, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs,

V.
PASSAIC COUNTY, et al., Defendants,

HON. DENNIS M. CAVENAUGH, U. S . D. J.
Civil Action No. 08-4439-DMC-MF
CONSENT ORDER TO AMEND THE CAPTION

This matter having been opened to the Court jointly by counsel for the Plaintiffs* (Patricia Perlmutter, Esq. and Jenny Brooke Condon, Esq. of the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice, Jeanne LoCicero, Esq. of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, and Regan Crotty, Esq. of Dechert , LLP) and counsel for the Defendant George Hayman (Deputy Attorney General Dianne Moratti); and
The Court having considered the application and the terms of the proposed Order, it is hereby

ORDERED this

day of,

2012, as follows:

1. The caption in this matter is hereby amended to delete

former Commissioner George Hayman and substitute Defendant Gary

—1—

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 100 Filed 02/17/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1574
Lanigan in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections

Dated:

United

The undersigned counsel consent to the form and entry of this Order:

-2-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 100 Filed 02/17/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1575

DATED: L”o

For the Plaintiffs:

Ezra 0. Rosenberg Regan H. Crotty DECHERT LLP
Suite 500
902 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6531 (609) 955-3200

%JCJ

jwtti4

patricia Perimutter
Jennifer B. Conclon
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 833 McCarter Highway Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 642-8700

ôward L. Barocas Jeanne LoCicero AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION P0 Box 32159
N 1 ewark New Jersey 07102 (973) 642-2086

-3-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 100 Filed 02/17/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1576
Defendant: CHIESA :Y GENERAL OF NEW

DATED:

l:

B : Dianne M. Moratti Deputy Attorney General

-4-

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1577

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA’EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES MARK HARKINS MATTHEW CARLEY. CECILIO TOLEDANO, and ANDREW CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
V.

Case No, 08-4439 (DMC-MF)

PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF

ORDER DIRECTING

CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, THE SHERIFF OF PASSAIC

NOTICE OF

COUNTY in his official capacity, THE WARDEN OF THE SETTLEMENT

PASSAIC COUNTY JAIL, in his official capacity and

BETWEEN

GARY M. LANIGAN. in his official capacity as Commissioner PUAINTIFFS AND

the New Jersey Department of Corrections,

DEFENDANT GARY

Defendants.

M. LANIGAN

WHEREAS individual plaintiffs filed this class action suit on September 3, 2008. against the Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of inmates at the Passaic County Jail as well as the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs; and
WI-IEREAS, the Complaint was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking redress for
alleged violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United Statc s Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the matter was certified as a class action on May 27. 2009, and the class was defined as all peisons who are now or will become incarcerated at PCJ during the pLndenv of the lawsuit”: and

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 1578

WHEREAS, the claims against the Passaic County Defendants have been resolved through a separate, federally enforceable Settlement Agreement, which was entered into by Plaintiffs and the Passaic County Defendants on December 30, 2011 and about which this Court granted an Order Directing Notice of Settlement on January 13, 2012; and

WHEREAS, Defendants have filed Answers in which they deny Plaintiffs’ allegations; and

WHEREAS, the litigants have engaged in informal discovery; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant Gary M. Lanigan acknowledge that, to the extent possible, it is in their best interests to resolve the issues raised in the Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A C’DOC Settlement Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the DOC Settlement Agreement shall be applicable to, and binding upon, all parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns and their successors in office.

THIS MAflER having come before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion, and the

Court having considered the papers and for good cause shown; IT IS ON THIS

13

1W day

of

fis. ,20l2,ORDERED:

1. Within 3 days of the date of this Order, one (1) copy of the following documents

shall be provided to each inmate in the Passaic County Jail: a plain language summary of

the DOC Settlement Agreement and comment sheet in both English and Spanish

(hereinafter, “summaries”), a copy of which (in English) is attached to hereto as Exhibit

B.

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 3 of 16 PageID: 1579

2. Within

days of the date of this Order, the following documents shall be posted

in all day rooms, common areas, and the law library and shall be electronically available

on the law library computers until the Court’s Final Approval of the DOC Settlement

Agreement:

(a) The attached DOC Settlement Agreement; and

(b) The summaries.

3.

Upon request by an inmate, a Passaic County Jail ombudsman shall provide a copy of the

DOC Settlement Agreement to the requestor no later than four (4) days from the date of

the request.

4.

Class member comments/objections to the proposed DOC Settlement Agreement that are

provided to a Passaic County Jail ombudsman shall be sent by the Jail to Jennifer B.

Condon, Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, 833 McCarter

Highway, Newark, NJ 07102 by no later than A941L, 2012. Upon request, the Jail

ombudsman will provide envelopes to inmates in which to place any

comments/objections. Class counsel shall provide copies of all written comments to the

Court and counsel for the Defendants no later than / ñ(i , 2012. These

comments/objections will be reviewed by the Court prior to the Fairness Hearing.

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 1580

5. The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on the entry of the proposed DOC Settlement

4( JO

‘ Po

on

2012”before the Honorable Dennis M. C4 a avanat ugh. which time counsel shall

appear and the Court will evaluate the merits of the DOC Settlement for the purpose of

final approval of this Class Action Settlement, and the resolution of the litigation

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), in light of any written comments

received from class members and any statements of counsel pertaining to the DOC

Settlement.

Dated: a3 F. 2o1

Dennis M.

U.S. D .J.

oab(cp -T(L

Hea-IQ 7?-t&:-

Scic j::d 2

2o/t

ID 1?1

e:: 2-5 PPPJL. 1a12.

sc3

aI’(7S (S 6 Ug77

/

(i 444r

7l 7?ft 747 pç £r ‘.‘4 I? 4’ c3f 7ti s- O4 e.

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 5 of 16 PageID: 1581

H1

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 6 of 16 PageID: 1582

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF NEWARK

ANGEL COLON, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs,

v.

GARY M, LANIGAN, et al., :

Defendants,

:

HON. DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U. S D J.
Civil Action No. 08-4439-DMC-MF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT GARY M. LANIGAN

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Angel Colon, Roy Schmitt, Jubra’eel Lebron, Winifred Gates, Mark Harkins, Matthew Carley, Cecilio Toledano and Andrew Crawford (“Plaintiffs”) on September 3, 2008, initiated this action against the Defendants, including
Defendant George Hayman, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (“DOC”), seeking wide-ranging declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of inmates at the Passaic County Jail as
well as the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs; and
WHEREAS, the Complaint was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking redress for alleged violations of the First, Fifth,

_

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 1583

P1 P1 to U to P.
H
L9 b
H to U
iP. t

cv C

aU’

‘C o

cv

H- U U’

H

H-

to

to P1

aC
o

H Cl)
H acv

a ‘C cv

to P1 H

to H a

o cv S

H H- a

to a U

to cv

H-

U cv iQ

o U’ H

it a a

it i’- a

H- H S

0

a

a0U

—-

it cv

it

P1 H- to

2‘
.

HH

to H

P1 a CO a P1 U ‘C cv ‘C
to H HC)

H CD 0 ‘< cv a0
a to

Z fl to

P1

-%

‘I

Cl)

a

‘C

§ P1 H- cv

U

to to

Hcv

ft
cv

aU’
U

aHa

aU’
H

U
it 0

a
it

U’ 0
i-’

H i-’it

naH

H P1 H-
cUv

P1
Ii

H• C

0 Ii

cav

In

P.
o

In In

0
cHv

pa.
H

it P1 C
0H

it ii it C

P.a

H

0
it
cv

z

C)

cv

0 U

U’ C)

aa

U 0

cv

P1 :i

U’ P.

a

cv

‘C P1
to
tpo

Cl)

P1

ccavv
i-

H ‘C H Ha
Pi LO

b a
it

aU’
Ii
a
‘C

•

a ap.

& t P1 ‘C

cv

H- H- P1

a

‘C

0 P1

it to

cv-

to P1

U’
a
E
P1 H

i-’a
0 0 C

a S
a
U cv

‘-
Ucv
Hit it

cP1v
H-
0s
to

a U PP1.
cUv

P1 LQ

0

U

U’ H- P. U

‘

to

•

to

H P1 U P. a 0 a cv iii

cv U

U

h<

H

P1

P1

U’

S

U’

C) 0

aHU

a

P1

H0 o

a a P.

U H- to

P1 C it cv S

a

cv U

H- U

U’ a a

C

S cv cv a U U

it

0 U’ a

to ‘< U’

cv cv

H-

it H- a

a ‘C

a

H

to U

S U)

P1 P1 H

a

0

P1 a ‘C to CO H-

P.

0 0 P1

P. cv P1 to P1 U

H it S

a cv to .P1 H• ip

H it a

H to H- U

aa

aH-

U P.

cv H- a

U’ a

a
H

S a

P1 0 to H-

ia-a-

n

cv

U
cv

to a

H- P1 P.

aU

0 ‘C 0

H

0H

H- cv 0 C P1

to

U

b’

U

0 U to P1

0

1<

C cv to

H-

0’ -

U ‘<

P1

to

U

,

cv

H- a

o P1 0

P1 ‘< UI 0 ‘C

*

H0U

P1 U

0

P1

U’

H- to

U P. C4 P1 0 H

H-

W cv a

P1 H 0 P1

C)

a ‘< U

H- P. C cv

U’

it

cv

‘C

H

Ua

a P1

111

0 cv

cv

U to 0

H

it 1<

U’

cv

it

a

cvtD

cv

H

P1

H

cv

a

0

0 U’ to a H

aP.

a

P1

U

U

H

H

1<

H0 M

P1 H

-J

to * C H- M H H0E

wi

•

C

t

a

Li

P. Sa P.

cv cv

H-
ii

U’ a

U’ a

n

P1 C) S

H
C)

H P1

cP1v

a to cv

H to a

P1

H

cv *

a P1 *

P. to P1

P1 P.

cv a o

it a

‘C H- H

0 U cv

C4 a H-

P. it

p.

H-

C P1 a

H to P.

H-

U

P1

to P1 to

H

cv H P1

U’

a ‘C 0

aH

‘C H P1

a to to

U 0 to

P. U

a to P1

U

C)

0 * cv

‘< U’ H

00

0

U

itP1

H0

cv a U

U’

aU

0
0 Hii LQ
tcov cUv’ cHv- U’
cCv U
- P.

-

0

P1 U

C
Hcv

p.

a a

Ucv

U’

to
U
0.
a U
cv to
0
it
cv U’
a
ci
U
I-’cv
a P.
U) cv P1
cv
a to

_

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 8 of 16 PageID: 1584

n

H ‘a

o apa

Fj

to to

cv Hpa

b pa

,-3 U

aa

aa

a-j

W
n0

tao
ii

C)

to

1<

H C) H pa

a a H

H Ii

h<

-%

-p<a

a 0

aHi

a

Cpa

a
ç

H cvC)

‘-< a-’- cv o

cv j pa

0 ‘a H Mi U

a cv to

a -a% --’

U

aH-
pa

k)
a
o ii

pt‘oaa

H
a-’-

to
ap-a’-

ii
‘tao

cUv a

a
C)

to
-

a 0

ca-v’-

C0

ii i

‘a

cv
‘-<

pa

a H
to c4

Cpa

pa

%%

H- 0

11 H H

cv pa

cv cv

0

w-%

a
0a

H-

k)
o

Fj
aa

ci i
a-’

aaa

a-’-

- o a ,i

aIa-i’i-

H
•

apa

a<

to to to a
i

0)

1<

0’

0

C)

cv ‘-3 to a—’ cv ‘-<

Ho- Ua cv H aU ‘

i

U to H

o

U 0

0cv)

pcav

*
H-

ti n

cv to

cv a a

cv H Ii’

Ua

a

H- 0

H- to

to

a ‘paa

pbaa

aHa

cav

a
to

H 0
Ha

acv
to

Haa

cv

Mi 0’

H- U H H ‘<

ia

cv H

aU

Hto

a

U cv

a 0 a
cpav
H-

0a
cv
Ua

pa
a
0 C H

a

cv

0 1

‘a cv

io

cv

0

cv

0
at

to
aa

H
aa

ac*-v’- aU

pa

Pc’ H

UU H- o

0aa’

:i
cv

n *

0aa

a*
11

HH H

to cv

‘-<

0anacvc‘‘aava

-

(1
U a

cv
Upa

p<a a-’

t-
0

cv

H

to
aa

qeo,

-
n‘a

o0a

aa—’

‘
acv

cv
aU

cv

cv U a

a-’
•

aao
a-’-
Mi a-’-

a
i
cv 0
ti

C4
—
cHv-

a<
pa a-’ H

to to 0 cv
aU

o ti
e‘.J-
0’
a-’-

p‘aa
to
tpoa
Ha

a a-’- ‘a
to

H

ctaov

oH-
0,

cv

Ua aMi atJ

C) 0) cv

0 0

U
H-
1

ctov
pa

H *
H-

C)
H-
pa

fl 0

H C’

aa

a to

cv

a-’-
0
1

Ii
a<-’-
C)

cv a*

cav
H-

tao
0

HC

pa

11 cv

‘a ‘-<

a cv

HH-

0
at
cv
U
Hto

cv ts H- cv

0 ‘< i

•

-

tJ

0

pa1a cav
to
Mi

Ha
a
aaH
0’

‘a H o -p<a H
0

“

to to

aH

cv a

cv
Haa

aaa
ti

to tpHoapa i to
* 0 a-’-
Mi H

cv a

a

a
,

H
oa

‘-<
pa

,,

at a
cv cv

cv

cv

cv
‘

aU

pa to

0 H- 0
H cv a U to aa

to 0
H a

cv
aU
p‘aa to

C) 0 C H cv

H-
to to a cv cv

cav

H 0

HC
a to cv a H- U

1 pa

cv 0

cv 0

a a<
11

a to

aa ‘Ha-

to
paa-a’-

cv
Ua

cv

U

aH aa •cvato
11 0

Ua a
pa

Mi
‘-sC a

cv
aU
at

cv cv

0 0 cv H H H- 0

o
Mi
pa i

aU
H
Hto
U
cv

0
cv
U
a

0
cv
‘< Ca
pa H-

0
* H-
H
H

to
Ha aaa

Ma-’i-
a< ‘a<
pa

H
Ha-
H
0
Mi
cv

C)
Hpa-
H

H H 0 * H-
to

cv 0

H

a cv H U

••

to

to
a
cv
H a
cv
a

ft

,
cav aTi
to

0) to

Hpa

H-

0 cv

H H-

H

0

Mi

to

a
aat
cv

H
aa
cv 0

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 9 of 16 PageID: 1585

o

‘V Ct (1)

oa

a

ci

0

P’ H-

0

it to to

o

H

it a ti ‘ci 0xaH H a it 0

iriii
Ct

13 Ui

H

‘-a- P1 Ct

H

C0H

a

ao t-’- a

aa

Ct a P1

U
a

aa

a

aC

0

0a<

0

a
to

Hi

Cri

a1

Hto

H Ii

to

‘J-

0

t-’-

a

0o
0

to a
Ct
U a

P1 Z

i-’ a

aH- Hci

rI-i’-

U a

‘< H

a 0 U
it
aft
Ct
a U
Hto

a(I) Ct
ri r

H aa

H-
to

a P1

Ii Il

Ct

Ii

If” 0

to H

aaHa

‘V
H
P1

a H-

Ii Ii

Ct Ct

H-

0 Hi

Ii Hi to

Ct

Ua

to
iii

H

H

o a

aa

cc

a r11i

ci
P1

Ct

Ct

0 If’.

a

Ct H

0

Ua

ft

a
a

aa
a

ti a
it

2 a

H- II a

to
S
I-’-

Ct H-

IaI
P1

Ca4

to Ii II H

to

Ct to

P1 a

a

H 0 t-’ ‘<

Il P1 -

0

to

i

Hi H- H-
a to a w Ct

U H II

H- P1

to Ct U

H- P1

H 0 to

H-

Ct

P1

H- ft to

to
Pr1i
H-

0 H ‘V

aHaa

0H

ii P1 Ct

H- 0

P1 to

11 Ct

a

P1 H- 1

a H-Hi Ct
1 it

to to H

Ct

H-

U P1 Ii

H aHC*t- -toaHaaa

Ct 0 Ct U
H-

r1i

Ct c

H-
0

H
to

.rt

0 ii

to

P1
H- H

0
Ui Ct

to

to

W

is)

to

i-’ •

1<

0

-

ft

<a

U

-

a

Hi

--

a

H

•

a

P1

a H H- H

a

I-’-

I-’

to to a

to

0 H-

0 Ii

aII

Ct H-

H1

P1 to

o

Ct a(a

a ci

‘V H- 2

I-’ P1

P1 b

ori

H- H- U

Ii H H-

Ct
H-

rHi-

Il to

it ‘<

ft

U

to tr a

H0

a

Hw

‘-

i—’

a

a ft H

P1 ‘V

:i a

aH

P1 ii
a
U
Hto

o
it
H-
a
H
Ca

‘t
H
P1
H-
rIil
Hf-h Hi
to

a
o o
to
Ct
to

‘V
i—’
P1
H-
ti n
HHi ft to

C H
taaao
1 (I

a
f-h
a Ii Ii
Ct

Ii Ct

‘<

oHi
H

aaH

a

a0
P1

a ti
Ct

Ua ‘V

aH

>
to

Ha

fat a11

P1
rHi
‘<

P1

•

aa

aaa

:i
Ct

H

Ct P1

Ct

-

Ii

Ua

H-
to

‘-3 P1

H U ii

P1 H-

E to P1

to

a a 0 (1) H
ft

Ct a

0

Ct

Ha ‘V

to a

H-
H- 1 P1

ft to

ft r 0

P1 Ii 1 to to H U H

1 to a
U t$ P1 Ct H H0
ft
0 00 ii o

Ct to
P1
a ci H
H-
a< H to to
P1 P1 :i to aa

a H 0
Ct a

U
H-
to

a
ri

aU

aH Ha

U P1 Ct

aft a1

P1 H-

P1

H-

H a to

H 4J

1a

0 H to

Ct Ct U

P1

taao

aaHi

H H

a to C

Ii

Ct Ii P1 Ct

P1

HCt C
Cat
P1 1
Paa1
H-

tao
H
aait
to
a

to

to

to

H-
to ii

aa

to ‘V

H

ft 0

H
Ca)

‘aa<

to

P1

Ct
Ua
‘<
P1
aH Ha

0 t1 Ct H- ‘<

0 1

•-.

Ua

tS 0

‘V

to

H-

CH

aaH-to ‘V

Hg

P1

HP1

aa a Ct H-

Ct

i ci’ ft

H-

1* ‘< Hi

0

to

1

0 ‘V

0 Ii Ct H

H aaa

Ct
U P1 Ct

P1 Ii

0 Ct Ct

Ct

U

to

0

to 0

H- to

H
H aU

H a 0
P1 ft

0 Ct 0 H- to

Ii 0

to
•

H H H- Ct

P1 to H-

II to

aU

ft H
P1 0 H- 0 Ct
a H- to
it

Z
If” C)
I-’ 0 W 13 13

U

to

Ct

to

H-

H

to

5to

ft H to

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 10 of 16 PageID: 1586
grounds that the signatories hereto lack the authority or capacity to contract or the ground that the Settlement Agreement is not supported by adequate consideration.
9. The terms and conditions reflected in this Settlement Agreement shall not be amended, changed or altered orally. Such terms and conditions may be amended, changed or altered only by written agreement between the parties through their respective counsel.
10. Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that if any provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement are found to be contrary to law, the remaining provisions will not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect.
11. Upon judicial approval of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs shall forward to the Court the Final Judgment Order for execution and filing. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Final Judgment Order, Defendant Lanigan shall pay Plaintiffs and their counsel $25,000 in reimbursement for expert fees incurred by the Plaintiffs in connection with this matter.
12. Any action to enforce the Settlement Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, with venue in Passaic County.

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 11 of 16 PageID: 1587

13,

This Settlement Agreement is not a contract for

personal services and, in the event of a breach, is capable of

judicial enforcement by specific performance.

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 12 of 16 PageID: 1588

I)TED:

For L:e Plainzifls:
\
Ezra D. Rbsenberg Regan H. Crotty
DECHERT LLP
Suite 500
(609) 955-3200
Patricia Perimutter Jennifer B. Condori SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CENTER FOR SOCIM JUSTICE
833 McCarter Highway Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 642—8700
(jaward L. Barocas 3 canoe LoCcero AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION 20 Box 32159 Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 342-2086

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 13 of 16 PageID: 1589

DATED:

For JEE

fendant: OF NEW JERSEY

j)

i Deputy Attorney General

14330962
-8-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 14 of 16 PageID: 1590

bLi
rT1

___,

______

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 15 of 16 PageID: 1591

SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT GARY LANIGAN

The following is a summary of the proposed settlement agreed to by the Plaintiffs and Defendant Gary lanigan, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections in Colon, et a!. v. Passaic County, et a!., a class action suit brought on behalf of all inmates at the Passaic County Jail (“Jail”) to improve conditions within the Jail. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are all current and future inmates of the Jail. The suit did not seek money damages.

The purpose of this summary is to give you a better understanding of the basic elements

of the Settlement Agreement with the Department of Corrections (“the DCC Settlement”). If

you were at the Jail on January 27, 2012, you have already received the summary of the

Settlement Agreement with the Passaic County Defendants. The description below is not

intended to alter in any manner either the DCC Settlement or the Settlement with Passaic

County. Please review a full copy of the DCC Settlement, available from the ombudsman, the

law library and posted in the day rooms and common areas, to learn its details. A federal judge

will need to approve the fairness of the DCC Settlement before it can be implemented. The

Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for

2012, and has requested that all inmates

who would like to comment on the settlement mail their comments either on this form or any

other piece of paper to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Jennifer B. Condon, Seton Hall University School of Law,

Center for Social Justice, 833 McCarter Highway, Newark, NJ 07102) by

or return them to the

Jail Ombudsman who will collect them and return them to your attorneys. Comments mailed

after

will not be considered by the Court in determining the fairness of the Settlement.

Please note that your comments will not be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Your

attorneys must forward copies of all comments to attorneys for the Jail and to the Court.

The terms of the agreement require the New Jersey Department of Corrections to remove state-sentenced inmates and inmates who have received a final parole revocation hearing from the Passaic County Jail on a timely basis. The Department of Corrections will conduct an annual inspection of the Passaic County Jail to insure that the Jail is meeting minimum State standards and to pay for some of Plaintiffs’ expert expenses.

1

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 101 Filed 02/27/12 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 1592 Name: Inmate Identification Number:
2

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 104 Filed 04/25/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1856

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF NEWARK

ANGEL COLON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GARY M. LANIGAN, et al., Defendants,

:

:

HON. DENNIS M. CAVENAUGH, U.S.D.J.

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 08-4439-DMC-MF

:

:

:

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER

:

:

:

:

This matter, having been opened to the Court jointly by counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Gary M. Lanigan; and
The Court, having conducted a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., and having considered the application and the objections of the Class, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion; and
For good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED this __ day of April, 2012, as follows: 1. The Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Gary M. Lanigan is
hereby approved; 2. The action against Defendant Gary M. Lanigan is dismissed with prejudice.

Honorable Denis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1858

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGEL COLON, et al., Plaintiffs.
V.
PASSAIC COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
OPINION
Civil Action No, 08-443 9 (DMC)(MF)

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J, This matter comes before the Court upon the Settlement Agreement reached between the
parties. ECF Nos, 94, 101. After considering the submissions of the parties, and based upon the Fairness Hearing conducted before the Court on April 23, 2012, it is the decision of the Court, for the reasons herein expressed, that the Settlement Agreement is approved.

I.

BACKGROUND

This action was commenced on September 3, 2008 by Plaintiffs Angel Colon. Roy Schmitt.

Jubra’eel Lebron, Winifred Gates, Mark Harkings, Matthew Carley, Cecilio Toledano and Andrew Crawfort (Plaintiffs”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf ofa class of inmates at

the Passaic County Jail (“PCJ”). Plaintiffs are entering into a Settlement Agreement with Passaic

County, the Sheriff of Passaic County, the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders and the

Warden of PCJ (the Passaic County Settlement”), and are also entering into a separate Settlement

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 1859
Agreement with Defendant Gary Lanigan, in his official capacity as Commissioner ofthe New Jersey Department of Corrections (the “Lanigan Settlement”) (collectively, the “Settlement Agreement”).
The Complaint was brought pursuant to 24 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks redress for alleged
violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe United States Constitution. These allegations include complaints that PCJ suffers from (1) overcrowding, leading to a lack of privacy, loss of sleep and the threat of inmate violence; (2) unsanitary living conditions; (3) inadequate medical care; (4) unsafe and inadequate food; (5) inadequate temperature control and ventilation; (6) inadequate clothing; (7) inadequate fire detection and alarm systems; (8) use of excessive force by Correction Officers, including the use of dogs for intimidation; (9) restrictions on religious freedom; and (10) retaliation for airing grievances. Defendants filed Answers denying these allegations. ECF Nos. 14, 47.
On May 28, 2009, this Court entered an Opinion and Order certiiing a class of “All persons who are now or will become incarcerated at Passaic County Jail during the pendency of this lawsuit.” ECF Nos. 44, 45. Following the entry of that Opinion and Order, the parties exchanged informal discovery, and engaged in extensive settlement negotiations, eventually culminating in the Settlement Agreement that the Court now considers. On January 13, 2012, this Court entered an Order directing notice of the settlement and scheduling a Fairness Hearing. ECF No. 95. On April 16, 2012. Plaintiffs filed a Declaration in support of the Settlement Agreement. and attached communications received from class members regarding the Settlement Agreement. ECF No. 103. On April 23, 2012, during the Fairness Hearing, counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants further voiced their approval of the Settlement Agreement. No party present at the Fairness Hearing objected. The matter of the approval of the Settlement Agreement is now before the Court.

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 1860
II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Settlement Approval
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), provides that “[a] class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such a manner as the court directs.” FED. R. Civ. P. 23(e). In determining whether to approve a class action settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e). “the district court acts as a fiduciary who must serve as a guardian of the rights of absent class members.” In re GMC Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 785 (3d Cir, 1995)
(quoting Grunin v mt 1 House ot Pancakes, 5 13 1 2d 114 123 (8th Cir 1975), cert demed, 423 U S
864 (1975) (citation omitted)). Before giving final approval to a proposed class action settlement, the Court must determine
that the settlement is fair adequate, and ieasonable Lazy Oil Co v Witco Corp 166 F 3d 581 588 (3d Cir. 1999); Walsh v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 726 F.2d 956, 965 (3d Cir. 1983). In Girsh v. Jepson, the Third Circuit identified nine factors, so-called ‘Girsh factors,” that a district court should consider when making this determination: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages: (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir.1975). “These factors are a guide and the absence of one or more does not automatically render the
-3-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 1861
settlement unfair.” In re American Family Enterprises, 256 B.R. 377, 41 8 (D.N.J. 2000). Rather, the court must look at all the circumstances of the case and determine whether the settlement is
within the range of reasonableness under Girsh. S In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab.
Litig., 176 F.R.D. 158, 184 (ED. Pa.1997); see also In re AT&T Corp. Sees. Litig., 455 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2006). In sum, the Court’s assessment of whether the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable is guided by the Girsh factors, but the Court is in no way limited to considering only those enumerated factors and is free to consider other relevant circumstances and facts involved in this settlement.
ilL D1 ISCUSSION 1. Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of Litigation
This factor is concerned with assessing the “probable costs, in both time and money, of continued litigation.” In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 234 (3d Cir. 2001). Significant delay in recovery if this case proceeds to trial favors settlement approval. See, e.g., In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516, 536 (3d Cir. 2004); Weiss v. Mercedes-Benz ofN. Am., Inc., 899 F. Supp. 1297, 1301 (D.N.J. 1995). Plaintiffs note that this litigation has continued tbr three years since 2008, during which time the parties have spent vast resources consulting experts and conducting discovery. The parties have not yet prepared summary judgment or pre-trial motions, the expense of which this proposed settlement avoids. A delay in the resolution of this case would also postpone the implementation of measures that will help remedy the complained of conditions
While this matter encompasses two separate settlement agreements (the Passaic County Settlement and the Lanigan Settlement), in most instances the issues presented are identical. Accordingly, except where noted, the Court does not provide additional duplicative analysis.
-4-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 1862
at PCJ. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement Agreement.
2. Reaction of the Class to Settlement This factor requires the Court to evaluate whether the number of objectors. in proportion to
the total class, indicates that the reaction of the class to the settlement is favorable. The Court also notes that the second Girsh factor is especially critical to its fairness analysis, as the reaction of the class “is perhaps the most significant factor to be weighed in considering [the settlement’sj adequacy.” Sala v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 721 F. Supp. 80, 83 (ED. Pa. 1989): Fanning v. AcroMed Corp. (In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig.). 176 F.R.D. 1 58, 185 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (stating that a “relatively low objection rate militates strongly in favor of approval of the settlement” (internal citations omitted)). Further, silence constitutes tacit consent to the agreement. The Passaic County Settlement and the Lanigan Settlement had separate objections periods, and accordingly, the Court will address the objections to each settlement separately.
For the Passaic County Settlement, PlaintifIs note that while the class consists of about 1070 inmates, they have received only sixty seven comments regarding the settlement, and of those, only twelve actually voice objections. A number of the comments express gratitude for the efforts to improve the facility. Additionally, many of the comments received complain about the conditions of PCJ itself, which the settlement intends to alleviate. The twelve actual objections generally fall into two main categories: concerns that PCJ will not follow through with the corrections. and comments that PCJ should be closed all together.
For the first concern, the Court notes that the enforcement mechanisms negotiated by the parties have been a substantial focus of the settlement discussions. Susan McCampbell. a

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 1863
correctional management expert with thirty years of experience. will conduct regular visits to PCJ for monitoring. Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel will continue to communicate with the class members about the conditions at PCJ. Accordingly, the Court is not swayed by this concern. As to the objectors’ preference for simply closing PCJ, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ assertion that while this would be an effective means of providing an improved environment for the class, such a result could not reasonably be achieved in light of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires narrowly tailored reliefto correct violations of Federal rights, and does not permit some unrealistic” expectations. See. e.g.. Hawkerv. Consovoy, 198 F.R.D. 619, 628-31 (D.N.J. 2001).
The Court is also not swayed by the objections that have been filed with respect to the Lanigan Settlement. Plaintiffs’ counsel received a total of thirteen comments from class members, and again, the majority voice concerns with the present conditions at PCJ, and not with the Lanigan Settlement itself Two of the comments express a desire to see PCJ closed, but for the reasons expressed above, the Court does not find any merit to this objection. Another objection to the Lanigan Settlement questions whether bi-annual site inspections will provide a sufficient basis to ensure compliance. The Lanigan Settlement alleviates this concern, however, by providing for additional site visits” for up to five additional days each year. and by permitting the monitor. at her discretion, to conduct one of the two annual site inspections on an unscheduled basis.
A review of the relatively small number of objections convinces the Court that the overall reaction of the class to the Settlement Agreement is favorable, Further, the objections that have been filed do not convince the Court that the Settlement Agreement is unfair or unreasonable. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement Agreement.
-6-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 1864
3. Stage of the Proceedings and Amount of Discovery Completed For the third Girsh factor, the Court must consider the “degree of case development that
Class Counsel have accomplished prior to Settlement,” including the type and amount of discovery already undertaken. GMC, 55 F.3d at 813. In short, under this factor the Court considers whether the amount of discovery completed in the case has permitted counsel [to havel an adequate appicciation of the ments of the case before negotiating In re Schering-PloughiMerck Muger Litig.. No. 09-1099, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEX1S 29121 at *30 (Mar. 26, 2010). The discovery analyzed encompasses both formal and ‘informal” discovery, including discovery from parallel proceedings, companion cases and even third parties, such as experts or witnesses. j In this case, the parties have exchanged extensive informal discovery, and Plaintiffs have conducted nearly fifty site visits and reviewed 17,000 pages of documents. Further, the Court notes that efforts of class counsel in this matter warrant particular commendation, both for class counsel’s skill in pursuing the matter, and for the amount of time they have devoted to this case. Considering the amount of effort expended by class counsel in this matter. as well as class counsel’s extensive experience litigating class actions generally and working on prisoners’ rights litigation specifically, the Court is convinced that Plaintiffs have a sufficient understanding of the merits ofthis case. This factor therefore weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement Agreement.
4.-S. Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages A trial on the merits always entails considerable risk, Weiss, 899 F. Supp. at 1301. ‘By
evaluating the risks of establishing liability, the district court can examine what the potential rewards (or downside) of litigation might have been had class counsel elected to litigate the claims rather than
-7-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 1865
settle them.” GMC, 55 F.3d at 814. “The inquiry requires a balancing of the likelihood of success if ‘the case were taken to trial against the benefits of immediate settlement.” In re Safety Components Int’l, 166 F. Supp. 2d 72, 89 (D.N.J. 2001). In this case, while Plaintiffs overcame one motion to dismiss, no motions for summary judgment have been filed, and if Plaintiffs’ claims survive that likely impediment, they would still have to face the always risky proposition of a trial, Accordingly, the Court finds that the risks in establishing liability ‘weigh in favor of approval of the Settlement A2 greement.
6. Ability of Defendants to Maintain Class Certification Plaintiffs notes that the class is comprised of “all persons who are now or will become
incarcerated at PCJ during the pendency of this lawsuit.” Plaintiffs therefore state that they would not have faced any risks in maintaining the class action through trial. Accordingly. the Court does not place significant weight on this factor. See, e.g., Hawker, 198 F.R.D. at 633 (“Although the possibility of decertification would remain if litigation continued, it is not particularly likely. Therefore, this Girsh factor does not play a significant role in the Court’s determination whether to approve the Settlement Agreement.”).
7. Ability of Defendants to Withstand a Greater Judgment To evaluate whether the Settlement Agreement is fair to Plaintiffs, the Court must evaluate
whether Defendants could withstand a judgment much greater than the amount of the settlement.
2 The damages factor is not applicable as Plaintiffs only sought injunctive relief in this action.
-8-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 1866
In re Schering-Plough/Merck Merger Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29121 at *37W Because the settlement agreement provides relief of a non-pecuniary nature, the Court is not in a position to say whether Defendants could withstand a greater judgment. As a result, this factor does not weigh against or in favor of approval. Unite Nat. Retirement Fund v. Watts, No. 04-3 603, 2005 WL 2877899, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2005).
8-9. Reasonableness of the Settlement Fund in Light of the Best Possible Recovery, and in Light of the Attendant Risks of Litigation
“According to Girsh, courts approving settlements should determine a range of reasonable settlements in light of the best possible recovery (the eighth Girsh factor) and a range in light of all the attendant risks of litigation (the ninth factor).” GMC, 55 F.3d at 806. “The last two Girsh factors evaluate whether the settlement represents a good value for a weak case or a poor value for a strong case.” In re Schering-Plough/Merck Merger Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29121 at *3g39, The Settlement Agreement alleviates a substantial amount of the problems motivating this litigation, especially those related to high inmate population and the stress of overcrowding at PCi. The Settlement Agreement addresses problems related to inadequate ventilation and heating, unhygienic conditions, potentially unsafe food, lack of sufficient clothing, overcrowding, the use of force by correctional officers, and inmates’ medical and psychiatric conditions. The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement’s proposed solutions to these problems, and finds that they provide a substantial benefit to the class. Accordingly, the last two Girsch factors weigh in favor of approval of the Settlement Agreement.
-9-

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 106 Filed 04/24/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 1867
10. Summary of Factors In sum, the Court finds that a balancing of the Girsch factors weighs in favor of approval of
the Settlement Agreement. The Court further emphasizes the overwhelming class approval for the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the Court notes that the Settlement Agreement was reached as the result of extensive, arms length negotiation between experienced and skilled counsel. The rights of inmates may not always be at the forefront of tax payers’ minds, especially in the current political and economic climate, but it is with the efforts of counsel for both parties, and with the efforts of the Honorable Mark Falk. U.S.M.J., that this matter has been brought to an appropriate resolution. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. Accordingly, the Court approves the Settlement Agreement.
IV CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court approves the Settlement Agreement. An appropriate
Order accompanies this Opinion.

Date: Orig.: cc:

April ?, 2012 Clerk All Counsel of Record Hon. Mark Falk, U.S.M.J. File

Dennis M.Cavanaugh, 8frJ.

-10-

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID: 1869

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA’EEL

I

LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS,

MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, and

ANDREW CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

V.
PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, THE SHERIFF OF PASSAIC COUNTY in his official capacity, THE WARDEN OF THE PASSAIC COUNTY JAIL, in his official capacity and GEORGE W. HAYMAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections,

Defendants.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER Case No. 08-4439 (DMCMF)

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEEMENT (“Settlement Agreement”) dated December 3Q 2011, entered into on behalf of the class members in the above-captioned action (the “Plaintiffs”, or the “Class Members”) and Passaic County, Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Sheriff of Passaic County in his official capacity, and the Warden of the Passaic County Jail in his official capacity (“the Defendants”),
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS individual plaintiffs filed this class action suit on September 3, 2008, against the Defendants seeking wide-ranging declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of inmates at the Passaic County Jail as well as the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs; and
1

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 2 of 22 PageID: 1870
WHEREAS, the Complaint was brought pursuant to 42 US.C. § 1983, seeking
redress for alleged violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the matter was certified as a class action on May 27, 2009, and the class was defined as “all persons who are now or will become incarcerated at PCJ during the pendency of the lawsuit”; and
WHEREAS, Defendants have filed Answers in which they deny Plaintiffs’ allegations; and
WHEREAS, the litigants have engaged in informal discovery; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge that, to the extent possible, it is in their best interests to resolve the issues raised in this Settlement Agreement by means other than litigation and, to this end, have on this day agreed to enter into this federally enforceable Settlement Agreement, consistent with the requirements of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 18 USC § 3626; and
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement incorporates the following documents: the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Fire Safety Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit A); the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Environmental Health Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit B); the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Correctional Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit C); the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Medical Issues at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit D); and the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Mental Health Services at the Passaic County Jail (Exhibit E).
WHEREAS, the terms of the Confidentiality and Protective Order entered by the Court on February 25, 2010 (“Confidentiality Order’), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F, remains in full force and effect as to any documents or information disclosed during the course of the litigation;
WHEREAS, the claims against George W. Hayman, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, are not part of this Settlement Agreement;
WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement shall be applicable to, and binding upon, all parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns and their successors in office.
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants do hereby set forth the understanding reached between them:
I. DEFINITIONS
A, Computation of time: the periods of time referenced in any document related to the Settlement Agreement shall be computed pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 6.
2

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 3 of 22 PageID: 1871
B. “Correctional staff’ are employees of the Passaic County Sheriff’s Office who are not civilians.
C. “Facility staff’ or “staff’ are correctional staff, administration, civilian employees, medical and mental health staff, and volunteers.
I). The subject of this Settlement Agreement is the Passaic County Jail facility located at 11 Sheriff’s Plaza, Paterson, New Jersey, and all references to “jail,” “PCJ,” or “facility” refer to that location,
E. The date of the Settlement Agreement is the date of final judicial approval of the Settlement Agreement.
IL SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF
A. Defendants will comply with the terms set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Fire Safety Issues at the Passaic County Jail, a copy of which is attached to this Settlement Agreement, and is incorporated herein, as Exhibit A.
B. Defendants will comply with the terms set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Environmental Health Issues at the Passaic County Jail, a copy of which is attached to this Settlement Agreement, and is incorporated herein, as Exhibit B.
C. Defendants will comply with the terms set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Correctional Issues at the Passaic County Jail, a copy of which is attached to this Settlement Agreement, and is incorporated herein, as Exhibit C.
D. Defendants will comply with the terms set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Medical Issues at the Passaic County Jail, a copy of which is attached to this Settlement Agreement, and is incorporated herein, as Exhibit D.
E. Defendants will comply with the terms set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Mental Health Services at the Passaic County Jail, a copy of which is attached to this Settlement Agreement, and is incorporated herein, as Exhibit E.
III. CONTRACTS WITH PROVIDERS OF SERVICES
A. Defendants shall promptly produce any publicly available documents relating to the contracting of services required by this Settlement Agreement.
IV. MONITORING
3

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 4 of 22 PageID: 1872
A. Compliance Categories: The Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties incorporates five (5) substantive Memoranda of Understanding (“MOU”s) relating to fire safety, environmental health, correctional
management, medical care, and mental health care, as set forth in § IL
These areas will be referred to in this Settlement Agreement as “Compliance Categories.”
B. Identity of Monitor: Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate to the appointment of an independent Monitor to monitor compliance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that Susan McCampbell shall serve as the Monitor during the monitoring period provided for in the Settlement Agreement.
C. Rpiacernent of Monitor: The Monitor may be replaced in the event of death, unforeseen permanent unavailability, or for good cause or by consent of both parties. For purposes of this subsection, “good cause” refers to corruption or nonfeasance by a monitor that is so severe as to preclude effective implementation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. If Susan McCampbell is unable to serve as a Monitor during the monitorihg period provided for in the Settlement Agreement, a person who is mutually agreeable to Plaintiffs and Defendants will be selected to serve as Monitor. In the event that Plaintiffs and Defendants cannot agree on a replacement Monitor, each party will present to the Court the name of one (1) individual to serve as the replacement Monitor and the Court will select the Monitor from the two (2) names submitted. The replacement Monitor must have prior experience acting as a monitor with respect to correctional facilities in addition to prior correctional expertise.
D. Consultants to the Monitor: Where the Monitor determines that he or she requires assistance monitoring compliance with the Settlement Agreement because elements of the Settlement Agreement are not within his or her expertise, he or she may retain the services of an individual or individuals to serve as Consultants to the Monitor (“Consultants”). The Monitor shall obtain consent from Plaintiffs and Defendants to retain specific individuals to serve as Consultants to the Monitor; however, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants shall unreasonably withhold consent. The Consultants shall report directly to the Monitor.
E. Avoidance of Conflicts: Unless such conflict is disclosed and waived by the parties, the Monitor and Consultants shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a direct conflict of interest with the Monitor’s and Consultants’ responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant or claimant’s attorney, in
4

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 5 of 22 PageID: 1873
connection with a claim or suit against the Defendants, their departments, officers, agents or employees.
F. No public officers/agents: It is expressly agreed that the Monitor and Consultants are not public entities, officers or agents of the State of New Jersey or any political sub-division thereof.
0. Monitor’s and Consultants’ Duties: The Monitor and Consultants shall:
L Conduct their duties in a reasonable manner and in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement;
2. Have access to all facilities, inmates, staff, documents, electronic files, videos, and any other materials needed to perform their duties;
3. Conduct confidential interviews with facility staff and inmates, outside the presence of counsel or supervisory staff, as needed to measure compliance with the Compliance Categories;
4. Have exparte communications with counsel for the parties as needed;
5. Refrain from having exparte communications with the Court;
6. Refrain from making public statements about the inspections or litigation without written approval of counsel for the parties;
7. Have access to the medical, mental health and classification records of any class member, subject to the terms of the Confidentiality Order, which the Monitor and Consultants shall
sign, and to the terms set forth in § V and VI, infra;;
8. When discussing a particular incident involving an individual inmate or staff member in any document, use unique identifiers or take other reasonable steps to protect the identity of the inmate or staff member; and shall provide counsel with a confidential record disclosing the identities of the inmates and staff involved;
9. Provide technical assistance to the Defendants to facilitate their compliance when needed; and
10. Assist the parties in resolving disagreements, when feasible.
H. Monitoring R.ecords: Defendants will create and maintain records including, but not limited to, the documents and/or records requested by the Monitor in order to evaluate Defendants’ progress towards
5

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 6 of 22 PageID: 1874

implementation of the Settlement Agreement and/or compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

1. Defendants will provide copies to Plaintiffs’ counsel (either electronically or via hard copy) of any records produced to the Monitor and/or Consultants.

2. The Monitor and/or Consultants may access medical and/or mental health records on-site during site inspections subject to the terms of the Confidentiality Order and to the terms set forth
in § V and VI, infra;.

3. The Monitor and/or Consultants shall maintain a list of any relevant records reviewed on-site, and the document list shall be produced to counsel for both parties following each inspection.

L

Revision of Poli: Where the Settlement Agreement identifies written

policies, practices and/or protocols that will be created or revised,

Defendants will produce such drafts to the Monitor, Consultants, and

Plaintiffs’ counsel within ninety (90) days of the date of final judicial

approval of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide

Defendants, the Monitor, and Consultants with comments on the draft

policies, practices and/or protocols within thirty (30) days. The Monitor,

in consultation with the Consultants, shall within thirty (30) days either

approve the proposed policies or recommend modifications. If

modifications are recommended, the Monitor and/or Consultants will

consult with Defendants to reach agreement with regard to proposed

policies. Defendants shall revise the policies consistent with the

Monitor’s recommendation and implement same unless Defendants

challenge the Monitor’s recommendations in Court within ten (10) days of

any failure to reach agreement with regard to same. Upon adoption of the

policies, Defendants shall implement them and provide training as

necessary to staff regarding their terms.

Initial Review of PCJ: The Monitor will conduct an initial review of the facility within ninety (90) days of the date of the Court’s final approval of the Settlement Agreement in order to review jail operations and establish guidelines for ongoing monitoring. As part of the initial review, the Monitor will tour the PCJ facility:

1, Consultants may participate in the initial review as deemed necessary by the Monitor.

2. The Monitor shall determine the length of the initial review, which shall not exceed five (5) days, and shall develop an agenda for the initial review that will be distributed to the parties no later than one week in advance of the review.

6

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 7 of 22 PageID: 1875
3. Two attorneys for Plaintiffs and two attorneys for Defendants may accompany the Monitor for up to eight hours of the review, but shall not accompany the Monitor during interviews of staff and inmates unless specifically requested by the Monitor.
4. The Monitor will consult with staff and with counsel for the parties to create compliance indicators and auditing tools.
5. Defendants will create and maintain any documents, audits and/or records requested by the Monitor.
6. The Monitor will neither assess Defendants’ compliance nor prepare a compliance report based on his or her initial review.
K. Monitor Visits to Facility:
1. Site InspectiQjjj The Monitor will conduct two (2) site inspections of the facility every year to assess compliance.
(a) Consultants may participate in site inspections as deemed necessary by the Monitor.
(b) Except as provided in § IV.L, infra, the Monitor shall
provide the parties with a minimum of forty-five (45) days notice in advance of each scheduled inspection and advise the parties which consultants, if any, will attend.
(c) The length of each inspection shall be left to the discretion of the Monitor but in no event shall it exceed four (4) days The length of each inspection will be reduced to no more than three (3) days upon the sun-setting of two (2) Compliance Categories.
(d) Unless specifically requested by the Monitor, counsel for the parties may not attend the site inspections made by the Monitor, or any interviews with staff or inmates.
(e) Fourteen (14) days prior to each site inspection, Defendants will provide the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel with a report detailing the actions that Defendants have taken during the reporting period to implement the Settlement Agreement. Should the Monitor conduct an unscheduled inspection, Defendants need not provide this report.
(t) The Monitor will prepare a written inspection report for
each site inspection, the terms of which are detailed in §
IV.N, infra.
7

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 8 of 22 PageID: 1876
2. Site Visits: In addition to the site inspections and the initial review, the parties agree that the Monitor may conduct interim “site visits” to the facility, if deemed necessary by the Monitor, under the following terms:
(a) Consultants may participate in site visits as deemed necessary by the Monitor.
(b) Site visits shall not exceed a total of five (5) days annually.
(c) The Monitor will not produce a written compliance report following a site visit, but shall conduct a teleconference with counsel for the parties to discuss any impressions and action plan.
(d) The Monitor shall provide the Warden or his designee with three (3) days prior notice of any site visit and advise if any Consultants will participate.
L. Access to Facility: With respect to the visits set forth in § IV.K, supra,
Defendants shall allow the Monitor and Consultants entry to the facility or any portion thereof at any time, except for reasons of security, including, but not limited to, riot, lockdown, or other unforeseen events requiring enhanced security measures.
1. At the discretion of the Monitor, the Monitor may annually
conduct one (1) of the two (2) annual site inspections under §
lVK, supra, on an unscheduled basis. Consultants may participate in the unscheduled site visit as deemed necessary by the Monitor. For unscheduled inspections, the Monitor and/or Consultants must arrive for the inspection between the hours of 8 a.rn. and 5 p.m. In the event of an unscheduled inspection, if the Monitor and/or Consultants want to meet with facility administrative or supervisory staff, they must give Defendants forty-eight (48) hours notice before they arrive for the inspection.
2. If the Monitor and/or Consultants are denied access to the facility or any portion thereof for reasons of security, the Monitor and/or Consultants shall be permitted access as soon as the circumstances that caused the security concern have abated. The Monitor and/or Consultants will be able to make up the lost time at a time convenient to the Defendants, Monitor, and Consultants, and the Monitor and Consultants will be paid at their usual rates for any additional time required as a result.
M. Conference Calls or Meetings with the Monitor and Cnsultants to th
Monitor:
8

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 9 of 22 PageID: 1877
L For all scheduled site inspections, a conference call shall be conducted between counsel for the parties and the Monitor, and, as needed, Consultants, not less than one (1) week prior to each site inspection of the facility, except in the event that the Monitor conducts an unscheduled inspection. For all site inspections, a post-inspection conference call between the Monitor and counsel for the parties shall be conducted within two (2) weeks following each inspection. In lieu of the pre- or post-inspection telephone calls, the Monitor may instead call an in-person meeting with the Monitor and counsel for the parties at the facility at the beginning or close of the site inspection.
2. The Monitor and counsel for the parties shall conduct monthly conference calls as may be scheduled by the Monitor.
N. Written Reports: Within thirty (30) days of each inspection of the facility (subsequent to the initial assessment), the Monitor will provide counsel a draft written report, incorporating the findings of the Consultants, if any.
1. The Monitor shall organize the draft written report according to the five Compliance Categories set forth in this Settlement Agreement: fire safety; environmental safety; correctional management; medical care; and mental health care. The draft written report shall list the relevant records reviewed and, in addition, shall:
(a) Assess the current state of compliance with each Compliance Category, based upon the applicable provisions of the Settlement Agreement (according to the
standards set forth in § IV.O) and the Monitor’s compliance indicators pursuant to § IV.J .(4), supra;
(b) Identify the steps taken by Defendants to implement the provisions of the Settlement Agreement since the prior Report;
(c) Describe Defendants’ progress in implementing each provision of the Settlement Agreement, and indicate where they are compliant, non-compliant or partially compliant;
(d) Determine whether any impediments to compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement exist;
(e) Identify any urgent circumstances relating to the health and safety of the inmates which require immediate remediation;
(f) Provide proposals for improving future compliance;
9

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 10 of 22 PageID: 1878
(g) Be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual inmates and staff members, and for the interest of Defendants in protecting against disclosures of non public information.
2. Within fourteen (14) days of receiving the draft written report, counsel for the parties may submit written objections to the Monitor regarding the report, providing a copy of such to the opposing party. The Monitor may, but is under no obligation to, accept or deny any objections by the parties within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any objections. If the Monitor makes changes to the draft report, the revised report shall be considered the final report.
3. If counsel for the parties do not submit objections to the draft report, the draft report will be considered the final report.
0. Evaluation of Conpliance:
in his or her written reports, the Monitor will evaluate Defendants’ compliance with the Settlement Agreement since the last site inspection with respect to each of the five (5) Compliance Categories. In so doing, the Monitor shall determine whether there is “Substantial Compliance” or “Non-Compliance” for each Compliance Category.
(a) For purposes of this section, “Substantial Compliance” for a Compliance Category shall mean that Defendants have and may reasonably be expected to continue to substantially satisfy the relevant Compliance Category. To achieve Substantial Compliance, Defendants need not be in 100% compliance, and the Monitor shall have the discretion to measure Substantial Compliance in each category by weighing the various Settlement Agreement provisions.
(b) For purposes of this section, “Non-Compliance” shall mean that Defendants have not substantially satisfied the relevant Compliance Category. In addition, an unexcused failure to produce required documentation on a timely basis or to permit access to the facility and staff as outlined in this Settlement Agreement may result in a finding of Non Compliance. A finding of Non-Compliance shall not be based on isolated and non-continuing instances of failure to substantially satisfy the Compliance Category, nor shall a finding of Non-Compliance be based on omissions of a technical or trivial nature.
10

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 11 of 22 PageID: 1879
2. Beginning with the Monitor’s fifth site visit, if the Monitor determines in a final Report that Defendants are in Non Compliance with any portion of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall, within fourteen (14) days of receiving the Monitor’s finding of non-compliance in the final Report, provide the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel with a proposed remediation plan reflecting the specific steps that Defendants intend to take to remedy each item of non-compliance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants shall provide a remediation plan for an earlier site visit or visits at the request of the Monitor,
P. jpute Resolution:
1. Prior to Plaintiffs’ seeking judicial enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the parties, with the assistance of the Monitor, shall confer within thirty (30) days of receipt of the proposed rernediation plan. Should the parties reach a resolution, they shall memorialize that resolution in a joint remediation agreement that specifies the actions that Defendants agree to take to achieve Substantial Compliance and a timetable for those actions. If such negotiations are unsuccessful, Plaintiffs may initiate enforcement proceedings, without further notice to Defendants, after the conclusion of the fourteen (14) day consultation period.
2. Either party may contest any action or inaction taken or proposed by the Monitor and/or Consultants as being beyond the scope of their authority under the Settlement Agreement or failing to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Such challenges shall be raised by the contesting party promptly after such action or inaction is taken or proposed, and the parties shall confer in good faith to resolve such disputes. Failing to achieve such resolution, the contesting party may apply to the Court for an appropriate remedy.
Q. Notification of Serious Incident: In the event of a death, system-wide lockdown, multi-day lockdown of one or more units, riot, fire, or unscheduled evacuation, Defendants shall notify the Monitor and counsel for Plaintiffs of such event on the next business day following the event/incident, and shall provide the Monitor and counsel for Plaintiffs with any documentation or reports related to the event no more than seven (7) days after the document is prepared. For documents related to the event that Defendants receive from another agency, they will provide such to the Monitor and counsel for Plaintiffs no more than seven (7) days after such documents are available to PCJ staff.
ii

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 12 of 22 PageID: 1880
R. Immediate Judicial Reijf: Notwithstanding the dispute resolution
described in § IVY, supra, in the event of an emergency threatening to
cause immediate or irreparable harm to the class or any portion thereof, counsel for Plaintiffs may seek immediate judicial relief.
S. Notice of Exigent Circumstances: Should exigent circumstances exist that require Defendants to take any action that makes them non-compliant with the Settlement Agreement and create a safety risk to inmates, Defendants shall, immediately upon taking such action, notify the Monitor and counsel for Plaintiffs of the exigent circumstances, the corresponding action taken, the expected duration of such circumstances, and the steps taken to limit the duration of such circumstances. Receipt by Plaintiffs’ counsel of such notification does not preclude Plaintiffs’ counsel from seeking judicial relief.
T. Access to Individual Client Records by Plaintiffs’ Counsel:
1. In addition to the Monitoring Records, as described in § IV.I-I,
supra, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall have the right to request and receive records including but not limited to classification, medical and mental health records, of individual class members, in accordance with the terms of the Protective Order and the
terms set forth § V and V] infra, and without prejudice to
defense counsel’s right to object to the production if the documents concern matters outside the scope of the Settlement Agreement, are based upon privilege or work product, are not complete and/or are not in the custody or control of Defendants.
2. Defendants shall produce records within thirty (30) days, except that when Plaintiffs identify their request as emergent because of a serious health or safety risk to inmates, Defendants shall produce those records within fourteen (14) days.
3. Once the Monitor finds the grievance process in substantial compliance, Defendants shall produce individual records within thirty (30) days relating to a particular inmate, provided that the inmate has submitted a grievance, and seven (7) business days have elapsed since the submission of the grievance. Notwithstanding the availability of the grievance process, Plaintiffs’ counsel may request individual records on an emergent
basis pursuant to § IV.T(2), supra,, and nothing in this section
shall impair the right of Plaintiffs’ counsel to access Monitoring Records regardless of whether inmates have filed any grievance.
4. For investigative reports that are incomplete or records not in the custody and control of Defendants (such as records from the
12

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 13 of 22 PageID: 1881
medical examiner), Defendants will produce such within seven (7) days of completion or of receipt.
U. Monitoring Fees/Costs: Defendants will pay the fees and costs of the Monitor and Consultants, subject to prior approval by Defendants of the Monitor and Consultants’ billing rates and/or estimates. Such prior approval will occur at the time that Defendants enter in to an engagement agreement with the Monitor and Consultants. On an annual basis, the Monitor and Consultants will provide counsel to the parties with a “not to exceed” annual budget of fees.
V. Confidentiality: If a draft Report by the Monitor includes information that was designated “Confidential,” either party may, within fourteen (14) days, object and request that the Monitor redact confidential information from any publicly available version of the final Report. Unless there is an objection by a party to a proposed redaction, the Monitor and Consultants shall accept the proposed redactions, If there is an objection to a redaction, the parties will make every effort to resolve the objection. If the parties cannot resolve the issue amongst themselves, they shall request the Monitor’s opinion on the redaction. If either party objects to resolving the redaction dispute in accordance with the Monitor’s opinion, that party bears the burden of applying to the Court within ten (10) days of the receipt of the Monitor’s opinion for a judicial resolution of the dispute. if the objecting party does not seek judicial relief within the designated time period, the information will be included or redacted in the final Report in accordance with the Monitor’s opinion.
W. Use of Documents and Reports:
1. Draft and/or final Reports by the Monitor shall not he introduced as evidence in any other proceeding or form the basis of any other proceeding, other than an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement unless otherwise ordered by a court. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants shall take the position in other proceedings that the reports are admissible in such proceedings.
2. If Plaintiffs or Defendants receive a subpoena or other discovery request commanding production of any of the Monitor’s reports or any documents reviewed by the Monitor or Consultants or any information obtained during the course of this action or the monitoring period, the entity or person receiving the subpoena or request shall immediately notify opposing counsel so that opposing counsel has the opportunity to object and/or move to quash the subpoena or have an appropriate protective order entered. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants shall be permitted to oppose any such motion to quash or for a protective order.
13

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 14 of 22 PageID: 1882
3. The Monitor’s report and any documents reviewed or information obtained during the monitoring period may be used in any action to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
4. Any redacted portion of documents or evidence that Defendants have refused to make available to the Monitor and/or Consultants may not be offered by Defendants as evidence in opposition to an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
X. Testifying: The v1onitor and/or Consultants shall not voluntarily testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of Defendants or their agents, representatives, or employees related to the Settlement Agreement, the conditions at Passaic County Jail, or any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of the services provided during the course of this litigation or the monitoring period, unless required to by court order. If the Monitor and/or Consultants receive a subpoena to testify, the Monitor and/or Consultants shall notify counsel so that counsel have the opportunity to object and/or move to quash the subpoena or to have an appropriate protective order entered. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants shall be permitted to oppose any such motion to quash or for a protective order.
Y. No Retaliation: Defendants and their employees, agents, etc. will not retaliate against any person who lodges a complaint, provides information or assistance to the Monitor, Consultants, and/or counsel to Plaintiffs, testifies in any proceedings related to this action and/or participates in any manner in any investigation or proceeding related to the Settlement Agreement.
Z. Coordinator: Defendants will appoint a coordinator who will serve as a point of contact for the monitor and oversee the implementation of the Settlement Agreement.
V. DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS PRODUCED DURING THE MONITORING OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
A. The Confidentiality Order is hereby extended to the production of documents, information, video tape, records, logs, correspondence and reports (henceforth “confidential materials”) required to be kept by PCJ and/or provided to the Monitor, Consultants, or Plaintiffs’ counsel under the MOUs (annexed hereto as Exhibits A through E) during the monitoring of the Settlement Agreement.
B, The parties agree that, by virtue of the court-ordered Settlement Agreement, any information disclosed in compliance with any of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement is pursuant to “Court Order” for purposes of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Confidentiality Order.
14

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 15 of 22 PageID: 1883
C. The parties’ confidentiality designations of inmate records, personnel records, security records and internal affairs records apply to the production of confidential materials during the monitoring of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, either party may mark non-public documents confidential that do not fall within the criteria of the Confidentiality Order as long as the party marking the document explains in writing to opposing counsel the rationale for the confidentiality designation and that all subsequent monitoring documents within the category receive the same confidentiality designation.
D. All draft Reports by the Monitor shall be designated “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of the Confidentiality Order and this Settlement Agreement.
E. If a party challenges the designation of any document as “Confidential,” it shall inform the producing party in writing within thirty (30) days of its receipt of such document. The parties will then make every effort to resolve the objection. If the parties cannot resolve the issue amongst themselves, they shall request the Monitor’s opinion on the designation of the document as confidential. If a party objects to resolving the confidentiality dispute in accordance with the Monitor’s opinion, it bears the burden of applying to the Court for a judicial resolution within ten (10) days of the receipt of the Monitor’s opinion. If it does not do so, the “Confidential” status of the document will be determined in accordance with the Monitor’s opinion.
F. The parties agree that the production of confidential materials to the Monitor, Consultants, or class counsel shall not affect whether the underlying information is subject to production under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47; iA-i,
VI. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF POTENTIAL DISCLOSURE OF MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE MONITOR JND CONSULTANTS AND LIMITED WAIVER OF PRIVACY CLAIMS
A. The Monitor, consultants to the Monitor and counsel may have access to medical and mental health records of some class members in order to monitor Defendants’ compliance with the Settlement Agreement, pursuant
to the terms of the Confidentiality Order and § V, supra. While prior
individual consent to disclosure is not required under Paragraph 3(a) of the Confidentiality Order, class members may refuse disclosure of their records pursuant to the following procedures.
B. When class members receive their reception medical screening, medical staff shall provide each individual with a notice in English and Spanish, prepared by class counsel, advising any inmate who objects to the potential disclosure of medical or mental health records (hereinafter “the
15

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 16 of 22 PageID: 1884
objector”) to contact class counsel and notify them of their objection via mail or collect telephone, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 0. The notice shall be printed in the inmate handbook.
C. Class counsel will provide the Monitor, consultants to the Monitor, and Defendants’ counsel the names of objectors within five (5) days of receiving the objection. As of the date of receiving the name of an objector, Defendants shall not disclose the medical or mental health records of the objector to the Monitor, consultants to the Monitor, and counsel unless the objector subsequently executes an authorization for the release of such records.
D, No records shall be released until ten (10) days after an inmate has been admitted to PCJ unless the inmate executes an authorization for the release of such records while the Monitor or consultants to the Monitor are on site. If an inmate either dies within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice or is discharged to a hospital, class counsel may apply to the Court for an order directing the release of records if Defendants do not consent to the production of the inmate’s records.
B. To the extent applicable, class counsel hereby waives claims and causes of action, if any, that could be asserted by class members who did not object to the production of their records against Defendants (including their agents and employees), and any medical or mental health service providers at PCJ for disclosing or providing medical or mental health information or records to the Monitor, Consultants, or counsel in connection with the settlement of this lawsuit or the post-settlement monitoring of PCJ as permitted under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Confidentiality Order.
F. Nothing in this Agreement shall foreclose the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC”) from directing PJ to comply with its confidentiality procedures and requirements in order to secure NCCHC accreditation
VII. TERM OF AGREEEMENT:
A. Term: The Monitor shall continue to perform the services and duties as outlined in the Settlement Agreement for a period of five (5) years from the date of the final judicial order approving the Settlement Agreement, and all services of the Monitor shall terminate as of that date.
B. Sunset Provision: Notwithstanding the provisions in Paragraph (a) of this section, in the event that the Monitor determines that there has been Substantial Compliance in any Compliance Category for three (3) successive site inspections, the monitoring of that Compliance Category shall cease, provided that the Warden is able to certify that PCJ has remained in compliance with that Compliance Category. In lieu of
16

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 17 of 22 PageID: 1885
monitoring for that Compliance Category, for each inspection cycle, the Warden shall certify continued Substantial Compliance with the Compliance Category until the Settlement Agreement has sunsetted under
§ VIL,A or D. If the Warden is unable to certify continued Substantial
Compliance for two (2) consecutive inspection periods, then the monitoring of that Compliance Category will resume until Defendants attain Substantial Compliance for three (3) successive inspections or until
the end of the Term under § VII. A or D.
C. Lntermittent Compliance; Should the Monitor find Substantial Compliance in one inspection period, but on a subsequent inspection determine that
Defendants are Noncompliant for that Compliance Category, the compliance period will reset and begin again when the Monitor finds the Compliance Category in Substantial Compliance. Only after three (3)
successive inspection findings of Substantial Compliance for a Compliance Category will the Compliance Category no longer be subject to monitoring.
1). Termination of the Settlement Agreement: Once Defendants achieve Substantial Compliance for each of the five (5) Compliance Categories for three (3) successive inspections, or five 5) years from the date of the Settlement Agreement, whichever comes first, the Settlement Agreement will terminate. At such time, Plaintiffs will have no further right to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Court shall no longer retain jurisdiction, if any, over the enforcement of such Agreement.
E. Closing of Facility: If PCJ no longer houses inmates at the facility and the facility is permanently closed, the Settlement Agreement will terminate upon the removal of the final inmate from the facility.
VIII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 3626
A. For the purposes of this lawsuit only and in order to settle this matter, Defendants consent to the entry of a finding that the conditions at PCJ necessitate the remedial measures contained in this Settlement Agreement and Order and represent that this Settlement Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a). The terms and requirements of this Settlement
Agreement and Order will be interpreted to be consistent with the measures necessary to protect the constitutional rights of inmates and are not meant to expand or contract the constitutional rights of inmates at PCJ. The parties stipulate that the remedial measures will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system.
B. The terms agreed upon within this Settlement Agreement and Order are being entered by the Court in an enforceable order, based upon the consent
and acquiescence of the parties. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(1).
17

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 18 of 22 PageID: 1886
C. This Settlement Agreement is subject to judicial enforcement, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g(6), and the parties agree that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey shall retain jurisdiction over this action until the
agreement ends according to the terms of § VII supra.
JX. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in this litigation or in any other proceeding.
X. QINTLY DRAFTED
This Settlement Agreement, together with any Exhibits, shall be deemed to have been mutually prepared by the parties and shall not be construed against any of them by reason of authorship.
XI. ALTERATIONS
The terms and conditions reflected in this Settlement Agreement shall not be amended, changed or altered orally. Such terms and conditions may be amended, changed or altered only by written agreement between the parties through their respective counsel or by order of the Court upon motion.
XII. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY AND RESERVATION OF CLAIMS
A. Plaintiffs and Defendants expressly acknowledge and agree that this Settlement Agreement does not constitute, and shall not be construed as or deemed to be evidence of, an admission or concession with regard to any fault, wrongdoing, or liability by Defendants whatsoever.
B. The issue of liability has not been litigated.
C. This Settlement Agreement is not intended to have any preclusive effect except between the parties and except as to matters expressly resolved in this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs and Defendants expressly acknowledge and agree, unless otherwise ordered by a court, that this Settlement Agreement may not be introduced as evidence in any other proceedings, nor form the basis of any other proceeding. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants shall take the position that the Settlement Agreement is admissible in any other court proceedings.
D. The confidentiality provisions and limitations on the use of information reflected in this Settlement Agreement and the Confidentiality Order shall survive and be fully enforceable by the parties, notwithstanding the
sunsetting or termination of Monitoring as provided in § VII supra.
18

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 19 of 22 PageID: 1887
B. Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to raise in subsequent litigation constitutional challenges to jail overcrowding should the Defendants fail to adhere to the terms of the Correctional Management MOU (Exhbit C).
XIII. DISSOLUTION AND SEVERABILITY
Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that if any provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement are found to be contrary to law, the remaining provisions will not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect.
XIV, DISSEMINATIQN
A. Defendants shall provide a plain language summary of this Settlement Agreement, prepared by Plaintiffs’ counsel, in both English and Spanish as directed by the Court (hereinafter “summaries”); a comment sheet; and a return envelope in a sealed envelope to each inmate in the Passaic County Jail,
B. In addition, one copy of this Settlement Agreement and the plain language summaries referred to in subsection (A) shall be posted in all day rooms, common areas, and the law library and shall be electronically available on the law library computers until the Court’s Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement. Upon request by an inmate, a PCJ ombudsman shall provide a copy of the Settlement Agreement to the requestor no later than four days from the date of the request.
C. Upon the Court’s Final Approval of this Settlement Agreement and for the duration of the Settlement Agreement:
1. Two laminated copies of the Settlement Agreement and summaries shall be posted in the law library and shall be electronically available on the law library computers. Defendants shall be responsible for replenishing any missing copies on a monthly basis;
2. The summaries shall be printed as a subsection of the Inmate Handbook.
D. The Parties agree that they will issue a joint statement for release to the press and any other third party upon the entry of the Settlement Agreement.
XV. PLAINTIFFS’ A1TORNEY’S FEES
A. Plaintiffs agree to accept and Defendants agree to pay to Plaintiffs’ attorneys the sum of $325,000.00 in full and find satisfaction of any and all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs as to the Passaic County Defendants in connection with this action inclusive up to the date of the
19

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 20 of 22 PageID: 1888
entry of the Order approving the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs agree that future applications for attorney’s fees and costs will be limited to those made as a prevailing party on any motions to the District Court to compel compliance with the Settlement Agreement or to hold Defendants in contempt for failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement. B. Defendants agree to make payment to Plaintiffs’ counsel within sixty (60) days of the date of final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
For the Defendants:
M i e ol eo PODVEY, MEANOR, CATENACC1, HILDNER, COCOZIELLO AND CHATTMAN One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 800 Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 623-1000
20

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 21 of 22 PageID: 1889
For the Plaintiffs:
Ez a Roberg Re anFLrotty Dechert LLP DECUERT LLP Suite 500 902 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6531 (609) 955-3200
Patricia Perimutter Jennifer B. Condon SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTiCE 833 MeCarter Highway Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 642-8700
dward L. Barocas Jeanne LoCicero AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNTATION P0 Box 32159 Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 642-2086
Document No, 296224
21

Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 108 Filed 04/25/12 Page 22 of 22 PageID: 1890
Having reviewed the terms and conditions set forth above, any comments from class members, the arguments of counsel and the records on file in this case, the Court hereby finds, as set forth in section VII above, that the terms of this federally enforceable Settlement Agreement comply in all respects with the provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a), are fair and reasonsable, and that defendants’ plan,
once fully implemented, shall provide effective relief to the plaintiff class. Accordingly, the Court will retain jurisdiction over this case to enter any order necessary to ensure compliance with and implementation of the terms and conditions set forth above,
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:
nn1s M (aHit:i Ii I istrct iudgc
22

 
 Case 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF Document 109 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1891

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF NEWARK

ANGEL COLON, et al.,

:

HON. DENNIS M. CAVENAUGH, U.S,D.J.

Plaintiffs, v.

Civil Action No. 08-4439-DMC-MF

GARY M. LANIGAN, et al.,

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER

Defendants,

This matter, having been opened to the Court jointly by counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Gary M. Lanigan; and
The Court, having conducted a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., and having considered the application and the objections of the Class, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion; and
For good cause shown, it is hereby
Af-%y
ORDERED this day of, 2012, as follows: 1. The Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Gary M. Lanigan is
hereby approved; 2. The action against Defendant Gary M. Lanigan is dismissed with prejudice.
Honora le Denis M. Cavana , SDE

 
 Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 1 of 19
CLOSED,RULE16,SCHEDO
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08−cv−04439−DMC−MF

COLON et al v. PASSAIC COUNTY et al Assigned to: Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark Falk Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
ANGEL COLON

Date Filed: 09/03/2008 Date Terminated: 04/26/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE DECHERT LLP Suite 500 902 Carnegie Center PRINCETON, NJ 08540−6531 (609) 955−3200 Fax: (609) 955−3259 Email: chris.michie@dechert.com TERMINATED: 02/23/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY B. GOLDBERG McCarter &English, LLP Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street NEWARK, NJ 07102 973−639−8497 Fax: 973−624−7070 Email: egoldberg@mccarter.com TERMINATED: 01/25/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EZRA D. ROSENBERG DECHERT LLP 902 CARNEGIE CTR., SUITE 500 PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609.955.3222 Fax: 609.955.3259 Email: ezra.rosenberg@dechert.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER 1005B LINCOLN AVE. FALLS CHURCH, VA 22046 703−532−5480 Fax: 202−296−2282 TERMINATED: 07/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON SETON HALL LAW CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 833 MCCARTER HIGHWAY NEWARK, NJ 07102 (973) 642−8700 Email: condonje@shu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 2 of 19

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REGAN H. CROTTY 3 BASIN STREET PRINCETON, NJ 08540 (609) 688−1481 TERMINATED: 03/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JEANNE LOCICERO AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NJ P.O. BOX 32159 NEWARK, NJ 07102 973−642−2086 Email: jlocicero@aclu−nj.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 833 McCARTER HIGHWAY NEWARK, NJ 07102 (973) 642−8700 Email: patricia.perlmutter@shu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROY SCHMITT

represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EMILY B. GOLDBERG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EZRA D. ROSENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REGAN H. CROTTY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 3 of 19

JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON

represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EMILY B. GOLDBERG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EZRA D. ROSENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REGAN H. CROTTY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WINIFRED GATES

represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EMILY B. GOLDBERG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EZRA D. ROSENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2011

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 4 of 19

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REGAN H. CROTTY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARK HARKINS

represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EMILY B. GOLDBERG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EZRA D. ROSENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REGAN H. CROTTY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MATTHEW CARLEY

represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 5 of 19

EMILY B. GOLDBERG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EZRA D. ROSENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REGAN H. CROTTY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CECILIO TOLEDANO

represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EMILY B. GOLDBERG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EZRA D. ROSENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REGAN H. CROTTY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2012

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 6 of 19

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ANDREW CRAWFORD on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EMILY B. GOLDBERG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EZRA D. ROSENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REGAN H. CROTTY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant PASSAIC COUNTY

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI PODVEY, MEANOR, CATENACCI, HILDNER COCOZIELLO &CHATTMAN, PC THE LEGAL CENTER ONE RIVERFRONT PLAZA 8TH FLOOR NEWARK, NJ 07102 (973) 623−1000 Email: dconforti@podvey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. BARRY COCOZIELLO

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 7 of 19

PODVEY, MEANOR, CATENACCI, HILDNER, COCOZIELLO &CHATTMAN PC THE LEGAL CENTER ONE RIVERFRONT PLAZA NEWARK, NJ 07102−5497 (973) 623−1000 Email: jcocoziello@podveysachs.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO PODVEY MEANOR CATENACCI HILDNER COCOZIELLO &CHATTMAN, PC THE LEGAL CENTER ONE RIVERFRONT PLAZA NEWARK, NJ 07102−5497 (973) 623−1000 Email: mtolomeo@podvey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
SONIA ROSADO in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
TANESHA WAY in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address)

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 8 of 19

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
PAT LEPORE in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
TERRY DUFFY in his official capacity as Passaic Couny Freeholder TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JAMES GALLAGHER in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
BRUCE JAMES in his official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 9 of 19

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ELEASE EVANS in her official capacity as Passaic County Freeholder TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JERRY SPEZIALE in his official capacity as Sheriff of Passaic County TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CHARLES MEYERS in his official capacity as Warden of Passaic County Jail

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 10 of 19

TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
STEVEN MYERS in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of Passaic County Jail TERMINATED: 01/26/2012

represented by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. BARRY COCOZIELLO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
GEORGE W. HAYMAN in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 02/17/2012

represented by CHRISTINE H. KIM OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NEW JERSEY 25 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 112 TRENTON, NJ 08625 609−633−7786 Email: christine.kim@dol.lps.state.nj.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MICHAEL J. ENGALLENA STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 112 TRENTON, NJ 08625 609−633−8687 Email: michael.engallena@dol.lps.state.nj.us TERMINATED: 07/26/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

THOMAS EDWARD KEMBLE OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL 25 MARKET STREET PO BOX 112 TRENTON, NJ 08625−0112 (609) 633−8687 Email: thomas.kemble@dol.lps.state.nj.us TERMINATED: 02/22/2011

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 11 of 19
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant GARY LANIGAN In his official capacity as Commissioner of New Jersey Department of Corrections

Date Filed 09/03/2008
09/04/2008
09/04/2008 09/04/2008 09/09/2008
09/10/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO, TANESHA WAY, PAT LEPORE, TERRY DUFFY, JAMES GALLAGHER, BRUCE JAMES, ELEASE EVANS, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, CHARLES MEYERS, STEVEN MYERS, GEORGE W. HAYMAN ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 2164736.) None, filed by MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, ANDREW CRAWFORD, ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ld, ) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
3 MOTION to Certify Class by MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, ANDREW CRAWFORD, ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS. (Attachments: # 1 Certf. of Carley, # 2 Certf. of Schmitt, # 3 Certf. of Colon, # 4 Certf. of Crawford, # 5 Certf. of Gates, # 6 Certf. of Hawkins, # 7 Certf. of Lebron, # 8 Certf. of Toledano, # 9 Certf of Michie, # 10 Exh. 1, # 11 Exh. 2, # 12 Exh. 3, # 13 Exh. 4, # 14 Exh. 5, # 15 Exh. 6, # 16 Exh. 7, # 17 Exh. 8, # 18 Exh. 9, # 19 Exh. 10, # 20 Exh. 11, # 21 Exh. 12, # 22 Exh. 13, # 23 Exh. 14, # 24 Exh. 15, # 25 Exh. 16, # 26 Exh. 17, # 27 Exh. 18, # 28 Exh. 19, # 29 Exh. 20, # 30 Exh. 21, # 31 Exh. 22, # 32 Exh. 23, # 33 Exh. 24, # 34 Exh. 25)(nr, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
Set Deadlines as to 3 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing set for 10/6/2008 10:00 AM before Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh. (nr, )(PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
5 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re 3 MOTION to Certify Class filed by MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, ANDREW CRAWFORD, ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS. (nr, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
2 Summons Issued as to PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO, TANESHA WAY, PAT LEPORE, TERRY DUFFY, JAMES GALLAGHER, BRUCE JAMES, ELEASE EVANS, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, CHARLES MEYERS, STEVEN MYERS, GEORGE W. HAYMAN. Days Due − 20.(SUMMONS MAILED TO COUNSEL) (ld, ) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by EMILY B. GOLDBERG on behalf of all plaintiffs (GOLDBERG, EMILY) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by REGAN H. CROTTY on behalf of all plaintiffs (CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER on behalf of all plaintiffs (KRASNER, JENNIE) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
8 Application and Proposed Order for Clerk's Order to extend time to answer as to George W. Hayman. Attorney THOMAS EDWARD KEMBLE and THOMAS EDWARD KEMBLE for GEORGE W. HAYMAN added. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
9 Application and Proposed Order for Clerk's Order to extend time to answer as to Passaic County.. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 12 of 19

10/01/2008
10/02/2008 10/02/2008 10/09/2008 10/21/2008 10/21/2008
10/21/2008
10/23/2008 10/23/2008
10/23/2008 10/27/2008 10/28/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008 11/03/2008

10 NOTICE of Appearance by J. BARRY COCOZIELLO on behalf of PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO, TANESHA WAY, PAT LEPORE, TERRY DUFFY, JAMES GALLAGHER, BRUCE JAMES, ELEASE EVANS, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, CHARLES MEYERS, STEVEN MYERS (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
CLERKS TEXT ORDER − The Application for a Clerks Order Extending Time to Answer − Document No. 8 submitted by J. COCOZIELLO on 10/01/2008 has been GRANTED. The answer due date has been set for 10/21/2008. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
11 Letter from Defendants, except G. Hayman. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
12 Letter from defendant Passaic County, et als.. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
13 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, by GEORGE W. HAYMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Statement, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
14 ANSWER to Complaint by PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO, TANESHA WAY, PAT LEPORE, TERRY DUFFY, JAMES GALLAGHER, BRUCE JAMES, ELEASE EVANS, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, CHARLES MEYERS, STEVEN MYERS.(COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
Set Deadlines as to 13 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,,. Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2008 10:00 AM before Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh. (nr, ) (PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
15 LETTER ORDER − Scheduling Conference set for 11/26/2008 11:00 AM in Newark − Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 10/23/08. (LM, ) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by DAMIAN P. CONFORTI on behalf of PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO, TANESHA WAY, PAT LEPORE, TERRY DUFFY, JAMES GALLAGHER, BRUCE JAMES, ELEASE EVANS, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, CHARLES MEYERS, STEVEN MYERS (CONFORTI, DAMIAN) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
17 ORDER extending for thirty days deft. George W. Hayman's time to answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 10/22/2008. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
18 Letter from Christopher J. Michie. (MICHIE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
19 Letter from Defendants. (CONFORTI, DAMIAN) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
20 Letter from Defendants except Hayman. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
21 ORDER granting deft. George W. Hayman leave to file an answer within 30 days from this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 10/28/2008. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Status Conference via telephone held on 10/29/2008. (LM, ) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
22 BRIEF in Opposition re 3 MOTION to Certify Class filed by PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO, TANESHA WAY, PAT LEPORE, TERRY DUFFY, JAMES GALLAGHER, BRUCE JAMES, ELEASE EVANS, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, CHARLES MEYERS,

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 13 of 19

11/05/2008 11/13/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008
11/19/2008
11/24/2008 11/25/2008 11/26/2008 11/26/2008 12/02/2008 12/03/2008
12/05/2008 12/08/2008 12/08/2008 12/09/2008 12/18/2008
12/18/2008

STEVEN MYERS. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of J. Barry Cocoziello, # 2 Exhibit A − D to Certification)(COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
23 BRIEF in Opposition re 3 MOTION to Certify Class filed by GEORGE W. HAYMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
24 Letter from Regan H. Crotty (re Extension to File Reply Brief) re 3 MOTION to Certify Class. (CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
25 Letter from Regan H. Crotty (re Extension to 11.18.08) re 3 MOTION to Certify Class. (CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
26 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 3 MOTION to Certify Class filed by MATTHEW CARLEY, CECILIO TOLEDANO, ANDREW CRAWFORD, ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Christopher J. Michie, # 2 Certification of Emily B. Goldberg, # 3 Goldberg Cert. Exhibits Part 1, # 4 Goldberg Exhibits − Part 2.pdf, # 5 Goldberg Exhibits − Part 3.pdf)(MICHIE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by MARIANNE C. TOLOMEO on behalf of PASSAIC COUNTY, PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, SONIA ROSADO, TANESHA WAY, PAT LEPORE, TERRY DUFFY, JAMES GALLAGHER, BRUCE JAMES, ELEASE EVANS, PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JERRY SPEZIALE, CHARLES MEYERS, STEVEN MYERS (TOLOMEO, MARIANNE) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
28 Letter from Regan H. Crotty (re Proposed Discovery Plan). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Discovery Plan)(CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
29 Letter from Deputy Attorney General Thomas E. Kemble Re: Consent Request for 14 Day Extension to Respond to Complaint. (KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
30 Letter from Deputy Attorney General Thomas E. Kemble Re: Granting of 14−Day Extension to Respond re 29 Letter. (KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Scheduling Conference held on 11/26/2008. (drc, ) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
31 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq., Attorney for Defendants (except (Hayman). (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
32 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 1/22/2009 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Status Conference set for 1/22/2009 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Discovery due by 3/31/2009.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 12/03/2008. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
33 Letter from Plaintiffs re 31 Letter. (MICHIE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by JEANNE LOCICERO on behalf of all plaintiffs (LOCICERO, JEANNE) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
35 ORDER granting deft. George W. Hayman's request to extend time to answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 12/04/2008. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
36 ORDER denying deft's request for permission to file a sur−reply. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 12/09/2008. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
37 First MOTION to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer on Behalf of Defendant Commissioner George W. Hayman by GEORGE W. HAYMAN. Responses due by 1/6/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
Set Deadlines as to 37 First MOTION to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer on Behalf of Defendant Commissioner George W. Hayman. Motion set for 1/20/2009 10:00 AM

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 14 of 19

01/06/2009
01/07/2009 01/15/2009 01/16/2009
01/27/2009 01/28/2009
02/04/2009 04/03/2009 04/20/2009 04/24/2009 05/27/2009 05/28/2009
06/08/2009 06/17/2009 06/23/2009 07/22/2009 08/06/2009

before Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
38 BRIEF in Opposition re 37 First MOTION to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer on Behalf of Defendant Commissioner George W. Hayman (Cert. of Service included) filed by MATTHEW CARLEY, ANDREW CRAWFORD, ANGEL COLON, ROY SCHMITT, JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS. (CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
39 Letter from Christopher J. Michie to Judge Falk re Extension of Time to Serve Defendants with Written Discovery Requests. (MICHIE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
40 Letter from Emily B. Goldberg. (GOLDBERG, EMILY) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
TEXT ORDER − Status/Settlement Conference set for 1/22/09 is hereby RESCHEDULED, at the request of plaintiff's counsel, to 1/30/2009 10:30 AM in Newark − Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 1/16/09. (LM, ) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
41 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq., Attorney for Defendants (except Def, Hayman) re Order,, Set Hearings,. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
TEXT ORDER − Status/Settlement Conference set for 1/30/09 is hereby RESCHEDULED, at the request of defense counsel, to Wednesday, 2/4/2009 at 2:30 PM in Newark − Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Kindly mark your calendar accordingly. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 1/28/09. (LM, ) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 2/4/2009. (LM, ) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/3/2009. (drc, ) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
42 Letter from Regan H. Crotty (re 04.03.09 status conference/scheduling order). (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
43 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER NO. 2: Discovery due by 5/31/2009. Motions due by 7/15/2009.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 04/15/2009. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
44 OPINION. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 05/27/2009. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
45 ORDER denying deft's 37 Motion to Dismiss; granting 3 Motion to Certify Class; appointing Colon, Schmitt, Lebron, Gates, Harkins, Carley, Toledano and Crawford class pltfs; appointing Dechert LLP, the Center for Social Justice at the Seton Hall University School of law &the American Civil Liberties Union class counsel. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 05/27/2009. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/8/2009. (drc, ) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
46 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq.. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
47 ANSWER to Complaint by GEORGE W. HAYMAN.(KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
48 ORDER, Status/Settlement Conference reset for 8/6/2009 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.,. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 7/21/09. (jd, ) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 8/6/2009. (drc, ) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 15 of 19

08/24/2009 08/25/2009 08/31/2009 09/03/2009 09/28/2009
10/06/2009 10/09/2009 12/07/2009 12/08/2009 01/21/2010 01/25/2010 02/16/2010 02/23/2010 02/24/2010 02/25/2010 02/25/2010
03/26/2010 04/19/2010 05/12/2010 05/17/2010

49 Letter from Christopher J. Michie (re Deliberative Process Priv.). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Hayman Deposition))(MICHIE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
50 Letter from Deputy Attorney General Thomas E. Kemble re 49 Letter. (KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
51 Letter from Deputy Attorney General Thomas E. Kemble re 49 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(KEMBLE, THOMAS) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/3/2009. (drc, ) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
TEXT ORDER − Status Conference via telephone set for Tuesday, 10/6/2009 at 11:15 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. It shall be plaintiff's counsel's responsibility to set up and initiate the conference call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 9/28/09. (LM, ) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/6/2009. (drc, ) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
52 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status/Settlement Conference set for 12/7/2009 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 10/06/2009. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 12/7/2009. (drc, ) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
53 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status/Settlement Conference set for 1/26/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 12/08/2009. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
54 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by ANGEL COLON. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(GOLDBERG, EMILY) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
55 Letter from Christopher J. Michie to Judge Falk re 1.26.2010 status conference. (MICHIE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
56 ORDER: Status/Settlement Conference set for 2/24/2010 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 02/16/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
57 Letter from Attorneys for Passaic County Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 2/24/2010. (LM, ) (Entered: 03/04/2010)
58 DISCOVERY PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 02/24/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
59 SCHEDULING ORDER: In person Settlement Conference set for 6/2/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Telephone Conference set for 3/26/2010 11:00 AM; April 19, 2010 at 11:00a.m.; May 12, 2010 at 11:00 AM; before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 02/24/2010. (nr, ) Modified on 3/2/2010 (mn, ). (Entered: 02/25/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/26/2010. (drc, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/19/2010. (drc, ) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/12/2010. (drc, ) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
60 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status/Settlement Conference set for 7/22/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 05/17/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 16 of 19

07/08/2010
07/09/2010
07/15/2010 07/21/2010 07/27/2010 08/17/2010 10/20/2010 10/26/2010 11/17/2010 11/18/2010 11/23/2010 12/13/2010 12/14/2010 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/25/2011 02/02/2011 02/10/2011
02/10/2011

Remark; Please be advised that the in person status/settlement conference scheduled for 7/22/10 has been adjurned until 7/29/10 at 1:30 P.M. before USMJ Joseph A. Dickson, Courtroom 5A, US Courthouse building, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ. Thank you. (nm, ) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
Remark: The parties are advised to disregard the previous remark posted on 7/8/10 adjourning the status/settlement conference, as it was made in error. The in person conference will take place before USMJ Falk on 7/22/10 at 10:00 a.m. as previously scheduled. Thank you. (nm, ) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
61 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq., Attonreys for Passaic County Defendants. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
62 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq., Attorney for Passaic County Defendants. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
63 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status/settlement Conference set for 8/17/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 07/23/2010. (nr, ) Modified on 7/29/2010 (mn, ). (Entered: 07/27/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 8/17/2010. (drc, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
64 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Attorneys for Passaic County Defendants. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
65 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status/Settlement Conference set for 11/18/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 10/22/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
66 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq., Attorneys for Passaic County Defendants. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 11/18/2010. (drc, ) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
67 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status/settlement Conference set for 12/13/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 11/18/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 12/13/2010. (drc, ) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
68 ORDER for production of documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 11/18/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
69 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq.. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
70 Letter from Regan H. Crotty, Esq.. (CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
71 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq.. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
72 NOTICE of Appearance by JENNIFER BROOKE CONDON on behalf of All Plaintiffs (CONDON, JENNIFER) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
73 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status/settlement Conference set for 2/17/2011 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 02/02/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
74 TEXT ORDER − Pursuant to the telephone status conference held on 2/10/11, there shall be an in−person status conference on 2/16/11 at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall bring all discovery materials, responses to interrogatories, proofs of service, and all other requests/responses related to discovery that is relevant to this case. ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp on 2/10/11. (NR ) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − Please note the TEXT ORDER (Docket entry #74)filed by the Clerk's office on 2/10/11 was docketed in error. Please disregard. (NR) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 17 of 19

02/17/2011 02/17/2011 02/22/2011 02/23/2011
03/21/2011 03/23/2011 03/29/2011 04/27/2011 05/24/2011 06/10/2011
06/20/2011 06/22/2011
07/05/2011 07/14/2011 07/15/2011 07/26/2011
07/26/2011

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Status Conference via telephone held on 2/17/2011. (drc, ) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
75 ORDER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: setting Status/Settlement Conference for 3/23/2011 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 2/17/11. (tjg,) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
76 Substitution of Attorney − Attorney THOMAS EDWARD KEMBLE terminated. Attorney MICHAEL J. ENGALLENA for GEORGE W. HAYMAN added.. (ENGALLENA, MICHAEL) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
77 Substitution of Attorney − Attorney CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE terminated. Attorney EZRA D. ROSENBERG for MATTHEW CARLEY,EZRA D. ROSENBERG for ANGEL COLON,EZRA D. ROSENBERG for ANDREW CRAWFORD,EZRA D. ROSENBERG for WINIFRED GATES,EZRA D. ROSENBERG for MARK HARKINS,EZRA D. ROSENBERG for JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON,EZRA D. ROSENBERG for ROY SCHMITT,EZRA D. ROSENBERG for CECILIO TOLEDANO added.. (ROSENBERG, EZRA) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
78 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq.. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
79 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference reset for 4/27/2011 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 03/23/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
80 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, Esq.. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 4/27/2011. (drc, ) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
81 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status/settlement Conference set for 6/16/2011 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 05/24/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
82 TEXT ORDER − Status/Settlement Conference set for 6/16/11 is hereby RESCHEDULED to Wednesday, 7/6/2011 at 10:00 AM in Newark − Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Kindly mark your calendars accordingly. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 6/10/11. (LM, ) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
83 Letter from Jeanne LoCicero re 82 Order, Set Hearings,,. (LOCICERO, JEANNE) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
84 TEXT ORDER − Status/Settlement Conference set for 7/6/11 is hereby RESCHEDULED, at the request of plaintiffs' counsel, to Thursday, 7/14/2011 at 10:30 AM in Newark − Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Kindly mark your calendars accordingly. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 6/22/11. (LM, ) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
89 Letter from Oifical Cecilio Toledano. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Settlement Conference held on 7/14/2011. (drc, ) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
85 Notice to be terminated and withdraw from Notices of Electronic filing as to case. Attorney JENNIE BOEHM KRASNER terminated. (KRASNER, JENNIE) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
86 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Michael E. Planell, Esq.) by MATTHEW CARLEY, ANGEL COLON, ANDREW CRAWFORD, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS, JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON, CECILIO TOLEDANO. (Attachments: # 1 Application and Certification of Ezra D. Rosenberg, # 2 Certification of Michael E. Planell, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(ROSENBERG, EZRA) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
87 Substitution of Attorney − Attorney MICHAEL J. ENGALLENA terminated. Attorney CHRISTINE H. KIM for GEORGE W. HAYMAN added.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(KIM, CHRISTINE) (Entered: 07/26/2011)

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 18 of 19

07/28/2011 08/03/2011 08/05/2011 08/10/2011
08/15/2011 09/20/2011
09/28/2011 10/17/2011 10/27/2011 01/06/2012
01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/25/2012
02/13/2012 02/15/2012 02/17/2012

88 ORDER granting 86 Motion for Michael E. Planell to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 07/29/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number NEW008539 Re Michael E. Panell (nr, ) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
90 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Michael E. Planell to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (ROSENBERG, EZRA) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
91 TEXT ORDER − Status Conference via telephone set for Monday, 8/15/2011 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. It shall be plaintiff's counsel's responsibility to set up and initiate the conference call. Kindly mark your calendars accordingly. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 8/10/11. (LM, ) Modified on 8/16/2011 (mn). (Entered: 08/10/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/15/2011. (drc, ) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
92 TEXT ORDER − Status Conference via telephone set for Tuesday, 9/27/11 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. It shall be Deft. Passaic County's responsibility to set up and initiate the conference call. Kindly mark your calendars accordingly. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 9/20/11. (LM, ) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/28/2011. (drc, ) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
93 Letter from J. Barry Cocoziello, attorney for Passaic County Defendants. (COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/1/2011 09:30 AM in Newark − Courtroom 4 before Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh. Court acquiesced in parties request for conference as outlined in the October 17, 2011 letter to the court. (spc, ) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
94 Letter from Regan H. Crotty to Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Directing Notice of Settlement, # 2 Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement, # 4 Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement, # 5 Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement, # 6 Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement, # 7 Exhibit F to the Settlement Agreement, # 8 Exhibit G to the Settlement Agreement)(CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
95 ORDER directing notice of settlement. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 1/13/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
96 Letter from attorneys for Passaic County Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(COCOZIELLO, J.) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
97 CONSENT ORDER dismissing claims against the defts. Sheriff of Passaic County, Warden of the Passaic County Jail, Deputy Warden of Passaic County Jail, and Passaic County Freeholder(Jerry Speziale, Charles Meyers, Steven Meyers, and Freeholders Sonia Rosado, Tanesha Way, Pat Lepore, Terry Duffy, James Gallagher, Bruce James and Elease Evans). Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 1/23/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
98 Letter from Regan H. Crotty re Proposed Consent Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Order to Amend Caption)(CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 02/13/2012)
99 Letter from Regan H. Crotty enclosing proposed order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Directing Notice of Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Gary M. Lanigan)(CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
100 CONSENT ORDER amending the caption of this case to delete former Commissioner George Hayman and substitute deft. Gary Lanigan in his official capacity as Commissioner of New Jersey. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 2/16/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

Case: 2:08-cv-04439-DMC-MF As of: 04/06/2014 08:24 PM EDT 19 of 19

02/27/2012 03/26/2012 04/16/2012
04/20/2012 04/23/2012 04/24/2012 04/25/2012 04/25/2012 04/25/2012 04/26/2012 05/07/2012 08/26/2013 10/02/2013 10/08/2013 10/09/2013 01/07/2014

101 ORDER with attached notice of settlement between pltfs. and deft. Gary M. Lanigan; the Court will conduct a fairness hrg. on 4/23/2012 at 9:30a.m.; adjourning the hrg. scheduled for 3/27/2012 to 4/23/2012 at 9:30a.m.,etc.. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 2/23/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
102 Notice to be terminated and withdraw from Notices of Electronic filing as to case. Attorney REGAN H. CROTTY terminated. (CROTTY, REGAN) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
103 DECLARATION of Jennifer B. Condon, Esq. and Jeanne LoCicero, Esq. re 101 Order, Fairness Hearing Submission by MATTHEW CARLEY, ANGEL COLON, ANDREW CRAWFORD, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS, JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON, ROY SCHMITT, CECILIO TOLEDANO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Class Member Comments Part I, # 2 Exhibit Class Member Comments Part II, # 3 Exhibit Class Member Comments Part III, # 4 Exhibit Class Member Comments Part IV, # 5 Exhibit Consultant CV, # 6 Exhibit Consultant CV, # 7 Exhibit Monitor CV, # 8 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Expert CVs, # 9 Exhibit Class Member Comments State Agreement Part I, # 10 Exhibit Class Member Comments State Agreement Part II)(CONDON, JENNIFER) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number NEW013110 Re Michael E. Planell (nr, ) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
105 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh: Fairness Hearing conducted to approve class action settlement held on 4/23/2012. Court indicated settlement fair and resonable. Opinion and Order to be filed (Court Reporter/Recorder Charles McGuire.) (spc, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
106 OPINION. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 4/24/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
104 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Proposed Final Order by MATTHEW CARLEY, ANGEL COLON, ANDREW CRAWFORD, WINIFRED GATES, MARK HARKINS, JUBRA 'EEL LEBRON, ROY SCHMITT, CECILIO TOLEDANO. (CONDON, JENNIFER) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
107 ORDER approving settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 4/24/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
108 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 4/24/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
***Civil Case Terminated. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
109 FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER approving the settlement agreement between pltfs and deft. Gary M. Lanigan and dismissing action. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 5/7/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
110 Letter from Jeanne LoCicero, co−counsel for plaintiffs. (LOCICERO, JEANNE) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
111 TEXT ORDER − Telephone Status Conference set for 10/8/2013 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Plaintiff's counsel shall arrange for and initiate the conference call. Please mark your calendars accordingly. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 10/2/13. (LM, ) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/8/2013. (drc, ) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
112 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 1/7/2014 10:00 AM, 7/22/2014 at 10:00AM, &12/19/2014 at 10:00AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 10/9/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/7/2014. (drc, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)