Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 1 of 63

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., KENTRELL PARKER, FARRELL SAMPIER, REGINALD GEORGE, JOHN TONUBBEE, OTTO BARRERA, CLYDE CARTER, CEDRIC EVANS, EDWARD GIOVANNI, RICKY D. DAVIS, LIONEL TOLBERT, and RUFUS WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; STEPHANIE LAMARTINIERE, Assistant Warden for Health Services, in her official capacity; JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his official capacity; and THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS,

CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ SECTION __________ JUDGE ___________ MAGISTRATE ______________
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants.

COMPLAINT STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1. The medical care provided at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (“Angola”) falls far beneath constitutional and statutory standards. Countless prisoners have already suffered serious harm due to Defendants’ grossly deficient policies and practices, including unnecessary pain and suffering, exacerbation of existing conditions, permanent disability, disfigurement, and
1

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 2 of 63
even death. Thousands more are placed at daily risk of suffering the same fate should they need medical care. 2. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are housed at Angola in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DOC”). As prisoners at Angola, Plaintiffs are entirely dependent on Defendants for their basic health care. However, the health care Defendants provide falls far short of minimal constitutional requirements and fails to meet prisoners’ basic health needs, leaving painful and often life-threatening conditions unaddressed or inadequately addressed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOC and against James LeBlanc, Burl Cain, and Stephanie Lamartiniere in their official capacities, for violations of their constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and their statutory rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. 3. Defendants engage in a number of systemic practices that expose all members of the Plaintiff Class to unacceptable risks to their health, including but not limited to:
a. Routinely delaying evaluation, treatment, and access to specialty care; b. Declining to provide medically necessary treatments, including surgeries, medication,
medical devices, physical therapy, and appropriate screening tests; c. Failing to provide and manage medication in accordance with prescriptions and
medically appropriate treatment courses; d. Failing to ensure that Plaintiffs’ medical needs are addressed in their follow-up care,
dietary plans, work requirements, cell conditions, and other aspects of confinement;
2

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 3 of 63
e. Enforcing a “malingering” rule designed to punish Plaintiffs who seek treatment and discourage them from requesting medical assistance; and
f. Maintaining an insufficient number of qualified medical personnel such as physicians and nurses, such that some medical tasks are performed by unqualified individuals including prisoners.
4. These medically and constitutionally unacceptable practices have produced an immeasurable amount of needless pain and suffering, exacerbating Plaintiffs’ health problems and turning treatable conditions into debilitating and disabling—or even terminal—conditions. Many Plaintiffs and class members have already suffered greatly from Defendants’ practices, as shown below, and those who have been fortunate enough to avoid serious harm to date are at constant risk. 5. As laid out below, Defendants’ practices have had devastating consequences for countless prisoners. Prisoners report horror story after horror story: a man denied medical attention four times during a stroke, leaving him blind and paralyzed; a man denied access to a specialist for four years while his throat cancer advanced; a blind man denied even a cane for 16 years. In many cases, only the spectre of legal action has spurred Defendants to provide longdelayed medical care to Plaintiffs. 6. Despite repeated requests from Plaintiffs and warnings from doctors and advocacy groups, and despite the obviousness of many of these medical urgencies and their devastating consequences, Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the substantial risks created by their failure to provide minimally adequate health care.
3

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 4 of 63
7. Indeed, Defendants have been aware for more than 25 years that their practices are constitutionally deficient. In 1989, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) initiated an investigation into the conditions of confinement at Angola and then sued, culminating in a consent decree regulating Angola’s medical care. Among other findings, DOJ found that Angola’s “[f]ailure to provide adequate medical and psychiatric care” deprived prisoners of their constitutional rights. DOJ specifically cited a number of practices that Angola continues to this day or reinstated as soon as the consent decree expired, including delaying the provision of necessary medical care, providing inadequate follow-up care, maintaining inadequate medical records, having untrained personnel conducting sick call and distributing medication, employing a punitive malingering rule, and understaffing of medical personnel. Defendant Cain was Warden of Angola during the latter period that the consent decree was in effect. Given Defendants’ longstanding knowledge that its practices are constitutionally deficient, together with the litany of complaints and the devastating, often tragic consequences of their medical neglect, there can be no question that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the shortcomings of their system of treatment. 8. Defendants’ failure to provide adequate medical treatment is also a failure to reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities, thereby denying those prisoners equal access to prison activities, programs, and services in contravention of federal law. Moreover, Defendants’ broader failure to accommodate individuals with disabilities in performing the tasks of daily life, as described below, also contravenes federal law. Defendants’ methods of administration have the effect of subjecting prisoners with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities and defeat the accomplishment of the objectives of a medical care delivery system to prisoners with disabilities.
4

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 5 of 63

9. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief holding Defendants’ practices in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act, and injunctive relief compelling Defendants to immediately provide Plaintiffs and the class members they represent with constitutionally adequate health care and accommodation for their disabilities.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 12101 et seq, and 29 U.S.C. § 794. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1343 (civil rights), and § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act).

11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the events or omissions complained of occurred in this district.

A.) Defendants

PARTIES

12. Defendant Burl Cain is the Warden of Angola. He has held this position since 1995. In

this capacity, he exercises operational control over Angola by making staffing, budget, and

administrative decisions. By law, he is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all

persons held in Angola’s custody. At all relevant times, Cain was acting under color of law and

as the agent and official representative of DOC. He can be served at 17544 Tunica Trace,

Angola, LA 70712.

13. Defendant Stephanie Lamartiniere is the Assistant Warden for Health Services at Angola. She has been in that position since approximately 2013. In her capacity as Assistant Warden for Health Services, she exercises operational control over the Angola Treatment Center hospital by making staffing, budget, and administrative decisions. By law, she is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all persons incarcerated and treated at Angola’s hospital. At all

5

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 6 of 63
relevant times, Lamartiniere was acting under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. She can be served at 17544 Tunica Trace, Angola, LA 70712. 14. Defendant James M. LeBlanc is the Secretary of Louisiana’s Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DOC”). In his capacity as Secretary, he is responsible for the functioning and control of all programs within the Department. He formulates rules and regulations and determines policy regarding management, personnel, and total operations. He leads and supports central office and field unit staffs, which are charged with carrying out the work of the agency. By law, he is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all persons held in the DOC’s custody. At all relevant times, LeBlanc was acting under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. He can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. 15. Defendant DOC, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, is the state prison system, a division of the State of Louisiana. It is charged with overseeing the custody and care of offenders in Louisiana. At all relevant times, the DOC operated Angola, a public facility with programs and services. The DOC is the recipient of federal funds. The DOC can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802.
B.) Plaintiffs 16. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are individuals currently incarcerated at Angola. 17. The named Plaintiffs each have serious medical needs that have gone untreated, undertreated, or mistreated by Defendants. 18. Plaintiff Joseph Lewis, Jr., DOC No. 560138, is 81 years old and has been at Angola for two years. He has had chronic problems with his throat since before his arrival at Angola,
6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 7 of 63
including coughing, spitting up mucus, a steady decline in volume, rawness, and pain and burning sensations. Beginning at least as early as February 2013, he has submitted repeated sick call requests and grievances. In response, Angola doctors repeatedly told Mr. Lewis that his throat issues would get better and only prescribed a Q-Tussin spray. Defendants refused to take Mr. Lewis to a hospital or specialist until January 8, 2015, after he was visited by attorneys. A Louisiana State University (“LSU”) doctor performed a laryngoscopy and recommended an immediate biopsy. Mr. Lewis received a biopsy at LSU hospital on March 26, 2015 and was diagnosed with throat cancer on April 8, 2015. LSU doctors have recommended further tests to determine the severity and prognosis of Mr. Lewis’s cancer. Mr. Lewis is a qualified individual with a disability. 19. Plaintiff Kentrell Parker, DOC No. 371212, is 36 years old and has been at Angola for 4 years. He was previously housed at Elayn Hunt C.C., where he suffered a neck injury on February 19, 2010 and was rendered quadriplegic. Mr. Parker is completely dependent for his care on prisoner orderlies. The orderlies are not adequately trained. He used to have an air mattress that was appropriate for his condition, but it broke in or around 2011 and has not been replaced. In his experience, men on Ward 2 are often not cleaned at all unless there is a tour group visiting. Mr. Parker is excluded from attending church unless a nurse or EMT accompanies him. In summer 2014, Mr. Parker was accused of disobedience and put in an isolation cell where he could not be seen by staff, until attorneys expressed urgent concern for the health risks that posed. Around the same time, the Angola hospital underwent a severe shortage of hygiene supplies including bed mats, subjecting Mr. Parker to an increased risk of bedsores and other life-threatening complications. He is regularly left to sit in his own feces for several hours before an orderly comes to change his bedding. In May 2015, Mr. Parker was
7

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 8 of 63
brought to LSU hospital with a blood infection. The doctor there told him that bacteria entered his blood from his stool. He has a tracheotomy hole in his neck. Angola regularly runs out of tracheal supplies, subjecting him to unnecessary risk of infection. Mr. Parker does not have a tracheal machine at his bedside that he can use in the event of choking. He never receives physical therapy and relies on prisoner-orderlies for feeding. For six of eight days in early April 2015, with only one orderly on the Ward, there was no one to feed Mr. Parker his breakfast and he went hungry. He is never weighed. Mr. Parker is a qualified individual with a disability. 20. Plaintiff Farrell Sampier, DOC No. 607098, is 47 years old and has been at Angola for 2 years. Although Mr. Sampier was not paralyzed when he entered the DOC system, he is now paraplegic. While at Orleans Parish Prison, he experienced numbness and pins-and-needles sensations, but his complaints were ignored. At Elayn Hunt C.C., another DOC prison, he began to experience paralysis. He was eventually diagnosed with transverse myelitis by an LSU doctor, who told Mr. Sampier that if his condition had been diagnosed sooner he would not be paralyzed. After his arrival at Angola in June 2013, he developed early decubitus ulcers and a urinary tract infection at the site of his catheter. Mr. Sampier suffered a quarter-inch tear in his penis that Defendants refused to repair, despite repeated requests for medical attention, and the tear became infected. Defendants did not provide surgery to move the catheter until March 2015, when Mr. Sampier began meeting with attorneys in connection with this Complaint. Mr. Sampier also experiences significant problems with chronic care and hygiene on Ward 2. Mr. Sampier previously received 5 to 10 minutes of physical therapy once a month, but was “discharged” and no longer receives it. Defendants have refused to provide him with wheelchair gloves to prevent callouses and blisters from forming; instead he purchases mittens from the Angola store. There is only one orderly on Ward 2, who frequently has to ask for help with tasks
8

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 9 of 63
like lifting Mr. Sampier. Often other prisoner-patients living on the ward assist with these tasks. Mr. Sampier is susceptible to decubitus ulcers, or bedsores, because of his illness, and the lack of staffing on the Ward exacerbates his risk. Mr. Sampier is a qualified individual with a disability. 21. Plaintiff Reginald George, DOC No. 111518, is 56 years old and has been at Angola for 22 years. Mr. George has HIV. From 2010 to 2012, Defendants refused to provide him with any HIV medication as punishment for complaining about errors that untrained security guards made in distributing his medication. At other times, security guards have refused to provide him with his medication in retaliation for other complaints he has made. He experiences swelling in his legs and numbness in his hands. He has previously made sick call about the “black box,” the device used to keep him shackled, because it caused pain and swelling in his wrists. The EMT who responded to his sick call told him that whether he must wear a black box is a security decision, not a medical decision, and provided no treatment. Defendants have also failed to provide Mr. George with shower shoes, subjecting him to an unnecessary risk of contracting infection as a result of his compromised immune system. Mr. George is a qualified individual with a disability. 22. Plaintiff John Tonubbee, DOC No. 98923, is 72 years old and has been at Angola for 34 years. Dr. Jonathan Roundtree, a former Angola doctor, diagnosed him with degenerative joint disorder in his knees in 2005. Dr. Roundtree recommended surgery in 2005, but Defendants still have not provided the surgery. Mr. Tonubbee was told that there was a backlog of surgery needs and no money to fund the surgeries. He does not have cartilage in his knees and can feel his bones grinding against each other. Mr. Tonubbee believes this disorder resulted from 16 years of manipulating, rolling and turning 500-pound barrels for his work duty requirements at Angola. Mr. Tonubbee received a permanent restricted duty status for “chronic knee pain.” He has been
9

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 10 of 63
prescribed cortisone shots for his knees four to six times a month but only receives them approximately once every six months. He did not receive cortisone shots at all from February to October 2013, during which time he endured severe pain. He also needs special orthopedic shoes, which the prison has only issued twice, in 2008 and 2010, and the shoes were not specific to his medical needs of severe bunions and overlapping toes. The shoes caused Mr. Tonubbee additional pain in his feet and knees. He requested that the doctor issue him orthopedic shoes appropriate for his medical needs and was denied. Mr. Tonubbee was told to purchase his own shoes from the Commissary. The Commissary only sells non-orthopedic tennis shoes that fall apart when they become wet. Mr. Tonubbee has been re-gluing his shoes in an effort to get them to last longer than three months. Mr. Tonubbee is a qualified individual with a disability. 23. Plaintiff Otto Barrera, DOC No. 615551, is 49 years old and has been at Angola since November 2013. In 2012, as a result of a gunshot wound, he lost much of his lower jaw. He had multiple surgeries before his incarceration including a skin graft and bone removal. He is currently missing his bottom lip and part of his tongue. Mr. Barrera has difficulty chewing and swallowing as a result of his injuries, and the difficulty is worsening. He was referred for reconstructive surgery around August 2014, but Defendants deemed the surgery “cosmetic” and denied it on that basis. He is supposed to be on a soft diet but receives the same food as other men on the hospital ward so he must tear the food into small pieces with his hands before placing it in the back of his mouth to attempt to swallow. Mr. Barrera receives medications through an enteral tube. During a previous incarceration at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Mr. Barrera saw doctors three days a week and had his enteral tube cleaned regularly. At Angola, the tube was not cleaned or changed for approximately a year and a half, during which time it oozed blood every two to three days and caused Mr. Barrera severe pain. Defendants refused Mr. Barrera’s
10

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 11 of 63
requests for the tube to be cleaned or replaced until the day he met with attorneys in April 2015, when it was abruptly and painfully pulled out. Mr. Barrera is a qualified individual with a disability. 24. Plaintiff Clyde Carter, DOC No. 99041, is 56 years old and has been at Angola for 27 years. In or about October 2013, Mr. Carter fell in the cell block and injured his knee. He made sick call, and received an examination and MRI. Mr. Carter appears to have one or more torn ligaments in his knee. The specialist who came to Angola recommended surgery. To date, he has not received surgery. Angola doctors refuse to approve the surgery recommendation. He saw a specialist at Angola from Charity hospital who told him, “It seems like every time I schedule a surgery for you, they just blow it off.” He has made sick call more than 15 times; he is charged money for each request but does not receive treatment. He has contacted Warden Lamartiniere but she tells him to make sick call. The doctor recommended a stabilizing brace with metal rods on the side, but the prison only allows him to use a Velcro brace that does not hold his injured knee in place. He has received a temporary duty status to restrict him from fieldwork, but it has repeatedly expired and he has been forced back to the fields. On December 10, 2013, he re-injured his knee in the field and made emergency sick call, but was not permitted to leave the field and was instead written up for malingering. While working in the field, Mr. Carter is repeatedly required to jump ditches and perform other physically demanding tasks beyond working the crops. If he refuses, he is written up for disobedience. His duty status says “no uneven ground,” but in practice in the field this purported restriction is meaningless. He also has a bottom-bunk duty status but was still assigned to a top bunk until late 2014, a year after his initial injury.
11

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 12 of 63
25. Plaintiff Cedric Evans, DOC No. 394117, is 50 years old and has been at Angola for 7 years. In 2014, he hurt his collarbone while lifting his locker box, which Defendants require him and many other prisoners to do three times per week. He received an x-ray but was told nothing was wrong with his collarbone, even though he could not hold up his left arm. He hurt his right forearm a few months later, also while lifting his locker box. He later saw a specialist at LSU, who x-rayed his arm and diagnosed it as broken. During the examination, the doctor noticed a knot on his collarbone, x-rayed it, and diagnosed it as broken, too. Mr. Evans was required to work in the field throughout this months-long stretch of having an undiagnosed broken clavicle and experienced severe pain. He made sick call and filed an administrative grievance. His clavicle appears to be healing itself now but has significant calcium buildup that causes pain and discomfort. He cannot sleep on his left side. He has impaired mobility in his left shoulder. 26. Plaintiff Edward Giovanni, DOC No. 96746, is 62 years old and has been at Angola for 34 years. Despite his poor health, Defendants have housed Mr. Giovanni in “medical dorms” that are not actually equipped to meet the medical and accommodation-related needs of their residents. Mr. Giovanni spent several months housed in Cypress-2, a medical dorm which to his knowledge housed 86 prisoners but was designed to house 50. In or about June 2014, he suffered a bacterial infection that caused his lungs to collapse, and spent weeks in a wheelchair because of severely diminished breathing capacity. Mr. Giovanni requested to be moved to Ward 2 of the Angola Treatment Center but Dr. Lavespere denied the transfer on the basis that there was no room. During the summer of 2013, Mr. Giovanni suffered in the extreme heat conditions of Cypress-2, where several elderly and infirm men were housed with no medical staff. Mr. Giovanni was taken from his dorm by ambulance on or about July 1, 2014, to an outside hospital for emergency medical attention. Mr. Giovanni is scared to walk, and now only
12

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 13 of 63
stays in bed, sits in his chair, and goes to the bathroom. Mr. Giovanni may be eligible for veterans’ benefits but the prison has told him that they do not provide transportation to VA facilities. Mr. Giovanni has multiple hernias, including one the size of a softball on his upper thigh, about which he has an individual lawsuit pending. In or around 2010, the Angola urologist, Dr. Brunner, told him that the hernia must be addressed surgically. Dr. Collins told Mr. Giovanni that the prison cannot afford the needed hernia surgeries since the shut-down of Earl K. Long hospital, and that the waiting list was extensive. Mr. Giovanni is a qualified individual with a disability. 27. Plaintiff Ricky D. Davis, DOC No. 554718, is 48 years old and has been at Angola for four years. He previously had a disc pressing on a nerve in his back that was causing numbness in his extremities and underwent a laminectomy, a procedure in which bones are clipped to relieve pressure on nerves, in February 2014. Upon returning to Angola two days after this procedure, Mr. Davis was forced to ride face down laying across the front seat because there was no handicap-accessible van. He was sent back to the dorm with staples in his back. In September 2014, Mr. Davis had a telemedicine consultation with a neurologist who told him he would need an additional surgery because the first was unsuccessful. He has “no kitchen” duty status but he is assigned to scrub pots and pans outside, sitting on a crate, which aggravates his back injury and contribute to continued pain. In early 2015, Mr. Davis was brought to a neurosurgeon. He had to wear shackles, a “black box” and a waist strap, causing his wrists to swell considerably. 28. Plaintiff Lionel Tolbert, DOC No. 91931, is 59 years old and has been at Angola for 33 years. He has been diagnosed with heart disease (arteriosclerosis and arrhythmia), hypertension, and high cholesterol. He received multiple stents between 2005 and 2014 while in Angola
13

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 14 of 63
custody. He also has severe arterial blockages in his legs that cause extreme pain, swelling and discoloration. He has difficulty walking and experiences severe burning in his muscles because of inadequate bloodflow. He has been diagnosed with diabetes, for which he takes Metformin. His blood is only monitored once a year, but should be monitored more frequently—anywhere from once a week if his condition is unstable to twice a year if it is completely stable. He consistently takes his medications, but has noticed apparent arbitrary changes in the medication he receives, such as receiving different-colored pills at various pill calls for the same prescription. He is supposed to receive a special diet but only receives the same food the other men receive but without seasoning. Mr. Tolbert is a qualified individual with a disability. 29. Plaintiff Rufus White, DOC No. 322954, is 40 years old and has been at Angola for twelve years. He has old gunshot wounds, asthma, and arthritis in his shoulder. He experiences sharp pains in his chest that have not been diagnosed despite his requests for examination and treatment. He believes he may have pneumonia, which he previously had at Angola. Doctors at Angola refused to perform a chest x-ray on the basis that Mr. White did not have a fever. Plaintiff White recalls that when he previously had pneumonia at Angola he did not run a fever. Immediately following a visit by attorneys investigating medical care at Angola on August 19, 2014, Mr. White had a chest x-ray taken. He was not informed of what the physicians were looking for or the results other than that the x-ray was “okay.” On approximately February 5, 2015, a second x-ray was performed at Angola. Mr. White was not informed of the reason for the x-ray or the result. He occasionally has blood in his stool. Mr. White previously had permanent indoor duty status, because of his asthma and gunshot wounds, but Dr. Toce revoked it on the basis that Mr. White “look[ed] healthy” and only used his inhaler every other day. Mr. White’s duty status was returned to field duty. In or around July 2014, Mr. White lost
14

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 15 of 63
consciousness by the re-entry shack in the east yard and was taken to the hospital but the doctors did not give him any information about his condition. Mr. White is a qualified individual with a disability.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A.) Overview of Medical Care at Louisiana State Penitentiary 30. Angola has been operating as a prison for well over a century. It is the largest men’s prison and only maximum-security men’s prison in Louisiana. The facility houses over 6,000 prisoners. In 2010 (the most recent Annual Report available), the average age of the population was 41.6 with 18.3% at or over age 55, and the average length of sentence was 92.40 years. Angola also houses the state’s death row population. 31. Prisoners serving sentences at Angola are generally required to work, usually in the prison’s agricultural fields. Most of the men at Angola are serving sentences “at hard labor.” The most common job is agricultural work in the “fields.” This work consists of tending the crops over Angola’s 18,000-acre property. Field work is physically demanding, requiring men to bend at the knees, hips and back, as well as to walk long distances and hop across agricultural ditches—trenches some two to three feet wide—with no assistance. Even elderly prisoners are required to do this work. 32. Individual prisoners’ work restrictions, if any, are made through a “duty status,” which states specific work restrictions and the time period they cover. 33. The medical services DOC provides to prisoners at Angola consist of both on-site treatment by DOC personnel and off-site treatment by local hospitals and specialists.
15

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 16 of 63
(1) On-site Care 34. The R.E. Barrow, Jr. Treatment Center (“TC”) opened at Angola in or around 1994. The TC houses several dozen recuperating or chronically ill prisoners on two wards; an original third ward was shuttered for use as storage space in 1994. The TC houses the Acute Treatment Unit (“ATU”) which functions as Angola’s emergency department and serves prisoners throughout the prison. Currently, Ward 1 of the TC serves Angola’s infirmary while Ward 2 houses prisoners with serious chronic care needs. 35. The prison offers some services on-site including primary care and a handful of specialty clinics for chronic illnesses such as diabetes, HIV, and hepatitis. Some lab work is performed on prison grounds, and some is sent off-site. 36. Subject to the supervision and oversight of Defendant Lamartiniere, Angola employs a medical staff consisting of Dr. Randy Lavespere, the Medical Director, and approximately five other doctors. 37. Defendant Lamartiniere does not have a background in medical care and her previous job at Angola was as secretary to Warden Cain. 38. The failures in Angola’s delivery of medical care begin with its intake procedure and extend through the failure to diagnose or properly treat illnesses, including severe and even terminal illnesses. 39. To request health care, prisoners must submit a Health Care Request Form, Form HC-01A, known as a “sick call form,” describing the need for medical attention. Prisoners are charged $3.00 for “routine sick call” or $6.00 for emergency sick call.
16

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 17 of 63
40. Defendants threaten punishment to every prisoner who seeks emergency treatment, placing a written warning on the Health Care Request Form that states “if I declare myself a medical emergency and health care staff determine that an emergency does not exist, I may be subject to disciplinary action for malingering.” Defendants frequently make verbal threats of malingering charges as well. As punishment for supposed malingering, Defendants may issue a disciplinary write-up with consequences that include extended lock-down in a disciplinary camp, in addition to the denial of medical attention. 41. “Sick call” is handled by Emergency Medical Technicians (“EMTs”). EMTs perform an initial assessment of a prisoner’s condition and rank them from 1-4 in terms of urgency. Some are seen or sent to the ATU immediately; some do not see a doctor for months, or at all. Prisoners are charged the fees for sick call and prescriptions regardless of whether they see a doctor. 42. Under this protocol, persons lacking the medical training and experience of physicians, certified physicians’ assistants, or registered nurses are delegated the responsibility and authority to determine whether a prisoner will be scheduled for an appointment with a doctor and what, if any, treatment short of a doctor’s appointment an ailing prisoner will receive. 43. Angola staff are also responsible for distributing prescription medications to prisoners through the “Pill Call” process. Outside the TC, medication distribution and management is generally performed by security staff rather than nurses. During Pill Call, prisoners are regularly forced to stand in line for extended periods of time including outdoors under harsh conditions. Pill Calls do not generally occur at regular hours and prisoners are thus unable to adhere to regular medication regimens.
17

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 18 of 63
44. Although Angola prisoners are not in possession of their prescriptions, they are expected to track their own need for prescription refills and request refills several days before the prescription runs out. Defendants do not assist prisoners in tracking this information, causing lapses in prisoners’ use of prescription medication. 45. Many tasks involving the care of chronically ill prisoners are left to so-called orderlies. Orderlies are Angola prisoners who have been assigned to work as medical staff. These men carry out a range of functions throughout the prison, including providing baths, changing wound dressings, and handling hospital linens. The orderlies are not properly trained for many of the duties they are required to perform.
(2) Off-site Care 46. Angola does not have the capacity to perform most high-level and specialty care, including surgery. For such services, Defendants send prisoners to off-site facilities, mainly in the Louisiana State University (“LSU”) system. 47. In 2013 and 2014, the State of Louisiana privatized the seven hospitals in LSU’s Health Care Services Division. Six of the original seven hospitals in this system have been transformed to public-private partnerships, including the hospital that treated most Angola prisoners in need of hospital care, Earl K. Long Hospital in Baton Rouge. These hospitals now refuse to treat Angola prisoners. 48. Around the same time, the LSU School of Medicine terminated a residency rotation at Angola that brought medical students from LSU School of Medicine to Angola to perform diagnostic procedures and some surgeries.
18

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 19 of 63
49. Neither the DOC nor the State of Louisiana has adequately replaced the services provided by the defunct residency program or the LSU hospitals. At present, most Angola prisoners with acute medical needs requiring off-site attention are taken to Interim LSU Hospital in New Orleans, Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center in Independence, or Lane Regional Medical Center in Zachary. Due to Interim LSU Hospital’s distance from Angola, Defendants frequently decline to use it, even though Lallie Kemp and Lane have significantly less capacity than the LSU hospitals that are no longer available to Angola prisoners. 50. Even though the LSU system has been reduced to one hospital, Defendants’ health care policies state that health care delivered outside of DOC facilities or the LSU system “shall only be allowed if that care is medically necessary to save life or limb.” DOC Health Care Policy No. HC-03(6)(C)(3)). 51. Defendants have publicly claimed that they have “vastly expanded the types of health care offered inside some prisons” since Earl K. Long’s closure, such that “[s]tate prisoners with health problems travel less and spend fewer hours admitted to hospitals under the new system.” See Ben Wallace, With Closure of Public Hospitals, Medical Care for Louisiana Inmates Shifts to Prisons, THE ADVOCATE, Dec. 1, 2014, available at theadvocate.com/news/10931711123/with-closure-of-public-hospitals. 52. At Angola, however, there has been no discernable expansion of medical care since Earl K. Long’s closure. On the contrary, Plaintiffs and other prisoners report that they receive even less care now than under the previous system. For instance, few if any prisoners receive physical therapy, and screenings for common cancers and other medical conditions appear to have disappeared.
19

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 20 of 63
53. Defendants also stated in December 2014 that they planned to “treat[] some parish inmates at prisons such as the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola,” further burdening the Angola system and limiting the care available to members of the Plaintiff class. Id. 54. Similarly, Defendant Warden Cain stated that as a result of cutbacks and increased costs, “our pharmacy at Angola is doing the pharmacy work for Avoyelles and another prison or two.” Sue Lincoln, Inmate Care More Complicated Since Privatization, WRKF, Feb. 10, 2015, available at wrkf.org/post/inmate-care-more-complicated-privatization. In addition to its own prisoners, Angola’s pharmacy services Dixon Correctional Institution and Avoyelles Correctional Center. Angola pharmacists report that they process about 263,000 prescriptions per month. 55. Defendants have not indicated that they hired additional pharmacy staff to address this increased workload. 56. Defendants have also acknowledged delayed and withheld care in emails. For example, in February 2012, DOC employee Stacye Falgout sent an email to colleagues regarding “Offender visits to outside facilities,” in which she noted, “Secretary LeBlanc and Dr. Singh have expressed their concerns to Secretary Greenstein and the Governor’s Office regarding delay of critical care. DHH and the Governor’s office are in agreement that delay of care is not acceptable. . . . These are some examples of problems that have been brought up recently: Radiotherapy delayed for over 4 months after recommended; Refusal to provide a hip replacement until after the offender gets out of prison which is several years from now; Cancellation of an appointment and suggest resubmit if still needed. It appears that this may be a way of delaying care.” Email from Stacye Falgout, Corrections, to Bessie Carter et al., Feb. 2, 2012, 9:29 AM.
20

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 21 of 63
B.) Defendants’ Provision of Medical Care Is Medically and Constitutionally Deficient. 57. The Plaintiffs described above are suffering as a result of unconstitutional policies and practices that lead to endemic deficiencies in medical care. This inadequate care affects all Angola prisoners with serious medical needs, especially those with disabilities, and places every other prisoner at Angola at a risk of harm. 58. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide adequate medical care to prisoners, and are deliberately indifferent to the fact that their failure to do so subjects Plaintiffs to a substantial risk of serious harm, unnecessary suffering, clinical deterioration, or death. 59. Defendants fully control all medical care available to prisoners at Angola. Defendant DOC currently incarcerates at Angola significant numbers of individuals with disabilities, as that term is defined in the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Defendants fail to provide prisoners with disabilities with basic reasonable accommodations to ensure equivalent access to all of the programs, activities, and services offered at the prison. Defendants’ failure to accommodate prisoners with disabilities not only denies them access to prison programs and services, but also substantially increases the risk that they will be injured in an emergency. Defendants’ refusal to accommodate prisoners with disabilities contributes to the provision of inadequate medical care. 60. The following systemic policies and practices, both individually and in combination, deprive Plaintiffs of their right to adequate medical care.
i. Defendants Routinely Delay Evaluation, Treatment, and Access to Specialty Care 61. Defendants routinely fail to provide timely access to health care at all stages of the health care delivery system.
21

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 22 of 63
62. First, Defendants delay evaluation and initial response when a medical need first arises or comes to their attention. Defendants fail to provide timely access to health care and are deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm and injury to prisoners that results from this systemic failure. 63. When a sick call form is submitted, it is not processed in a medically acceptable or timely manner. Inadequately trained lower-level staff triage the sick call forms and decide whether to schedule a visit with a doctor, nurse or other qualified staff, without sufficient information. Prisoners face a delay of many weeks or often months before they receive medicine or are examined by qualified clinicians. Prisoners experience harm and unnecessary pain and suffering as a result. 64. EMTs are trained to respond to immediate medical emergencies, and lack the training, expertise, and experience to evaluate or diagnose most medical needs. Thus Defendants’ sick call process delegates determinations regarding prisoners’ medical problems and needs to individuals unqualified to perform this function, with often severe consequences for those prisoners. 65. Lengthy delays in responding to sick call forms and providing necessary health care are the prison-wide norm. For example:
a. Plaintiff Joseph Lewis has had chronic throat problems since his arrival at Angola in 2012 and has repeatedly filed sick call forms reporting his symptoms. Defendants took no meaningful steps to diagnose the cause of his symptoms until January 2015, after attorneys visited Mr. Lewis. At that time, he was sent to LSU Hospital and recommended for an immediate biopsy by the LSU specialist. Defendants then waited another three months before allowing Mr. Lewis to 22

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 23 of 63
receive a biopsy. He was diagnosed with throat cancer in April 2015 and requires additional follow-up testing. b. Plaintiff Rufus White awaited a chest x-ray for more than two years to investigate chronic chest pain. c. Plaintiff Clyde Carter has suffered from an apparent torn knee ligament since December 2013 with neither diagnosis nor treatment. Mr. Carter has submitted approximately 15 sick call forms without receiving appropriate treatment. d. Plaintiff Cedric Evans has suffered from an apparent broken collarbone for several months before diagnosis. He has been awaiting treatment since March 2014. e. Plaintiff Ricky Davis made sick call April 9, 2010, May 3, 2010, August 4, 2010, September 1, 2010, October 11, 2010, February 14, 2011, May 1, 2011, June 11, 2011, June 16, 2011, October 18, 2012, May 25, 2013, and March 16, 2015, complaining of back and leg pain and/or numbness in his legs. f. Plaintiff Edward Giovanni made sick call about his breathing trouble and/or problems with intense summer heat on January 17, 2011, May 16, 2011, May 29, 2011, October 23, 2011, January 22, 2012, July 3, 2012, July 5, 2012, July 16, 2012, and August 1, 2012. Three of these were Emergency Sick Calls. He also made sick call for breathing trouble and a red spot on his leg, requesting examination and diagnosis, on October 11, 2012. g. In addition to the named plaintiffs, a 75-year-old prisoner suffered a stroke in July 2014 while housed in the Ash-2 dorm, and made four requests for emergency
23

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 24 of 63
medical attention, telling medical personnel he believed he was having a stroke due to numbness in his body, but Angola staff only took his blood pressure, said he was fine, and sent him back to the medical dorm. He only received medical attention after his fourth request. Early intervention is critical during a stroke and Defendants failed to appropriately diagnose and treat this prisoner for several hours. As a result of the stroke and the delays in treatment, this prisoner is now blind and unable to walk, experiences ongoing numbness in the left side of his face as well as ear pain, and has difficulty chewing. h. One 63-year-old prisoner with a family history of kidney failure has been urinating blood for more than four years with no diagnosis. In July 2014, he was sent to Lallie Kemp hospital but Angola staff did not send his records so the hospital refused to admit him. He subsequently returned and had a scope (camera inserted in his penis) that left his penis torn and bleeding. Defendants failed to provide the prescribed follow-up treatment of antibiotics, warm baths, and daily checkups. i. One 53-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 16 years is awaiting a colonoscopy and a prostate cancer screening that were recommended about two years ago, and has undiagnosed spots all over his skin. He often cannot empty his bladder, wakes up five times a night to urinate, only passes bowels once every six days, and has had black and red blood in his stool. This prisoner’s symptoms are consistent with an enlarged prostate and require additional screening for cancer and attention from a urologist.
24

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 25 of 63
j. A 55-year-old prisoner with diagnosed Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder waited ten months to have a spot on his lung biopsied. He is still awaiting results.
66. Angola doctors tell prisoners that they can only talk to them about whatever problem was listed on the sick call form. Prisoners are not allowed to raise any other medical issues during these appointments, and to the extent they try to do so the doctors ignore them. 67. Even after a physician has recommended treatment or further diagnostic tests, Defendants routinely delay for months or years before providing the recommended care. For example:
a. Dr. Roundtree recommended surgery ten years ago for Plaintiff John Tonubbee’s degenerative joint condition. To date, Mr. Tonnubee still has not received the recommended surgery.
b. One 39-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for two years has a needle embedded in his foot that causes severe pain and has been identified in x-rays but subsequently ignored. The Angola doctors refuse to speak to him about this problem or to perform surgery to remove the needle, despite his pain. He also broke his leg as a result of a fall brought on by his foot pain.
68. Prisoners with HIV, including Plaintiff Reginald George, have been subjected to yearslong suspensions in the delivery of medications, doctor visits, and other forms of care. 69. In several instances, Defendants have denied care for years until Plaintiffs began to meet with attorneys in connection with this action. The prospect of legal action has repeatedly been the only thing that has spurred Defendants to provide long-delayed treatment. For example:
25

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 26 of 63
a. Plaintiff Joseph Lewis did not have his throat biopsied until after he met with attorneys, despite years of requests. He was diagnosed in April 2015 with throat cancer.
b. Plaintiff Rufus White received a chest x-ray that he had been requesting for more than two years only after meeting with attorneys. He was not informed of the results
c. Plaintiff Farrell Sampier only received surgery to relieve the pain of his split penis at the site of his catheter after he met with attorneys.
d. Plaintiff Ricky Davis was only brought to a neurosurgeon after he began meeting with attorneys, although he was already awaiting an appointment for about a year.
e. Plaintiff Clyde Carter, who needs knee surgery, was given a top bunk despite being officially assigned to a bottom bunk for a year after his injury. He received a bottom bunk in late 2014 after he began meeting with attorneys.
f. Plaintiff Edward Giovanni was only transferred from the Cypress-2 dorm to the TC Ward upon the urging of attorneys who were gravely concerned for his medical condition and the conditions in the Cypress dorm.
g. A 57-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 36 years was blinded by a cellmate in 1998. For the next 16 years, Defendants refused to give him a cane, house him in a ward with accommodations for vision-impaired prisoners, or provide with any assistance from caretakers. Instead, he was dependent on fellow prisoners for most aspects of daily life. The prison first provided him a cane on February 11, 2015, immediately before a return visit by attorneys. Even then, the
26

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 27 of 63
cane was a standard support cane, not a tapping cane, and thus inappropriate for his disability. h. A 40-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for five years and suffers from severe hemorrhoids and rectal fissures he began to develop around 2009, received surgery in January 2015, after he began meeting with attorneys. The surgery did not resolve the problem. i. A 50-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 25 years suffered with an epididymis cyst in his testicle the size of a softball for five years before finally receiving surgery in September 2014, after he began to meet with attorneys. j. A 59-year-old prisoner who was awaiting hernia surgery since 2008 finally received surgery in 2015, after he began meeting with attorneys. 70. In these instances, Defendants delayed treatment until they were aware that a lawsuit was imminent. ii. Defendants Routinely Deny Plaintiffs Medically Necessary Treatment 71. Not only do Defendants delay medical care to dangerous extremes, they have a practice of entirely denying Plaintiffs medically necessary care, including surgery, diagnostic tests, follow-up care, medication, medical devices, physical therapy, and medical supplies. 72. Defendants’ refusal to perform hernia surgeries illustrates their willful refusal to provide medically necessary care to prisoners, despite knowing that failure to do so will cause continuing and worsening pain and suffering. Several prisoners have been awaiting surgery for large hernias for years. A 55-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 37 years has had an inguinal hernia on his right side for about four years and receives no treatment for frequent stabbing pain other
27

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 28 of 63
than occasional over-the-counter medications. Dr. Lavespere told this prisoner that he was on a list of some 200 men who need hernia surgery. 73. In 2012, Defendants gathered a group of prisoners with hernias in need of surgery, and told them that the prison will not perform surgeries because of budget cuts. Dr. Collins and other Angola staff informed a gathering of several class members that the prison would not pay for their needed surgeries and that, barring a lawsuit, they would simply not receive the treatment they needed. This practice has been noted in other litigation brought by individual Angola prisoners and has been acknowledged by this Court. Giovanni v. Cain et al., no. 13-cv-00566BAJ-RLB, Doc. 32, Magistrate Judge’s report, Feb. 11, 2015 (denying summary judgment, citing “affidavits of defendants Kenny Norris and Stephanie Lamartiniere indicat[ing] that prison officials have admittedly relied upon the over-stressed charity hospital system for hernia surgeries, which system is only performing a limited number of such surgeries, and then only when the need for surgery has become an emergency,” and citing Hymel Varnado v.Hymel Varnado v. James LeBlanc, et al., Civil Action No. 13-0348-JWD-SCR; Kenneth Lesley v. N. Burl Cain, et al., Civil Action No. 13-0490-JJB-SCR; Wayne Fritz v. N. Burl Cain et al., Civil Action No. 13-0673-JWD-SCR, noting that all of these cases survived summary judgment motions). 74. A 50-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 25 years suffered with an epididymis cyst in his testicle the size of a softball for five years before finally receiving surgery in September 2014. A doctor told him in 2010 that surgery was the only treatment option, and that Angola was waiting for the New Orleans urology clinic to schedule the surgery. However, the prisoner saw a doctor in New Orleans in 2013 who asked him why he did not come to the surgery that had been scheduled a year previously. Throughout these years, he experienced
28

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 29 of 63
constant, sometimes debilitating pain. His cyst once ruptured when he was hit with a softball, but refilled within two weeks. 75. Defendants’ outright refusal to provide medically necessary treatment—whether due to expense, inattention, or other reasons—extends to a wide variety of conditions. For example:
a. Plaintiff John Tonubbee has received no treatment for a degenerative joint disorder diagnosed in 2005. Angola doctors have told him that he will not receive surgery due to a lack of funds.
b. Plaintiff Otto Barrera has been refused reconstructive surgery for his face because the surgery was deemed “cosmetic,” even though he is missing the lower half of his jaw, is unable to eat, and requires an enteral tube for eating and medication delivery.
c. Plaintiff Kentrell Parker, who is quadriplegic, has for years received no physical therapy at all.
d. Plaintiff Lionel Tolbert has been denied surgery to resolve arterial blockages in his legs and suffers extreme pain, swelling, and discoloration.
76. Similarly, Defendants fail to provide follow-up care that is ordered by outside medical providers. For example:
a. Plaintiff Ricky Davis had surgery in February 2014, and instead of being allowed to convalesce in the infirmary as ordered, he was sent straight back to his dorm with staples still in his back.
29

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 30 of 63
b. After his penis was internally torn during a medical exam, a 63-year-old prisoner was prescribed antibiotics, warm baths, and daily checkups. He received none of these forms of follow-up care.
77. Doctors at Interim LSU Hospital regularly make written requests follow-up appointments with prisoners on the prisoners’ discharge forms, but find these requests ignored by DOC. As a result, these doctors may not see prisoners for several months, by which point the prisoners’ illnesses have become advanced or untreatable. 78. The inevitable consequences of Defendants’ denials of care are tragically illustrated by James Johnson, DOC No. 87338, who died March 10, 2015. He received treatment for multiple myeloma until 2012, when Defendants told him that the treatment was too expensive to continue. Instead of receiving chemotherapy, he received steroids that caused his legs to swell and his blood sugar to remain high. His cancer progressed to the point where he could not even have a broken arm set, due to the deterioration of his shoulder. After denying curative treatment for years, Defendants placed him in hospice care in approximately June 2014. Before his death, he reported that his doctors only made rounds once every one to two months.
iii. Defendants Do Not Provide and Manage Medication in Accordance with Prescriptions and Medically Appropriate Treatment Courses
79. Defendants do not properly provide or manage prescribed medication, leading to widespread use of incorrect and inappropriate medication, interrupted or incomplete dosages, and sudden introduction or cessation of medications that are supposed to be gradually tapered up or down. As a consequence, Plaintiffs face a serious risk of unnecessary harm, ineffective treatment, and potentially severe or life-threatening side effects.
30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 31 of 63
80. Prisoners at Angola are subject to abrupt changes in their prescribed medications. These include substitution of prescribed medication with other medication, which is not always clinically indicated for the prisoner’s medical need; failure to follow medically appropriate dispensation schedules; the sudden cessation of prescribed medications; and the failure to monitor medications that are supposed to be administered with oversight. Relatedly, Defendants fail to provide special diets that are prescribed to help manage an illness, a medication, or both. Defendants also fail to provide necessary medical devices and supplies, including those prescribed by outside doctors. As a result of these practices, prisoners at Angola risk unnecessary pain and are subject to complications that can cause serious harm to their health. 81. Defendants routinely fail to provide prisoners with the full course of their medication, fail to provide medication as prescribed or in a timely fashion, and inappropriately start and stop medication. As a result, prisoners suffer unnecessary harm, including the risk of developing drug-resistant strains of bacteria. For example:
a. Plaintiff Reginald George was refused medications to manage his HIV between 2010 and 2012 despite his requests and despite the importance of consistency in antiretroviral treatment.
b. Plaintiff John Tonubee is prescribed cortisone shots for his knees four to six times a month, but only receives them approximately every six months.
c. Many class members have simply not been given their medication at all because Defendants failed to replenish the pharmacy supply.
d. A 50-year-old prisoner diagnosed with congestive heart failure in 2007 saw his diuretic medication abruptly switched by Defendants and began to experience
31

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 32 of 63
more shortness of breath. The same prisoner received a laxative (milk of magnesia) when he had diarrhea, and received only ibuprofen when he came to the Treatment Center with a kidney stone (which he subsequently passed with extreme pain). e. A 38-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for four years has a protruding abdominal hernia that causes severe pain and a hemorrhoid in the crack of his buttocks that is inflamed and painful. He has only been given Preparation H and suppositories, at times inconsistently. f. A 40-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for five years has suffered from severe hemorrhoids and rectal fissures for more than two years. He has requested treatment from Defendants on multiple occasions. His hemorrhoids are untreated. Although he received surgery to repair his rectal fissures in January 2015, the surgery did not resolve the problem. He used to receive suppositories but no longer does, and he has been told they are too expensive. 82. Defendants only provide medications that are listed on a limited formulary of approved medication, and routinely substitute doctor-approved drug regimens with drugs on the formulary. In practice While this policy could be constitutionally adequate in theory, in practice prisoners are deprived of medications that are well-established as effective for their health conditions, and receive inferior, inappropriate, or obsolete medications, or nothing at all. 83. Class members suffering severe pain provide an example of Defendants’ provision of inappropriate or inadequate medication. Several class members receive Keppra—a seizure medication—to treat pain, even though Keppra does not relieve pain. Other prisoners have
32

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 33 of 63
received only over-the-counter treatments like ibuprofen or Tylenol for very painful conditions like kidney stones or hernias. 84. Defendants routinely fail to provide or maintain medically necessary devices. For example:
a. Plaintiff Otto Barrera’s enteral feeding and medication tube was not cleaned or replaced for approximately a year and a half, until the day he was scheduled to meet with attorneys in connection with this action, April 29, 2015. At the prison where he was previously housed the tube was cleaned regularly. When not changed regularly, the tube oozes blood every two or three days.
b. Plaintiff Clyde Carter, who has had one or more apparent torn knee ligaments for over a year, has not only been refused surgery but has also been refused a doctorrecommended stabilizing knee brace with metal rods, and instead given only a Velcro brace that does not hold his injured knee in place. He has regularly been forced to work in the fields with this inadequate device.
c. As described above, a 57-year-old prisoner who has been blind since 1998, was not given a cane for 16 years, until he was visited by attorneys. He then received a standard cane, not a medically appropriate tapping cane, on February 11, 2015.
85. Defendants also fail to maintain sufficient medical supplies on site. a. In or around May 2014, the Angola hospital ran out of a number of hygienic supplies, including yellow plastic pads that assist in preventing bedsores from developing and becoming infected. Defendants informed prisoners that they would have to wait longer to have their mats changed. Many of the prisoners who
33

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 34 of 63
utilize these pads are paraplegic; nearly all are bedridden. These men are forced to sit in their own urine and feces until they can get the attention of an orderly to change their pads. b. In addition to the shortage of hygienic pads, Plaintiff Kentrell Parker also endures regular shortages of tracheal supplies, subjecting him to unnecessary risk of infection or other complications. c. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff Farrell Sampier with wheelchair gloves to prevent the formation of callouses and blisters on his hands. He has purchased mittens from the Commissary to try to address this problem. d. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff John Tonubbee with orthopedic shoes that are appropriate to his condition. iv. Defendants Do Not Maintain Medically Adequate Records or Ensure that Plaintiffs’ Medical Needs Are Addressed in Follow-Up Care or Conditions of Confinement 86. Defendants’ record-keeping practices are inadequate, not only contributing to the problems discussed above but also leading to a failure to provide adequate follow-up care. Similarly, Defendants’ failure to adequately track Plaintiffs’ medical care prevents Plaintiffs’ diagnoses and medical needs from being incorporated in their dietary plans, work requirements, housing assignments, and other aspects of their confinement. 87. Defendants’ system for tracking prescription medications, the Electronic Medical Administration Record, expects prisoners themselves to track their need for prescription refills and make those requests several days before their prescriptions run out. Even when prisoners do make timely requests, they frequently face gaps in their prescription medication regimens.
34

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 35 of 63
88. Prisoners who request medical visits but are refused are entered into the system as “no shows” and are held responsible for having missed medical appointments even where they had no ability to do otherwise. 89. Defendants’ record-keeping practices are also inadequate in that they regularly lead to prisoners being transported to outside hospitals only to learn that they cannot be seen because their records were not transmitted. 90. Doctors in New Orleans who treat Angola prisoners report that they often receive confusing and apparently padded medical records for these patients. 91. Many prisoners are on prescribed diets with medically important restrictions. Defendants do not provide compliant meals to many such prisoners. For example:
a. Mr. Barrera is not supposed to be given large pieces of food because his lower jaw is missing, but he does not receive different food from anyone else.
b. Mr. Tolbert is supposed to receive a special diet because of his diabetes but instead receives the same food as other prisoners but without seasoning.
c. A 58-year-old prisoner taking Coumadin, a blood thinner, is not provided with a medically required diet, even though an unregulated diet can lead to dangerously low levels of coagulants, with potentially fatal consequences.
92. Additionally, Defendants fail to monitor medications that are supposed to be administered with oversight such as regular blood tests, subjecting prisoners to the substantial risk of serious harm. For example:
a. The 58-year-old prisoner taking Coumadin, described above, does not receive regular blood tests, although standard medical practice is to monitor patients’ 35

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 36 of 63
clotting time with weekly or monthly blood tests to avoid potentially fatal complications. b. Several diabetic prisoners, including Plaintiff Lionel Tolbert, report that they have no means of monitoring their own blood sugar levels. A 51-year-old prisoner who is housed at Camp J, among Angola’s most restrictive housing units, is required to self-administer insulin, but his diabetes has caused him to suffer vision impairment making this task especially difficult and exposing him to the unnecessary risk of harm. 93. As a result of Defendants’ failure to appropriately staff Angola’s medical unit, even basic tasks of self-care and personal hygiene are not done for men who cannot do them on their own. For example, Plaintiff Kentrell Parker has missed several days of breakfast because, although his food was delivered, there was no one to feed him. 94. Prisoners with injuries or disabilities are often required to work in the fields. (See paragraph 44, above.) Although medical staff sometimes provide a “duty status” to prisoners who have a medical need for a work exemption or restriction (or would provide such status if prisoners were not denied medical examinations as described above), duty status is often assigned late, inadequately, or not at all. This includes only assigning duty status for a short period to prisoners with a long medical recovery period, or assigning certain restrictions but not other medically necessary restrictions. Moreover, even when duty status is assigned, Plaintiffs are often forced to perform work beyond its scope due to Defendants’ poor record-keeping or correctional officers’ sheer disregard of the duty status. For example: a. Plaintiff Cedric Evans was forced to work in the fields during several months where he had an undiagnosed broken clavicle.
36

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 37 of 63
b. Since apparently tearing ligaments in his knee in October 2013, Plaintiff Clyde Carter has been issued short-term duty statuses restricting him from field work, but is repeatedly forced back into the fields before they are renewed.
c. Plaintiff Ricky D. Davis was assigned to scrub kitchen pots and pans outdoors on the ground despite being given “No Kitchen” duty status. By assigning Mr. Davis to this task, Defendants willfully subjected him to a risk of exacerbating the back injury that his duty status is purportedly intended to avoid.
95. Defendants also discourage prisoners from seeking medically based work restrictions by adding on punitive and medically unnecessary restrictions such as bans on “hobbycraft” activities.
v. Defendants Use a “Malingering” Rule Designed to Discourage Plaintiffs from Requesting Medical Assistance
96. Defendants threaten to punish and do punish Plaintiffs for alleged malingering as a means of discouraging individuals from seeking access to medical care. As described supra, Defendants’ sick call form bears written warning to the prisoner that “if I declare myself a medical emergency and health care staff determine that an emergency does not exist, I may be subject to disciplinary action for malingering.” 97. Accusations of—and punishment for allegations of—malingering have a chilling effect on Angola prisoners’ ability to seek appropriate medical care. Defendants’ actions, ranging from disregard and neglect of medical complaints to actual disciplinary write-ups, reflect their approach to Plaintiffs’ medical needs as, primarily, a matter of identifying who is malingering. For example,
37

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 38 of 63
a. Plaintiff Clyde Carter was accused of malingering when he initially injured his knee, and faces charges of disobedience when his injury interferes with his ability to perform field work.
b. Plaintiff Kentrell Parker, who is quadriplegic, was put in an isolation cell after being accused of disobedience in response to his verbal complaints about receiving inadequate care, even though he is unable to move any body part below his neck and would be unable to notify staff if he undergoes a medical emergency while in an isolation room.
98. Several prisoners also report having been retaliated against, including by being sent to extended lockdown, for pursuing complaints about medical care. Many prisoners have been verbally discouraged by staff from pursuing medical care. Some prisoners who were interviewed in the course of the investigation preceding this Complaint asked not to participate as named plaintiffs specifically because of their fear of retaliation. 99. The U.S. Department of Justice cited the threat of a malingering charge as a deterrent to seeking medical care as far back as the 1990s, as described below.
vii. Defendants Fail to Employ Sufficient Medical Staff, and Employ Correctional Personnel, Orderlies, or EMTs to Perform Tasks that Should Be Performed by Medical Professionals
100. Underlying many of the deficiencies in the delivery of medical care at Angola is Defendants’ chronic failure to fill enough health care positions with qualified professionals. Defendants do not employ enough medical, dental, and mental health professionals (not only licensed doctors but qualified nurses and physician’s assistants) to meet the needs of the Angola population and maintain a community standard of care for the men housed at the prison.
38

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 39 of 63
101. Defendants are well aware of this staffing problem. In 2012, Dr. Raman Singh, the Medical Director for the DOC, was quoted with regard to medical staffing, stating, “I can’t find a doctor at all for six months, and that creates a huge liability for the unit and for the institution. To me, it’s like running Angola without security. The point is, it’s easier to find security officers. It’s really impossible to find physicians. When I was new, I was told that ‘we just need a body in that job.’ Sometimes it’s so desperate a situation, you just need a body in the job.” Cindy Chang, Many doctors treating state’s prisoners have disciplinary records themselves, THE TIMESPICAYUNE, July 29, 2012, available at www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/07/many_doctors_treating_states_p.html. 102. Several Angola doctors have restricted medical licenses that limit where they can practice, whom they can treat, or what type of treatment they can order. Id. These restrictions highlight the apparent scarcity of doctors willing to work at Angola. 103. Instead of maintaining an adequate medical staff to carry out the duties involved in caring for a population of more than 6,000 prisoners, Defendants call upon correctional personnel, EMTs, and prisoner orderlies to perform tasks that require qualified medical professionals. This directly contributes to the many deficiencies in care described above. 104. EMTs, in responding to Sick Call requests, are called upon to make medical decisions that they are not qualified to render. The EMTs effectively serve as gatekeepers between the vast majority of the men housed at Angola and the doctors, nurses, and other qualified medical staff at the prison. These lower-level medical staff may fail to recognize when a prisoner is experiencing an emergency.
39

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 40 of 63
105. In many parts of the prison beyond the Treatment Center, security staff perform Pill Call, where medications are dispensed multiple times per day. Security staff are unqualified to perform this role. 106. Defendants have not adequately trained security and health care staff on how to handle health care emergencies, and as a result of this failure to respond properly and timely to emergencies, prisoners suffer avoidable harm and injuries, including unnecessary deaths. Correctional staff, who lack medical training, also act as gatekeepers, making critical decisions about whether emergency care is warranted when a medical situation arises in areas of the prison where medical staff may not be present. In the course of their general oversight responsibilities within the prison, these correctional officers decide whether and when to contact medical staff when a prisoner complains of or shows signs of a medical emergency. 107. Defendants do not maintain sufficient trained staff in Ward 2, the chronic care ward of the TC, to take care of prisoners with paraplegia or other conditions. 108. Nurses employed in Ward 2 rarely leave their glassed-in “pod” on Ward 2 to make rounds on the ward. This responsibility is instead left to prisoner orderlies who have been assigned to work as orderlies. 109. In addition to their lack of medical training, prisoner orderlies are tasked with more work than they are able to carry out in a given day. Ward 2 generally has only one orderly who is caring for dozens of prisoners. The orderly often has to ask assistance from other prisoners in order to perform certain tasks for the men in need of the most acute care. Orderlies receive minimal training and, for many of their tasks, no training at all.
40

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 41 of 63
110. Prisoners with paraplegia, such as Plaintiff Kentrell Parker, are entirely dependent upon orderlies to assist them with major life activities. The vast majority of his daily care is carried out by orderlies who lack sufficient medical training for the sorts of tasks they perform for Mr. Parker, including bathing and changing wound dressings. The same is true for Plaintiff Farrell Sampier and several other men on Ward 2 who have paraplegia. 111. Orderlies sometimes physically abuse men who are in their care. The lack of supervision from prison staff allows this abuse to occur. Prisoners have observed physical and sexual abuse of prisoners by orderlies with no apparent punishment or intervention from prison staff. 112. The experiences of the named Plaintiffs as alleged herein provide only a partial view of the pervasive, systemic nature of the deficiencies characterizing Angola’s provision of and/or failure to provide medical care to the prisoners in its custody. The critical implications of the systemic deficiencies characterizing the provision of medical care at Angola are both apparent and disturbing.
C.) Defendants Have Been Deliberately Indifferent to the Substantial Risk of Serious Harm to Which Their Policies and Practices Expose Plaintiffs 113. Defendants are well aware that the systemic policies and practices discussed above are ongoing and pose a substantial risk of serious harm, including unnecessary pain and suffering, long-term disability or disfigurement, and death. Defendants are on notice from several sources, including direct observation and receipt of prisoner complaints, previous DOJ and class action litigation, and communications from Plaintiffs’ attorneys.
41

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 42 of 63
i. Defendants Are Aware of Prisoner Health Problems and the Care Prisoners Receive, from Direct Observation and Patient Complaints
114. Defendants have seen countless examples of the tragic consequences of their inadequate care. As outlined above, Defendants have repeatedly seen their prisoners—men entirely under their control and care—complain of health care problems for years before even being examined, and then learned that their conditions have progressed past the point of treatment. The many resulting deaths and permanent disabilities, only a few of which are outlined above, put Defendants on notice that their policies and practices were insufficient to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to Plaintiffs. 115. Plaintiffs themselves have repeatedly complained about Defendants’ practices, as have many members of the Plaintiff Class. Counsel for Plaintiffs have received reports of inadequate medical care from more than 200 men imprisoned at Angola, the vast majority of whom have complained to Defendants through Sick Call, the designated first-line mechanism to bring their medical complaints to the attention of Defendants. Many of these men, including all named Plaintiffs, have also utilized the Administrative Remedy Procedure (“ARP”) grievance process, which brings their concerns to the attention of various officials at the prison and the DOC. 116. When prisoners submit ARPs and Defendants provide a response (which does not always occur), the responses are incorrect, inadequate, incomplete, arbitrary, or even counterproductive. For example, one prisoner received an ARP response saying that he had seen a doctor on a date that had not yet occurred. Generally, ARP responses consist of formulaic language citing elements of the prisoner’s medical records and stating that their complaints are therefore unfounded. Second-step ARP responses, which come from DOC headquarters, generally say that the medical care the prisoner is receiving “is deemed adequate.”
42

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 43 of 63
ii. The DOJ and Prior Litigation Identified Defendants’ Medical and Constitutional Deficiencies
117. In addition to contemporary complaints, Defendants have been aware that many of their policies and practices are medically and constitutionally deficient for more than 25 years.
118. At least as early as 1991, the United States Department of Justice informed DOC that its “[f]ailure to provide adequate medical and psychiatric care” deprived Angola prisoners of their constitutional rights. DOJ specifically cited a number of practices that Angola continues to this day, including delaying the provision of necessary medical care, providing inadequate follow-up care, maintaining inadequate medical records, having untrained personnel conducting sick call and distributing medication, employing the punitive malingering rule, and understaffing their medical personnel. See Exhibit A.
119. In January 1992, prisoners filed a class action lawsuit, Lynn v. Williams, case no. 92-cv001 (M.D.La.), against the DOC in this Court, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by the conditions of their confinement. In July 1994, DOJ asked the court to allow them to intervene under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq. In September 1994, this Court granted the DOJ’s request to intervene as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
120. DOJ provided an Executive Summary of its findings to the court. See Exhibit B. As the DOJ reported:
“Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide LSP inmates with adequate medical care. The medical care at LSP is grossly deficient. The medical care delivery system at LSP fails to recognize, diagnose, treat, or monitor the serious medical needs of LSP inmates, including serious chronic illnesses and dangerous infectious and contagious diseases. “During extensive investigative tours of LSP, the United States’ experts found and will testify to serious flaws in nearly all critical aspects of the LSP medical delivery system which include the following: (1) sick call screening and classification; (2) scheduling; (3)
43

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 44 of 63
physician clinic; (4) infirmary care; (5) treatment of chronic illnesses; (6) specialty and subspecialty care; (7) treatment of contagious and infectious diseases; (8) medication administration; (9) maintenance of medical records; (10) security dominance of medical practice; (11) administrative organization such as overall planning and guidance and numbers of critical medical committees; and (12) staffing. As a result of inadequate medical care at LSP, inmates have suffered and continue to suffer serious harm and even death.”
121. The Executive Summary went on to discuss several other specific deficiencies, such as:
“Defendants fail to adequately recognize, screen, and classify (i.e. triage) the serious medical needs of inmates through sick call procedures. The Emergency Medical Technicians (“EMTs”) who conduct sick call are not adequately trained nor sufficiently experienced to recognize serious medical illnesses or to triage sick call. EMTs are trained to recognize emergency situations requiring emergency transportation to a hospital. LSP does not have an adequate training program for EMTs to identify serious illnesses at sick call. Defendants’ use of EMTs is not diagnostically productive. The EMTs are unable to adequately perform the fundamental task of triage and differentiate between acute, chronic, and minor illnesses. Defendants also do not provide the EMTs with basic and fundamental equipment necessary for proper triage.
“[T]he existence of a ‘malingering rule,’ designed to punish frequent users of the medical system, significantly erodes the EMTs’ objectivity and the inmates' confidence in that objectivity when they try to access the medical system. . . .
“Scheduling and rescheduling problems lead to missed appointments, extensive delays, patients left untreated altogether for extended periods of time and cause substantial harm to Angola inmates. . . .
“Defendants’ use of isolation rooms in the infirmary is improper and dangerous. Defendants place seriously ill patients in locked rooms that may adversely affect their medical conditions. Nurses in the nursing station are unable to see or hear inmates in the locked isolation rooms and infrequently check on the inmates in these rooms. . . .
“[L]imited bedspace in the infirmary coupled with the closing of one of the wards will lead to more inmates being placed in the general population where follow-up care is poor. . . .
“Even after identifying inmates with chronic illnesses, Angola does not provide adequate follow-up care for such inmates. . . . Diagnostic tests such as routine blood tests, electrocardiograms (EKGs), and chest x-rays are not reviewed and followed up on in a timely manner. . . .
44

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 45 of 63
“Inmates must wait for excessive and unacceptable periods for elective surgery and radiological services. . . . No physical therapy services exist for inmates requiring such services and Defendants have failed to make Angola adequately accessible to handicapped inmates, causing inmates significant harm including death. . . .
“The current method of medication administration is dangerous. Unlicensed security personnel administer medication with minimal training. . . . Medication administration is also rushed and haphazard. . . .
“Security unnecessarily and unacceptably dominates the medical care system of Angola. Security often overrides physician decisions to the detriment of inmates’ health. Untrained security personnel conduct and supervise sick call and medication administration to the substantial detriment of the inmates. Security also decides the manner and time of inmate transportation to medical care internally and off-site, leading to significant delays in treatment. Security controls the dietary services for inmates on special meals, often resulting in these inmates not receiving medically required diets. Finally, Defendants continue to enforce disciplinary rules known as “malingering” that punish inmates from accessing the health care system under certain conditions. . . .
“The medical department . . . budget is often exhausted before the end of the fiscal year, creating substantial shortages of critical medical supplies. . . .
“Defendants are inadequately operating a medical care delivery system at Angola with critical shortages of key personnel. Angola lacks sufficient key professional medical staff: (1) physicians, (2) licensed physician assistants (as opposed to unlicensed assistants to physicians), (3) registered nurses, (4) licensed practical nurses, (5) a medical records professional (necessary to handle the complex and voluminous medical record requirements of Angola), (6) a registered dietician, and (7) physical therapists. Furthermore, Defendants lack critical non-professional staff necessary to allow the professional staff to free themselves from current administrative duties . . . .”
122. Plaintiffs’ medical expert in the Lynn litigation, Michael Puisis, D.O., submitted a report
illustrating several of the problems described in the DOJ Executive Summary. See Exhibit C.
Dr. Puisis noted “shortages of supplies in various areas, including pharmaceuticals” and
“involvement of security in medical matters.” He expressed concern about leaving infirm
individuals in locked rooms alone:
“On ward 1 (the infirmary), security can place any individual in a locked room depending on their security classification. Escape risks and protective custody were two reasons
45

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 46 of 63
cited for placing individuals in locked rooms. These rooms have heavy gauge steel doors with a small (approximately 6 inch square) glass viewing panel. Patients must gain the attention of nursing staff by screaming and banging on the door. Nurses sit behind an enclosed viewing area which muffles sound from the ward. There is no nursing call button in these rooms. On the day of my visit, an infirm AIDS patient, who had difficulty walking, was locked up in one of these rooms because he was described as an escape risk. I was told by the medical director that a man who had his feet amputated was classified as an escape risk and was placed in a locked room. In order for a physician to have a person removed from a locked room the physician must petition the warden. This practice of placing the infirm or seriously ill in locked rooms is dangerous and violates medical autonomy regarding care of the infirm.”
123. Dr. Puisis additionally noted that EMTs were “being used to make decisions which they are not trained or experienced in making.” He related physician reports of “patients splinted for fractures who were not seen again for months when the bone fractured had healed in a deformed position.” He expressed concern that since one of the original three chronic care units had been closed, “[t]his will place more chronically ill patients into general population where follow up is poor.” He noted that “[h]ousing units, including the infirmary, still do not accommodate paraplegics.”
124. The Lynn v. Williams litigation led to the entry of a consent decree in September 1998. Defendant Warden Cain was Warden of Angola while the consent decree was in effect. The following year, however, over the objection of the DOJ, the consent decree was terminated.
iii. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Have Informed Defendants of Their Deficiencies 125. Plaintiffs’ counsel have contacted Defendants regarding concerns about medical care as detailed in this complaint at numerous points since 2013. Defendants were aware of multiple visits conducted by Plaintiffs’ counsel to investigate allegations of inadequate medical care. On ten occasions, Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote letters or emails to Defendants regarding reports of specific urgent medical needs of some individuals.
46

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 47 of 63
126. On December 9, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter to Warden Cain detailing their concerns with regard to the inadequate provision of medical care. 127. Defendant Warden Cain responded by letter on December 22, 2014, citing the closure of Earl K. Long Medical Center and “the transition of medical care from state hospitals to private facilities” as causing interruptions and changes in the delivery of care but maintaining that the prison has “established reasonable and sound medical practices and treatment” to prisoners. 128. Defendant Warden Cain’s response is inaccurate. As merely one example, the letter states that the prison has an on-site specialty clinic for Physical Therapy. However, according to Angola personnel, no one is currently receiving physical therapy and those prisoners who ask about it are merely told that they are on the waiting list.
D.) Defendants fail to adequately accommodate prisoners with disabilities. 129. In addition to and overlapping with the inadequate delivery of medical care, Angola fails to reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities. 130. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Rehabilitation Act”), Defendants must provide reasonable accommodations in programs, services, and activities to, prisoners who have disabilities. However, Defendants lack adequate policies and practices for identifying and tracking prisoners with disabilities and refuse to provide the reasonable accommodations those prisoners require. 131. Defendants lack policies and practices to ensure that prisoners with disabilities who require assistive devices, including, but not limited to, wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, tapping canes, hearing aids, and pocket talkers, as accommodations are provided with and allowed to retain those devices.
47

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 48 of 63
132. Defendants fail to ensure that prisoners with disabilities have equal access to all programs and services offered at the jail. Defendants’ systemic failure to accommodate prisoners with disabilities results in the widespread exclusion of prisoners with disabilities from many of the programs, services, and activities offered by Defendants, including health care services and exercise. 133. Defendants fail to ensure that prisoners with disabilities are assigned to and are actually housed in housing units and bed assignments that are accessible and safe. 134. Prisoners with the most acute medical needs are housed in the TC, Angola’s prison hospital. When the TC opened it had three wards, but the DOC has since converted one of the wards into a storage space, eliminating much of the original medical capacity. 135. Currently, Ward 1 is Angola’s Infirmary while Ward 2 houses prisoners with serious chronic care needs. Several of the prisoners living on Ward 2 have been there for years. Conditions on Ward 2 are unhealthy and dangerous: the ward is not regularly cleaned and has visible dust on many surfaces. There are flies that land on prisoners’ food trays. Several men there have open wounds, often pressure sores from poor management of their conditions. The chair that is used to assist men in showering is merely hosed off between uses, not disinfected. This unhygienic practice exposes these men to the unnecessary risk of infection. Ward 2 often has a foul odor inside; parts of the bathroom area are covered with rust. Plaintiffs such as Mr. Parker suffer from unnecessary exposure to second-hand smoke caused when Angola staff and prisoners smoke cigarettes in close proximity to the living quarters. This practice further degrades the hygienic environment on the ward. 136. Angola also operates two “medical dorms,” Ash and Cypress, outside of the TC. These dorms were not designed to be medical facilities and are not equipped for prisoners with serious
48

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 49 of 63
medical needs, nor are they staffed by medical personnel or assistive individuals such as ASL interpreters. They also house far more prisoners than they are designed to house. Plaintiff Edward Giovanni was housed in the Ash dorm despite his very poor health, until attorneys in connection with this action urgently requested that he be moved to the TC. 137. Many areas of Angola are physically inaccessible to prisoners with disabilities, particularly in the two so-called “medical dorms,” both because of the facilities’ physical plant and because Defendants fail to provide needed assistive devices. Ash and Cypress lack basic features of accessibility, such as doorways wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs or bathroom facilities designed for handicapped access. 138. In some instances, disabled prisoners are excluded from participating in prison activities because of insufficient staff. For instance, Mr. Parker is excluded from attending church unless a nurse or EMT accompanies him and they are frequently unavailable. 139. There is a shortage of bottom-bunk beds throughout the housing units at Angola relative to the needs of the prisoners. As a result, prisoners with ongoing disabilities as well as those with short-term medical ailments are frequently required to remain assigned to a top bunk. Plaintiff Clyde Carter had a top bunk for a year after being assigned bottom bunk status in or around December 2013. 140. Prisoners at Angola are required to lift their locker boxes, individual trunks for storing their personal effects which are made of steel and measure roughly 1.5’x1.5’x3’, about three times per week during inspections. These locker boxes are heavy and cumbersome. Prisoners sometimes injure themselves lifting these boxes; other times, they incur injuries elsewhere but suffer additional pain and potential injury from having to lift these boxes. Plaintiff Cedric Evans broke his collarbone lifting his locker box.
49

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 50 of 63
141. Angola’s principal handicapped transport van is insufficiently equipped and dangerous to use. Several prisoners have fallen while being transported. At times, prisoners’ wheelchairs are affixed to the floor of the van using “flex cuffs,” plastic handcuffs that are not designed for such use. The straps are broken and there are no shoulder harnesses or seatbelts. This is the only van Angola uses to transport disabled prisoners. Plaintiff Ricky D. Davis has been forced to ride face-down across a front seat while being transported to Angola post-surgery because a handicap-equipped van was not available. 142. Angola has a more suitable transport van that it acquired after the closure of C. Paul Phelps state prison in 2012, but Defendants elect not to use this van, either because there is not sufficient seating for security, or so as not to subject it to normal wear and tear.
E.) Defendants’ Failures Have a Disproportionately Harmful Effect onOn Prisoners with Disabilities. 143. Every failure of the Defendants to provide adequate medical care has an even more extreme effect on a prisoner with a disability. This is because prisoners with disabilities are in constant need of stabilizing care and the management of a chronic condition. Every failure potentially exacerbates a lifelong condition that will, as a result of the failure, need even more qualified care. Prisoners with disabilities at Angola are therefore condemned to a lifetime of poor care. 144. Defendants’ failure to properly staff and supply Ward 2 contribute to unsanitary conditions inside the ward itself and to unsanitary conditions of the prisoners themselves. Prisoners who suffer from paralysis such as Plaintiffs Sampier and Parker must rely on staff to keep the area around them clean and to provide sterile medical supplies. Staff are required to assist prisoners with bathing but are often pressed for time, leaving prisoners lying in their own
50

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 51 of 63
excrement for hours. They are similarly unable to properly turn prisoners’ bodies to avoid pressure sores. This leads to life-threatening infections and unnecessary suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable prisoners. 145. Defendants’ failure to provide adequate accessible and emergency transportation mean that prisoners with disabilities miss important appointments for off-site medical care, thus aggravating their conditions. 146. Prisoners with chronic conditions requiring medication suffer disproportionate harm as interruptions and mistakes in the delivery and administration of their medication lead to a worsening of their condition or death. 147. Prisoners with compromised immune systems such as those with HIV who must wait on the Defendants’ slow sick call procedure can seriously sicken in a shorter amount of time than those with intact immune systems. The delay in all levels of Angola’s medical care system takes a much heavier toll on such serious medical conditions. 148. The failure to screen for cancer appropriately means that the disease may not be detected soon enough for effective treatment and remission. Prisoners with cancer therefore suffer the risk of an unnecessarily progressed disease and possible disfigurement and death.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS I. Angola Prisoner Class 149. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, subjected to the medical care policies and practices of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (the “Plaintiff Class”). They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to
51

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 52 of 63
terminate the ongoing course of conduct on the part of Defendants that is depriving the named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class of their constitutional right to adequate medical care, and to enjoin the policies and practices adopted and implemented by Defendants that result in the deprivation of those rights. “Medical care” consists of attention and treatment by adequately trained professionals that seeks to manage, accommodate, resolve, or mitigate physical ailments affecting the human body. This includes primary care, necessary screening and diagnostic care, chronic care, surgical care, and care related to hearing, and vision. 150. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are over 6,000 prisoners in custody at Angola, all of whom are dependent entirely on Defendants for the provision of health care. Defendants’ policies and practices put all Angola prisoners at risk of receiving inadequate health care while in custody at Angola. 151. The Plaintiff Class members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary course of business by the DOC and/or Angola. 152. Members of the proposed Plaintiff Class are equally subject to the actual or potential adverse impacts on their physical health resulting from the longstanding and ongoing pattern and practice of systemic unconstitutional acts and omissions on the part of Defendants described in this Complaint. 153. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the class. Such questions include, but are not limited to:
a. whether Defendants’ medical care system fails to provide minimally adequate care in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment;
52

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 53 of 63
b. whether Defendants’ medical care system places the prisoners at Angola at an unreasonable risk of suffering new or worsening physical injury or illness, or premature death;
c. whether Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the resulting harm and risk of harm to Class members who are deprived of minimally adequate medical care; and
d. what injunctive relief is appropriate to bring Defendants’ medical care system into compliance with the Eighth Amendment.
154. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including denying that they are deliberately indifferent and denying that their actions violate the law. 155. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Plaintiff Class, as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, or courses of conduct, and their claims are based on the same theory of law as the class’s claims. The named Plaintiffs are individual prisoners at Angola suffering from an array of serious medical problems and reflecting a range of serious health care needs that are typical of the prisoner population at Angola. The named Plaintiffs and the proposed class they seek to represent have suffered direct injuries and will continue to be directly injured due to Defendants’ unlawful and unconstitutional pattern and practice of providing inadequate medical care at Angola. 156. Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Plaintiff class because Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the class. Plaintiffs, as well as the Plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs
53

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 54 of 63
are represented by counsel experienced in civil rights litigation, prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class action litigation. 157. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants’ policies, practices, actions, and omissions that form the basis of this complaint are common to and apply generally to all class members, and the injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate and will apply to all members of the class. Defendants’ health care policies are promulgated, disseminated, and enforced from Angola and the DOC headquarters in Baton Rouge. The injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate and will apply to all members of the Plaintiff class. II. Disability Subclass 158. Plaintiffs with disabilities bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and b(2), on behalf of a subclass of all qualified individuals with a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12101 and 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B), and who are now, or will be in the future, subjected to the medical care policies and practices of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (“Disability Subclass”). All prisoners with disabilities who are incarcerated in the prison are being discriminated against or denied access to programs, services, and activities offered at the prison as a result of the policies and practices of Defendant DOC. 159. The proposed subclass as defined is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members of the subclass is impracticable and infeasible. The exact number of members of the Disability Subclass is unknown, and class membership changes constantly as prisoners are transferred into and out of Angola. 160. The Disability Subclass members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary course of business by Defendants.
54

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 55 of 63
161. There are questions of law and fact common to the Disability Subclass, including but not limited to:
a. whether Defendants reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities; b. whether Defendants’ medical care system violates the Americans with Disabilities
Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and c. what injunctive relief is appropriate to bring Defendants’ medical care system into
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. 162. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including denying that their actions violate the law. 163. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed subclass. Plaintiffs and all other members of the subclass have sustained similar injuries arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct and policies in violation of the law as alleged herein. 164. Plaintiffs are members of the subclass and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the putative class members because they have no disabling conflict(s) of interest that would be antagonistic to those of the other subclass members. Plaintiffs, as well as Disability Subclass members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and prisoners’ rights litigation. 165. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
55

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 56 of 63
subclass, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the subclass and will apply to all members of the subclass.
CAUSES OF ACTION I. EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF
CONFINEMENT (Against Defendants LeBlanc, Cain, and Lamartiniere)
166. By their policies and practices described herein, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from inadequate medical care. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by Defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ and the Plaintiff Class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth Amendment. 167. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
II. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENT ACT AND REHABILITATION ACT (Against Defendant DOC)
168. The ADA prohibits public entities, including DOC, from denying “a qualified individual with a disability . . . the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of the public entity” because of the individual’s disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 169. Defendant DOC is responsible for all violations of the ADA committed by hired and contracted medical staff at Angola.
56

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 57 of 63
170. The ADA defines “a qualified individual with a disability” as a person who suffers from a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” including but not limited to, “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A). All Plaintiffs with Disabilities Subclass members are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in the ADA, as they have impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. 171. The programs, services, and activities that Defendant DOC provides to prisoners include, but are not limited to, sleeping, eating, showering, toileting, exercising, safety and security, Angola’s administrative, disciplinary, and classification proceedings, medical, mental health, and dental services, the library, educational, vocational, substance abuse, and other classes, and discharge services. Defendant DOC’s programs, services, and activities are covered by the ADA. 172. Under the ADA, Defendant DOC must provide prisoners with disabilities reasonable accommodations and modifications so that they can avail themselves of and participate in all programs and activities offered by Defendants. 173. Defendant DOC fails to accommodate the Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent as described above, including by:
a. failing to “ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not, because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, the services, programs, or
57

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 58 of 63
activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(1); b. failing to “ensure that inmates or detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individuals,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(2); c. failing to “implement reasonable policies, including physical modifications to additional cells in accordance with the 2010 [accessibility] Standards, so as to ensure that each inmate with a disability is housed in a cell with the accessible elements necessary to afford the inmate access to safe, appropriate housing,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(3); d. failing or refusing to provide Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent with reasonable accommodations and other services related to their disabilities, see generally 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a); e. denying Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent “the opportunity to participate in or benefit from [an] aid, benefit, or service” provided by Defendants, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i); f. failing to make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,” 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7); g. failing to “maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities by the [ADA],” 28 C.F.R. 35.133(a); and
58

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 59 of 63
h. failing to “furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities . . . an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity, 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(1).
174. As a result of Defendant DOC’s discrimination against and failure to provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners with disabilities, Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent do not have equal access to prison activities, programs, and services for which they are otherwise qualified. 175. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant DOC was the recipient of federal funding within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. As recipients of federal funds, they are required to reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities in their facilities, programs, activities, and services, and to provide a grievance procedure. 176. Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in the Rehabilitation Act. 177. By their policy and practice of discriminating against and failing to reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities, Defendant DOC violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. 178. As a result of Defendant DOC’s discriminating against and failing to provide a grievance procedure and reasonable accommodations, Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent do not have equal access to prison activities, programs, and services for which they are otherwise qualified.
59

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 60 of 63
179. Defendants’ methods of administration as described in this Complaint subject individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of both the ADA, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3), and the Rehabilitation Act, 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(3). Section 504’s regulations prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration . . .(i) that have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap [or] (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipients program with respect to handicapped persons.” 28 CFR 35.130(b)(3)(i)-(iii). 180. By depriving prisoners with disabilities timely sick call responses, adequate and qualified medical staffing, medical facilities, medical equipment, medication administration, chronic illness care, surgery, screening, Defendants are “defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of” the provision of constitutionally adequate medical care to prisoners. That failure has a more harmful impact on prisoners with disabilities and therefore has the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 181. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs also request attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses against DOC for the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 182. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are granted the relief they
60

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 61 of 63
request. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court award the following relief:
A. Declare that the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2), and certify a class consisting of all Angola prisoners who are or may be subject to the prison’s delivery of medical care and a subclass consisting of all Angola prisoners with disabilities;
B. Grant declaratory and injunctive relief, as set out in this Complaint;
C. Enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, from subjecting Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to the illegal and unconstitutional conditions, acts, omissions, policies, and practices set forth above;
D. Order Defendants and their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, to develop and implement, as soon as practical, a plan to eliminate the substantial risk of serious harm that Plaintiffs and member of the Plaintiff Class suffer due to Defendants’ inadequate medical care. Defendants’ plan shall include but not be limited to:
a. Staffing that is sufficient to provide Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class with timely access to qualified and competent clinicians who can provide routine, urgent, emergent, and specialty health care;
b. Policies and practices that provide timely access to health care, including reliable screening for medical conditions; timely access to medically necessary surgeries; and access to adequate rehabilitative care;
c. Timely and competent responses to health care emergencies; d. Timely and competent prescription and distribution of medications and supplies
necessary for medically adequate care; 61

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 62 of 63
e. Timely access to competent care for chronic diseases; f. Medically appropriate follow-up care, including but not limited to appropriate
dietary, duty status, and medical monitoring plans; g. Basic sanitary conditions that do not promote the spread or exacerbation of diseases
or infections, including but not limited to maintaining sufficient hygiene supplies and a smoke-free environment; h. Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities; i. A regular assessment of health care staff, services, procedures, and activities designed to improve outcomes, and to identify and correct errors or systemic deficiencies; and j. Any other forms of relief necessary for the delivery of constitutionally adequate medical care. E. Enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert
with them under color of state law, from retaliating against Plaintiffs in any manner for
filing this complaint;
F. Find that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this case and award them attorneys’ fees,
court costs, expert costs, and litigation expenses under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205;;
G. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the orders of
this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in
the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and,
H. Grant such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just, to which Plaintiffs may
be entitled.
Date: May 20, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
Mercedes Montagnes, La. Bar No. 33287 (Co-lead Counsel) Elizabeth Compa, La. Bar No. 35004 The Promise of Justice Initiative 636 Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 529-5955
62

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 1 05/20/15 Page 63 of 63
Facsimile: (504) 558-0378 mmontagnes@thejusticecenter.org bcompa@thejusticecenter.org Jeffrey B. Dubner (pro hac vice pending) (Co-lead Counsel) Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 jdubner@cohenmilstein.com Miranda Tait, La. Bar No. 28898 Advocacy Center 600 Jefferson Street, Suite 812 Lafayette, LA 70501 Telephone: (337) 237-7380 Facsimile: (337) 237-0486 mtait@advocacyla.org Candice C. Sirmon, La. Bar No. 30728 ACLU Foundation of Louisiana P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (504) 613-6511 csirmon@laaclu.org
63

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 27 12/16/15 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., KENTRELL PARKER, FARRELL SAMPIER, REGINALD GEORGE, JOHN TONUBBEE, OTTO BARRERA, CLYDE CARTER, CEDRIC EVANS, EDWARD GIOVANNI, RICKY D. DAVIS, LIONEL TOLBERT, and RUFUS WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
v.
BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; STEPHANIE LAMARTINIERE, Assistant Warden for Health Services, in her official capacity; JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his official capacity; and THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS,

CIVIL ACTION 15-318-BAJ-RLB

Defendants.

PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING PROTECTED AND INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH INFORMATION
I. General Provisions and Definitions 1. “Defendants” means the individuals and entities listed in the above caption, their
counsel and persons employed by their counsel. 2. “Discovery” means all information, documents, and things subject to discovery or used
as evidence in this action, whether produced by any party or a third party, including, but not limited to, documents and information produced pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, testimony
1

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 27 12/16/15 Page 2 of 7
adopted at depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 or 31, answers to interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, documents produced pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, information obtained from inspections of premises or things pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and answers to requests for admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.
3. “Parties” means Plaintiffs, Defendants, their respective counsel and persons employed by their counsel.
4. “Plaintiffs” means Plaintiffs named in the above-captioned action and members of the putative class.
5. “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means Plaintiffs’ attorneys, as well as other attorneys employed by or associated with Plaintiffs’ attorneys for purposes of this litigation, non-attorney employees of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, and contractors retained by Plaintiffs’ attorneys for purposes of this litigation.
6. “Protected Health Information” (hereinafter, PHI) has the meaning set forth in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.
6.11 “Individually Identifiable Health Information” (hereinafter, IIHI) has the meaning set forth in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 45 C.F.R. § 160.103. II. Access to and Protection of Records Containing PHI and IIHI
7. Applicability: All documents containing IIHI and/or PHI shall be presumed without further designation to be subject to the provisions set forth below in paragraphs 9-21.
8. Notwithstanding paragraph 7, above, a Party may opt to designate any document as containing PHI or IIHI by stamping it with the following statement “Contains PHI/IIHI: Subject to Protective Order.” Any Party may challenge the applicability of this Order to documents so
1 The court has renumbered this paragraph to clarify and preserve the numerical references in the Protective Order as submitted by the parties.
2

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 27 12/16/15 Page 3 of 7
stamped by notifying the opposing counsel in writing. Should the Parties be unable to resolve the dispute, any Party may file an appropriate motion with the Court pursuant to L.R. 37 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
9. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Access: Plaintiffs’ Counsel may have access through the Disclosure and Discovery Rules in Title V of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to health care records or other documents containing PHI or IIHI in the possession and control of the Louisiana Department of Corrections or its employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors that relate to the health care of prisoners currently housed or who have been housed or who will be housed at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (LSP) that may otherwise be subject to confidentiality restrictions.
10. Limits on Disclosure: Except upon express permission of the subject of the medical or mental health record, or their legal representative or other person authorized to provide such permission, the Parties will not disclose PHI or IIHI except to: (1) the subject of the health record; (2) the Parties’ counsel’s staff, experts or consultants retained for the purpose of this litigation, subject to the limits set forth below; (3) LSP health care staff to the extent necessary for providing health care to the subject of the record or to the extent necessary to defend or prosecute litigation; (4) deponents and trial witnesses, subject to the limits set forth below; (5) court reporters and other court personnel as is necessary to conduct this litigation; or (6) any other person agreed upon by the Parties and confirmed in writing.
11. Permissible Uses: Persons authorized to access unredacted documents containing PHI or IIHI under this Order shall use the information only for the purpose of this specific action/litigation specified by the style above (including appeals and trials), and shall not use such information for any other purpose.
3

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 27 12/16/15 Page 4 of 7
12. Deponents and Witnesses: A deponent or trial witness may, during preparation for deposition or trial, or during deposition or trial, be shown and examined about PHI or IIHI to the extent that such information is relevant to his or her testimony. In such instances, deponents and trial witnesses shall be informed of, familiar with, and subject to the disclosure provisions of this Order.
13. Experts and Consultants: All experts and consultants retained by the Parties for the purpose of this litigation shall review and be familiar with the terms of this Order.
14. Protection of Information: All persons allowed access to PHI or IIHI pursuant to this Order shall take reasonable and necessary steps to maintain all such materials and information, and any copies, notes, extracts, summaries, or descriptions of such materials, as confidential and shall not disseminate such confidential information, except as permitted by this Order.
15.2 Intentionally Blank. III. Use of PHI and IIHI During Litigation
16. Acceptable Procedures for Filing Documents or Records with Court: A Party wishing to submit to the Court documents, exhibits, transcripts, or other records containing PHI or IIHI shall either: (1) pursuant to L.R. 79, move to file the unredacted records or documents under seal; or (2) prior to filing, redact all information identifying the subject(s) of the records of documents and provide to counsel and the Court a key to the identities of the subject(s). Should any Party choose the latter method, the said key shall be subject to the same restrictions and safeguards respecting the disclosure of documents containing PHI or IIHI under this Order. Any
2 The court has included this paragraph to clarify and preserve the numerical references in the Protective Order as submitted by the parties.
4

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 27 12/16/15 Page 5 of 7
document filed under seal with the court shall be filed in accordance with the court’s Administrative Procedures.3
17. Any Party may challenge the sufficiency of or need for redactions made pursuant to this Order by notifying the other Party in writing as to the reasons therefor, after which the Parties shall confer and attempt to resolve the dispute. After doing so, should the Parties be unable to resolve the dispute, any Party may file an appropriate motion with the Court pursuant to L.R. 37 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
18. Use of Information at Trial. Subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, stamped confidential material may be offered in evidence at trial or any court hearing, provided that the proponent of the evidence gives seven (7) days’ advance notice to any Party or other person that designated the information as confidential. Any Party may move the Court for an order that the evidence be received in camera or under other conditions to prevent unnecessary disclosure. The court will then determine whether the proffered evidence should continue to be treated as confidential information and, if so, what protection, if any, may be afforded to such information at the trial. IV. Special Provisions Regarding HIPAA
19. This Order authorizes Defendants to produce protected health information as discovery to Plaintiffs’ Counsel or to permit inspection, copying, and/or scanning of same by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, even if the protected health information concerns prisoners who are nonparties. When producing any protected health information, Defendants shall attempt to designate it as confidential material; however, such designation shall not be necessary for 3 The Administrative Procedures for Filing Electronic Documents in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana can be located at the court’s website (http://www.lamd.uscourts.gov) under “E-Filing,” “CM/ECF Info,” “Administrative Procedures.” (See pages 10-11).
5

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 27 12/16/15 Page 6 of 7
documents like medical records whose nature as protected health information is otherwise selfevident. Moreover, the failure of any Party to designate protected health information as confidential material shall not excuse the Party utilizing or relying upon the same from any duties imposed herein or by law respecting protected health information.
20. This Order constitutes a “qualified protective order” pursuant to the Privacy Rules, 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v), promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
21. A person’s acquisition or disclosure of his or her own protected health information is not governed by this Order in any way. Disclosure of protected health information to the person who is the subject of that medical record is not governed or restricted by the Order in any way. V. Additional Provisions
22. No Impact on Arguments Regarding Privilege: This Order shall not limit either Party’s ability to make arguments regarding privilege, including arguments regarding the applicability or inapplicability of a privilege or the presence or absence of a waiver thereof.
23. Modification, Objection, and Further Application Permitted: Nothing in this Order shall prevent any Party or other person from: a) applying to the Court for modification of this Order or further protective orders relating to discovery in this litigation; b) applying to the Court for an order seeking the addition or removal of a redaction or designation of a document as containing PHI and/or IIHI; c) objecting to a discovery request; or d) applying to the Court for an order compelling production of documents or an answer to a discovery request.
24. Continuing Jurisdiction: The terms of this Protective Order shall survive the final termination of this litigation and shall continue to fully apply to all materials containing IIHI and/ or PHI until further order of this Court. Following the final termination of this litigation, the
6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 27 12/16/15 Page 7 of 7
court shall retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties and all persons who received access to such materials.
25. Return or Destruction of Protected Health Information: Upon the final termination of this litigation, any protected health information accessed pursuant to this Order shall be returned or destroyed (including any copies made thereof) as required by the Privacy Rules, 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v)(B), promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), except where such information has been incorporated into Attorney Work Product. If destroyed, that fact shall be certified by affidavit and submitted to Defendants. Any document filed under seal with the court shall be handled by the court in accordance with its procedures at the conclusion of the litigation.4
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 16, 2015.
S
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4 Under the court’s General Order No. 93-1, “Pleadings and other papers filed under seal in civil . . . actions . . . shall be maintained under seal for thirty (30) days following final disposition of the action. After that time, all sealed pleadings and other papers shall be placed in the case record unless the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, upon motion, orders that the pleading or other paper be maintained under seal.”
7

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 1 of 79

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., KENTRELL PARKER, FARRELL SAMPIER, REGINALD GEORGE, JOHN TONUBBEE, OTTO BARRERA, CLYDE CARTER, CEDRIC EVANS, EDWARD GIOVANNI, RICKY D. DAVIS, LIONEL TOLBERT, and RUFUS WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; STEPHANIE LAMARTINIERE, Assistant Warden for Health Services, in her official capacity; JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his official capacity; and THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-318 JUDGE: BAJ MAGISTRATE: RLB
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The medical care provided at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (“Angola”) falls far beneath constitutional and statutory standards. Countless prisoners have already
1

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 2 of 79
suffered unnecessary deaths and other serious harm due to Defendants’ grossly deficient policies and practices, including unnecessary pain and suffering, exacerbation of existing conditions, permanent disability, and disfigurement. Thousands more are placed at daily risk of suffering the same fate should they need medical care. 2. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are housed at Angola in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DOC”) or are DOC inmates who were housed there at the time the original Complaint in this matter was filed. As prisoners in the DOC system, Plaintiffs are entirely dependent on Defendants for their basic health care. However, the health care Defendants provide falls far short of minimal constitutional requirements and fails to meet prisoners’ basic health needs, leaving painful and often life-threatening conditions unaddressed or inadequately addressed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOC and against James LeBlanc, Darrel Vannoy, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Raman Singh, Stacye Falgout, Randy Lavespere, Sherwood Poret and Cynthia Park in their official capacities, for violations of their constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and their statutory rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. 3. Defendants engage in a number of systemic practices that expose all members of the Plaintiff Class to unacceptable risks to their health, including but not limited to: a. Routinely delaying evaluation, treatment, and access to specialty care including
appropriate screening tests, and including during active medical emergencies; b. Declining to provide medically necessary treatments, including surgeries, medication,
medical devices, and physical therapy, including for financial reasons; 2

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 3 of 79
c. Failing to provide and manage medication in accordance with prescriptions and medically appropriate treatment courses;
d. Failing to ensure that Plaintiffs’ medical needs are addressed in their follow-up care, dietary plans, work requirements, cell conditions, and other aspects of confinement;
e. Enforcing a “malingering” rule designed to punish Plaintiffs who seek treatment and discourage them from requesting medical assistance; and
f. Maintaining an insufficient number of qualified medical personnel such as physicians and nurses, such that some medical tasks are performed by unqualified individuals including prisoners.
4. These medically and constitutionally unacceptable practices have produced an immeasurable amount of needless pain and suffering, exacerbating Plaintiffs’ health problems and turning treatable conditions into debilitating and disabling—or even terminal—conditions. Many Plaintiffs and class members have already suffered greatly from Defendants’ practices, as shown below, and those who have been fortunate enough to avoid serious harm to date are at constant risk.
5. As laid out below, Defendants’ practices have had devastating consequences for countless prisoners. Prisoners report horror story after horror story: a man denied medical attention four times during a stroke, leaving him blind and paralyzed; a man denied access to a specialist for four years while his throat cancer advanced; a blind man denied even a cane for 16 years. In many cases, only the specter of legal action has spurred Defendants to provide long-delayed medical care to Plaintiffs.
3

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 4 of 79
6. Despite repeated requests from Plaintiffs and warnings from doctors and advocacy groups, and despite the obviousness of many of these medical urgencies and their devastating consequences, Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the substantial risks created by their failure to provide minimally adequate health care.
7. Indeed, Defendants have been aware for more than 25 years that their practices are constitutionally deficient. In 1989, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) initiated an investigation into the conditions of confinement at Angola and then sued, culminating in a consent decree regulating Angola’s medical care. Among other findings, DOJ found that Angola’s “[f]ailure to provide adequate medical and psychiatric care” deprived prisoners of their constitutional rights. DOJ specifically cited a number of practices that Angola continues to this day or reinstated as soon as the consent decree expired, including delaying the provision of necessary medical care, providing inadequate follow-up care, maintaining inadequate medical records, having untrained personnel conducting sick call and distributing medication, employing a punitive malingering rule, and understaffing of medical personnel. Burl Cain was Warden of Angola during the latter period that the consent decree was in effect. Given Defendants’ longstanding knowledge that its practices are constitutionally deficient, together with the litany of complaints and the devastating, often tragic consequences of their medical neglect, there can be no question that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the shortcomings of their system of treatment.
8. Defendants’ failure to provide adequate medical treatment is also a failure to reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities, thereby denying those prisoners equal access to prison activities, programs, and services in contravention of federal law. Moreover,
4

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 5 of 79

Defendants’ broader failure to accommodate individuals with disabilities in performing the tasks of daily life, as described below, also contravenes federal law. Defendants’ methods of administration have the effect of subjecting prisoners with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities and defeat the accomplishment of the objectives of a medical care delivery system to prisoners with disabilities.

9. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief holding Defendants’ practices in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act, and injunctive relief compelling Defendants to immediately provide Plaintiffs and the class members they represent with constitutionally adequate health care and accommodation for their disabilities.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 12101 et seq, and 29 U.S.C.
§ 794. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1343 (civil rights), and § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act).

11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the events or omissions complained of occurred in this district.

A) Defendants

PARTIES

12. Defendant Darrel Vannoy is the Warden of Angola. He has held this position since 2016,

having been named as the incoming Acting Warden following the resignation of Warden

Burl Cain in December 2015. In this capacity, he exercises operational control over

Angola by making staffing, budget, and administrative decisions. By law, he is

responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all persons held in Angola’s

5

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 6 of 79
custody. At all relevant times, Vannoy and his predecessor Cain have acted under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. Warden Vannoy can be served at 17544 Tunica Trace, Angola, LA 70712. 13. Defendant Stephanie Lamartiniere is the Assistant Warden for Health Services at Angola. She has been in that position since approximately 2013. In her capacity as Assistant Warden for Health Services, she exercises operational control over the Angola Treatment Center hospital by making staffing, budget, and administrative decisions. By law, she is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all persons incarcerated and treated at Angola’s hospital. At all relevant times, Lamartiniere has acted under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. She can be served at 17544 Tunica Trace, Angola, LA 70712. 14. Defendant James M. LeBlanc is the Secretary of Louisiana’s Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DOC”). In his capacity as Secretary, he is responsible for the functioning and control of all programs within the Department. He formulates rules and regulations and determines policy regarding management, personnel, and total operations. He leads and supports central office and field unit staffs, which are charged with carrying out the work of the agency. By law, he is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of all persons held in the DOC’s custody. At all relevant times, LeBlanc has acted under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. He can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. 15. Defendant Raman Singh, MD, is the Medical Director of DOC. In this role, he oversees medical and mental health care at all DOC facilities. He has been in this position since November 2007. He previously served as Medical Director of Angola, Assistant Medical
6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 7 of 79
Director, and Staff Physician at Angola, from 2002 to 2007. He was certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine from 2002 to 2012. In his capacity as Medical Director, Singh is responsible for overseeing the delivery of health care in the DOC system, reporting directly to Secretary LeBlanc. At all relevant times, Singh has acted under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. He can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. 16. Defendant Stacye Falgout is the Chief Nursing Officer for the DOC, within the Office of the Medical and Mental Health Director, reporting to Dr. Singh. At all relevant times, Falgout has acted under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. She can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. 17. Defendant Randy Lavespere, MD, is the Medical Director of Angola. He has been in this position since the departure of the previous Medical Director of Angola, Dr. Jason Collins, in 2014. In the role of Medical Director, Lavespere oversees and implements the delivery of health care for all Angola prisoners. At all relevant times, Lavespere has acted under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. He can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. 18. Defendant Sherwood Poret, RN, is the Director of Nursing at Angola. In this role, he is responsible for overseeing nursing services at Angola. At all relevant times, Poret has acted under color of law and as the agent and official representative of DOC. He can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. 19. Defendant Cynthia Park, ACNP, is an Advances Practice Nurse Practitioner at Angola. In this role, she is responsible for the provision of health care to the Angola population. At all relevant times, Park has acted under color of law and as the agent and official
7

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 8 of 79
representative of DOC. She can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. 20. Defendant DOC, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, is the state prison system, a division of the State of Louisiana. It is charged with overseeing the custody and care of offenders in Louisiana. At all relevant times, the DOC operated Angola, a public facility with programs and services. The DOC is the recipient of federal funds. The DOC can be served at 504 Mayflower Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. B) Plaintiffs 16. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are individuals currently incarcerated at Angola, along with individuals who were incarcerated at Angola when this litigation was filed on May 20, 2015, but have been transferred to another DOC facility since the filing of this lawsuit. 17. The named Plaintiffs each have serious medical needs that have gone untreated, undertreated, or mistreated by Defendants. Each Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability. 18. Plaintiff Shannon Hurd, DOC No. 354776, is 41 years old and has been at Angola for 12 years. From 2010 to 2015, Mr. Hurd repeatedly requested medical attention while his health deteriorated. Despite showing several warning signs of kidney cancer, Mr. Hurd was not given a CT scan until October 2015. By that time, Mr. Hurd’s cancer had metastasized: as a result of the years of neglect, he has Stage IV cancer in his kidneys and lungs, likely a terminal condition.
8

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 9 of 79
19. In 2010, Mr. Hurd began complaining of pain in his left side. He made sick call but received little medical attention until he finally had an EKG and was told nothing was wrong and it was just gas. In 2012, he lost his appetite and started drastically losing weight. He also developed numbness in his feet. In 2013-2014, his weight dropped to 150 lbs., from some 247 lbs. a couple of years before. He had blood tests and again was told nothing was wrong.
20. Despite Mr. Hurd’s years of sick call and troubling symptoms, he did not receive a CT scan until approximately October 2015. That scan revealed that he had cancer on both his kidney and lung. He was told that the progression of the tumor on his kidney suggested it had been there for at least 3-4 years.
21. Mr. Hurd has also had at least one hernia that Defendants declined to treat. In January 2016, while at an outside hospital for cancer treatment, Mr. Hurd was given emergency hernia surgery due to the condition to which his hernia had deteriorated. After returning from the hospital, he was never given the pain medications prescribed by the surgeon at the outside hospital. Mr. Hurd is tired all the time but can’t sleep. He experiences numbness and pain in his lower legs and his fingertips. When his belated cancer treatment was finally underway circa March 2016, he was placed in an isolation room on Ward 2 (one of the Treatment Center medical wards, as explained below) on an apparently indefinite basis, where he had no access to social interaction nor even a television set. Mr. Hurd was eventually moved to a bed on the open Ward following significant advocacy efforts on the part of his attorneys in April 2016.
9

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 10 of 79
22. Plaintiff Alton Adams, DOC No. 284186, is 52 years old and has been at Angola for 19 years. Because of Defendants’ deliberate indifference, he has had multiple amputations on his right leg that may have been avoidable.
23. Mr. Adams has peripheral artery disease. He began having problems with his leg after arriving at Angola and was told he required a stent to address his circulation problem— but that the state had no money to pay for the procedure. By 2012, Mr. Adams developed a blood clot that led to the amputation of his right leg below the knee. The following year, his wound re-opened due to infection and his leg bone protruded from it. He underwent a second surgery to shave down the protruding bone.
24. While Mr. Adams was still receiving follow-up care after the second surgery, his wound became infected with gangrene. A visiting doctor from New Orleans who examined Mr. Adams at the Treatment Center told Mr. Adams he could not believe that Angola staff could have missed the obvious infection. Mr. Adams was again told that his leg could have been treated by putting in stents in order to supply more blood to his leg and thereby avoid amputation. Mr. Adams underwent a third surgery in October 2015 wherein his right leg was amputated to his mid-thigh. He slept in a wheelchair for more than three months because of his pain.
25. Mr. Adams now sees the same health issues developing with his left leg, raising the possibility that he will have this leg amputated as well even though it is an avoidable procedure. He is scared that if he presses for adequate care, he will be retaliated against by being transferred to a lockdown unit. In addition to his grave concerns regarding whether his remaining left leg will be neglected to the point of requiring amputation, Mr. Adams is in constant pain. He is prescribed Neurontin but is still in severe pain and the 10

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 11 of 79
prison refuses to prescribe more. He is currently awaiting a visit with a vascular specialist, which he was told is recommended but has not yet been scheduled. 26. Mr. Adams has also been unable to get an orthopedic shoe for his left foot despite requests. He was fitted for a prosthetic in early 2015 but has not had any follow up since. Until recently, Mr. Adams lived on the Hickory 4 unit of Main Prison, which is utilized as an unofficial quasi-medical unit. Medical staff do not make rounds in Hickory 4, leaving some prisoners completely dependent on other prisoners for their care and for carrying out the daily tasks of living. The bathrooms are not equipped for people with disabilities despite several dozen residents being in wheelchairs, on ventilators, or otherwise in need of accommodation. 27. Mr. Adams was transferred from Angola to Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in May 2016. 28. Plaintiff Ian Cazenave, DOC No. 255461, is 50 years old and has been at Angola for 18 years. Mr. Cazenave has sickle cell anemia and chronic lower-leg wounds that Angola is failing to properly manage. As a result, he is at risk of amputation of his legs. 29. Due to his sickle cell anemia, Mr. Cazenave requires regular blood tests to monitor his hemoglobin levels and blood transfusions if his hemoglobin levels fall too low. In recent years, Angola has provided neither regular blood tests nor transfusions. In February 2016, after Mr. Cazenave developed a fever and an infected, malodorous wound, staff drew blood and found that his hemoglobin had dropped to dangerously low levels. When finally taken to the hospital, outside doctors told him that he made it just in time and gave him a transfusion and antibiotics to treat the infection.
11

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 12 of 79
30. While at the outside hospital, Mr. Cazenave was told that his leg can be saved if his wounds are brought under control and a skin graft performed. The doctor said he would recommend that Mr. Cazenave see a plastic surgeon. The doctors at Angola, however, have refused to discuss any option other than amputation.
31. Mr. Cazenave has been in Ash 2 since 1999. This housing unit is crowded and dirty, and does not have enough showers, urinals, toilets, sinks, or space for wheelchairs to accommodate the people living there.
32. Plaintiff Kentrell Parker, DOC No. 371212, is 37 years old and has been at Angola for 4 years. He was previously housed at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (“EHCC”), where he suffered a neck injury on February 19, 2010 and was rendered quadriplegic. Mr. Parker has a tracheotomy hole in his neck and breathes through a tracheal tube. Mr. Parker does not have a tracheal machine at his bedside that he can use in the event of choking. If the tube becomes obstructed, Mr. Parker has no ability to clear the tube or call for help; he will likely choke to death unless observed by a fellow inmate or Angola staff. But on at least three occasions, Defendants have placed Mr. Parker in an isolation cell where he cannot be viewed by other inmates and is observed by staff approximately once every two hours. Defendants have done so even though they have been repeatedly informed by Mr. Parker’s attorneys and their medical experts that unobserved isolation places Mr. Parker at an extreme risk of death.
33. Angola has repeatedly run out of tracheal supplies, subjecting Mr. Parker to unnecessary risk of infection. In May 2015, Mr. Parker was brought to LSU hospital with a blood infection. The doctor there told him that bacteria entered his blood from his stool.
12

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 13 of 79
34. In Mr. Parker’s experience, men on Ward 2 are often not cleaned at all unless there is a tour group visiting. Mr. Parker is excluded from attending church unless a nurse or EMT accompanies him; he has found that there is often no staff available to take him, effectively preventing him from attending religious ceremonies. Mr. Parker used to have an air mattress that was appropriate for his paraplegia, but it broke in or around 2011 and has not been replaced. In 2014, his accommodations declined further when the Angola hospital underwent a severe shortage of hygiene supplies including bed mats, subjecting Mr. Parker to an increased risk of bedsores and other life-threatening complications. He is regularly left to sit in his own feces for several hours before an orderly comes to change his bedding. He has had his catheter supplies changed arbitrarily, causing pain and discomfort. For six of eight days in early April 2015, with only one orderly on the Ward, there was no one to feed Mr. Parker his breakfast and he went hungry. He never receives physical therapy and relies on prisoner-orderlies for feeding. He is never weighed.
35. Plaintiff Farrell Sampier, DOC No. 607098, is 48 years old and has been at Angola for 3 years. Due in large part to the DOC’s negligence, Mr. Sampier is paraplegic. Mr. Sampier, who was not paralyzed when he entered DOC custody, began experiencing numbness and pins-and-needles sensations while at Orleans Parish Prison, but his repeated requests for medical attention were ignored. After he began to experience paralysis at EHCC, he was eventually diagnosed with transverse myelitis. Transverse myelitis is a neurologic condition that typically leads to a full or significant recovery if properly treated with medication, rehabilitation, and physical therapy—but if left untreated, as Mr. Sampier’s was, almost always results in permanent paralysis. Indeed,
13

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 14 of 79
the LSU doctor who diagnosed Mr. Sampier’s transverse myelitis told him that if his condition had been diagnosed sooner he would not be paralyzed. 36. After Mr. Sampier’s arrival at Angola in June 2013, he developed early decubitus ulcers and a urinary tract infection at the site of his catheter. Mr. Sampier suffered a quarterinch tear in his penis that Defendants refused to repair, despite repeated requests for medical attention, leading the tear to become infected. Despite the serious risk of lifethreatening infection and the ongoing pain caused by this situation, Defendants did not provide surgery to move the catheter until March 2015, when Mr. Sampier began meeting with attorneys in connection with this Complaint. 37. Mr. Sampier also experiences significant problems with chronic care and hygiene on Ward 2. Mr. Sampier previously received 5 to 10 minutes of physical therapy once a month (an insufficient amount for his condition), but was “discharged” and no longer receives even that minimal amount. Defendants have refused to provide him with wheelchair gloves to prevent callouses and blisters from forming; instead he must purchase mittens from the Angola store. Prior to the initiation of this action, there was regularly only one orderly actually present on Ward 2 at a time, who frequently has to ask for help with tasks like lifting Mr. Sampier. Often other prisoner-patients living on the ward assist with these tasks. Mr. Sampier is susceptible to decubitus ulcers, or bedsores, because of his illness, and the lack of staffing on the Ward exacerbates his risk. 38. Plaintiff Reginald George, DOC No. 111518, is 57 years old and has been at Angola for 23 years. Mr. George has HIV. From 2010 to 2012, Defendants refused to provide him with any HIV medication as punishment for complaining about errors that untrained security guards made in distributing his medication. At other times, security guards have
14

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 15 of 79
refused to provide him with his medication in retaliation for other complaints he has made. He experiences swelling in his legs and numbness in his hands. He has previously made sick call about the “black box,” the device used to keep him shackled, because it caused pain and swelling in his wrists. The EMT who responded to his sick call told him that whether he must wear a black box is a security decision, not a medical decision, and provided no treatment. Defendants have also failed to provide Mr. George with shower shoes, subjecting him to an unnecessary risk of contracting infection as a result of his compromised immune system. In or around April 2015, Mr. George was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He was transferred to EHCC in December 2015 and returned to Angola in February 2016. He subsequently returned to EHCC. 39. Plaintiff John Tonubbee, DOC No. 98923, is 73 years old and has been at Angola for 35 years. Dr. Jonathan Roundtree, a former Angola doctor, diagnosed him with degenerative joint disorder in his knees in 2005. Dr. Roundtree recommended surgery in 2005, but Defendants still have not provided the surgery. Mr. Tonubbee was told that there was a backlog of surgery needs and no money to fund the surgeries. He does not have cartilage in his knees and can feel his bones grinding against each other. Mr. Tonubbee believes this disorder resulted from 16 years of manipulating, rolling, and turning 500-pound barrels for his work duty requirements at Angola. Mr. Tonubbee received a permanent restricted duty status for “chronic knee pain.” He has been prescribed cortisone shots for his knees four to six times a month but only receives them approximately once every six months. He did not receive cortisone shots at all from February to October 2013, during which time he endured severe pain. He also needs special orthopedic shoes, which the prison has only issued twice, in 2008 and 2010, and
15

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 16 of 79
the shoes were not specific to his medical needs of severe bunions and overlapping toes. The shoes caused Mr. Tonubbee additional pain in his feet and knees. He requested that the doctor issue him orthopedic shoes appropriate for his medical needs and was denied. Mr. Tonubbee was told to purchase his own shoes from the Commissary. The Commissary only sells non-orthopedic tennis shoes that fall apart when they become wet. Mr. Tonubbee has been re-gluing his shoes in an effort to get them to last longer than three months. 40. In October 2015, after the initiation of this litigation, Mr. Tonubbee was told he was being referred for a knee replacement. However, he has yet to receive any treatment. In March 2016, he was injured during a soldering accident when solder flux got into his left eye. Despite repeated requests for prompt care, his condition worsened until late May 2016 when, after inquiries by his attorneys, he was transported to University Medical Center New Orleans for needed treatment. 41. Plaintiff Otto Barrera, DOC No. 615551, is 50 years old and has been at Angola since November 2013. In 2012, as a result of a gunshot wound, he lost much of his lower jaw. He had multiple surgeries before his incarceration including a skin graft and bone removal. He is currently missing his bottom lip and part of his tongue. Mr. Barrera has difficulty chewing and swallowing as a result of his injuries, and the difficulty is worsening. He was referred for reconstructive surgery around August 2014, but Defendants deemed the surgery “cosmetic” and denied it on that basis. He is supposed to be on a soft diet but receives the same food as other men on the hospital ward so he must tear the food into small pieces with his hands before placing it in the back of his mouth to attempt to swallow. Mr. Barrera receives medications through an enteral tube. During a
16

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 17 of 79
previous incarceration at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Mr. Barrera saw doctors three days a week and had his enteral tube cleaned regularly. At Angola, the tube was not cleaned or changed for approximately a year and a half, during which time it oozed blood every two to three days and caused Mr. Barrera severe pain. Defendants refused Mr. Barrera’s requests for the tube to be cleaned or replaced until the day he met with attorneys in April 2015, when it was abruptly and painfully pulled out. 42. Plaintiff Clyde Carter, DOC No. 99041, is 57 years old and has been at Angola for 28 years. In or about October 2013, Mr. Carter fell in the cell block and injured his knee. He made sick call, and received an examination and MRI. Mr. Carter appears to have one or more torn ligaments in his knee. The specialist who came to Angola recommended surgery. To date, on information and belief, he has not received surgery, because Angola doctors refuse to approve the surgery recommendation. He saw a specialist at Angola from Charity hospital who told him, “It seems like every time I schedule a surgery for you, they just blow it off.” He has made sick call more than 15 times; he is charged money for each request but does not receive treatment. He has contacted Warden Lamartiniere but she tells him to make sick call. 43. The visiting specialist recommended a stabilizing brace with metal rods on the side, but the prison only allows Mr. Carter to use a Velcro brace that does not hold his injured knee in place. He has received a temporary duty status to restrict him from fieldwork, but it has repeatedly expired and he has been forced back to the fields. On December 10, 2013, he re-injured his knee in the field and made emergency sick call, but was not permitted to leave the field and was instead written up for malingering. While working in the field, Mr. Carter is repeatedly required to jump ditches and perform other physically
17

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 18 of 79
demanding tasks beyond working the crops. If he refuses, he is written up for disobedience. His duty status says “no uneven ground,” but in practice in the field this purported restriction is meaningless. He also has a bottom-bunk duty status but was still assigned to a top bunk until late 2014, a year after his initial injury. 44. In September 2015, after the filing of this litigation, Mr. Carter was visited by two apparent medical professionals who inquired about his knee; one of them gave him a walking cane. In December 2015, he asked Angola staff about a stabilizing brace he had previously requested. The staff member told Mr. Carter she had a stabilizing brace on hand and showed him one that could not fit his leg, adding that if she ever asked for it back and he did not have it, he would be sent to the lockdown unit, Camp J. After Mr. Carter expressed his concern with the size of the brace, the staff member made a phone call to state that Mr. Carter had refused it, and he has yet to receive a brace. 45. Plaintiff Edward Giovanni, DOC No. 96746, is 63 years old and has been at Angola for 35 years. Despite his poor health, Defendants have housed Mr. Giovanni in “medical dorms” that are not actually equipped to meet the medical and accommodation-related needs of their residents. Mr. Giovanni spent several months housed in Cypress-2, a medical dorm which to his knowledge housed 86 prisoners but was designed to house 50. In or about June 2014, he suffered a bacterial infection that caused his lungs to collapse, and spent weeks in a wheelchair because of severely diminished breathing capacity. Mr. Giovanni requested to be moved to Ward 2 of the Angola Treatment Center but Dr. Lavespere denied the transfer on the basis that there was no room. During the summer of 2013, Mr. Giovanni suffered in the extreme heat conditions of Cypress-2, where several elderly and infirm men were housed with no medical staff. Mr. Giovanni was taken from
18

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 19 of 79
his dorm by ambulance on or about July 1, 2014, to an outside hospital for emergency medical attention. In October 2015, Mr. Giovanni was again returned to the Ash-2 “medical dorm” despite his urgent pleas that his health was too delicate for that environment. Shortly thereafter, he developed a serious lung infection that required him to be transported to a hospital in New Orleans. He has remained on Ward 1 of the Treatment Center since that time. 46. Mr. Giovanni has multiple hernias, including one the size of a softball on his upper thigh. In or around 2010, the Angola urologist, Dr. Brunner, told him that the hernia must be addressed surgically. Dr. Collins told Mr. Giovanni that the prison cannot afford the needed hernia surgeries since the shut-down of Earl K. Long Hospital, and that the waiting list was extensive. Mr. Giovanni may be eligible for veterans’ benefits but the prison has told him that they do not provide transportation to VA facilities. Between the pain from the hernias, his oxygen-dependency and overall physical frailty, and fear of how he will be treated if he falls, Mr. Giovanni is scared to walk, and now only stays in bed, sits in his chair, and goes to the bathroom. 47. Plaintiff Ricky D. Davis, DOC No. 554718, is 49 years old and has been at Angola for five years. He previously had a disc pressing on a nerve in his back that was causing numbness in his extremities and underwent a laminectomy, a procedure in which bones are clipped to relieve pressure on nerves, in February 2014. Upon returning to Angola two days after this procedure, Mr. Davis was forced to ride face down laying across the front seat because there was no handicap-accessible van. He was sent back to the dorm with staples in his back. In September 2014, Mr. Davis had a telemedicine consultation with a neurologist who told him he would need an additional surgery because the first
19

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 20 of 79
was unsuccessful. He has “no kitchen” duty status but he is assigned to scrub pots and pans outside, sitting on a crate, which aggravates his back injury and contribute to continued pain. In early 2015, Mr. Davis was brought to a neurosurgeon. He had to wear shackles, a “black box” and a waist strap, causing his wrists to swell considerably. 48. Plaintiff Lionel Tolbert, DOC No. 91931, is 60 years old and has been at Angola for 34 years. He has been diagnosed with heart disease (arteriosclerosis and arrhythmia), hypertension, and high cholesterol. He received multiple stents between 2005 and 2014 while in Angola custody. He also has severe arterial blockages in his legs that cause extreme pain, swelling, and discoloration. He has difficulty walking and experiences severe burning in his muscles because of inadequate bloodflow. He has been diagnosed with diabetes, for which he takes Metformin. His blood is only monitored once a year, but should be monitored more frequently—anywhere from once a week if his condition is unstable to twice a year if it is completely stable. He consistently takes his medications, but has noticed apparent arbitrary changes in the medication he receives, such as receiving different-colored pills at various pill calls for the same prescription. He is supposed to receive a special diet but only receives the same food the other men receive but without seasoning. 49. Plaintiff Rufus White, DOC No. 322954, is 41 years old and has been at Angola for 13 years. He has old gunshot wounds, asthma, and arthritis in his shoulder. He experiences sharp pains in his chest and frequent blood in his stool that have not been diagnosed despite his repeated requests for examination and treatment. As of May 2015, he believed the chest pains he was experiencing may have been symptoms of pneumonia, which he previously had at Angola. Doctors at Angola refused to perform a chest x-ray
20

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 21 of 79
on the basis that Mr. White did not have a fever. However, pneumonia is not always accompanied by a fever, and Mr. White did not develop a fever when he previously contracted pneumonia at Angola. 50. Immediately following a visit by attorneys investigating medical care at Angola on August 19, 2014, Mr. White had a chest x-ray taken. He was not informed of what the physicians were looking for or the results other than that the x-ray was “okay.” On approximately February 5, 2015, a second x-ray was performed at Angola. Mr. White was not informed of the reason for the x-ray or the result. 51. Mr. White previously had permanent indoor duty status, because of his asthma and gunshot wounds, but Dr. Toce revoked it on the basis that Mr. White “look[ed] healthy” and only used his inhaler every other day. Mr. White’s duty status was returned to field duty. In or around July 2014, Mr. White lost consciousness by the re-entry shack in the east yard and was taken to the hospital, but the doctors did not give him any information about his condition. 52. As of late May 2016, Mr. White continues to seek health screenings to identify the reason or reasons he continues to experience serious pain throughout his abdomen, swelling in his legs and stomach, and frequent blood in his stool. He has not received these screenings despite repeated written requests. 53. Plaintiff Edward Washington, DOC No. 121750, is 52 years old and has been at Angola for 12 years. Mr. Washington has diabetes that is improperly managed. Rather than every morning, his sugar is currently tested only every several months. Non-medical correctional staff administering pill call have refused to allow Mr. Washington to check his blood sugar, telling him that the strips to test his blood sugar are too expensive.
21

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 22 of 79
54. Defendants do not always give Mr. Washington his daily insulin shot. Mr. Washington has observed that when the prison misses giving him a shot they record in his paperwork that he has refused the shot. Mr. Washington maintains that he has never refused a shot, and to do so would be suicidal. He fears stroke or coma and, for this reason, would not sign a refusal form. Mr. Washington has sometimes been required to self-administer insulin, despite his impaired vision making it difficult for him to administer the shot to himself. Although insulin administration may be available at the Treatment Center, he has been told that the prison does not have transportation to take him from his dorm, Camp D, to the Treatment Center to get his shot every day.
55. Plaintiff Alton Batiste, DOC No. 73586, is 70 years old and has been at Angola for 45 years. Mr. Batiste has become blind during his time at Angola: he has one eye that is visibly deteriorated through which he has no vision, and he has glaucoma in his remaining eye. Despite his inability to see, Mr. Batiste has never received a tapping cane from Angola. Even his support cane (which is not intended for use by visually impaired individuals), was not provided by Angola; he received it from an inmate who passed away rather than from the prison itself. Mr. Batiste resides in Camp F where he is completely dependent upon other prisoners in carrying out the tasks of daily living. a. Former Plaintiffs
56. Joseph Lewis, Jr., DOC No. 560138, was a named plaintiff in this action until his death on November 10, 2015. At the time the original complaint in this matter was filed, Mr. Lewis was 81 years old and had been at Angola for two years. He had had chronic problems with his throat since before his arrival at Angola, including coughing, spitting up mucus, a steady decline in volume, rawness, and pain and burning sensations.
22

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 23 of 79
Beginning at least as early as February 2013, he submitted repeated sick call requests and grievances. In response, Angola doctors repeatedly told Mr. Lewis that his throat issues would get better and only prescribed a Q-Tussin spray. Defendants refused to take Mr. Lewis to a hospital or specialist until January 8, 2015, after he was visited by attorneys. A Louisiana State University (“LSU”) doctor performed a laryngoscopy and recommended an immediate biopsy. Mr. Lewis received a biopsy at LSU hospital on March 26, 2015 and was diagnosed with throat cancer on April 8, 2015. On May 15, 2015, he was sent to Mary Bird Perkins cancer treatment center in Baton Rouge and was to be housed at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center for the duration of the treatment and thereafter to Angola. Mr. Lewis remained at Hunt, receiving intermittent treatment for his advanced-stage cancer, until his death on November 10, 2015. Mr. Lewis was a qualified individual with a disability. 57. Lionel Parks, DOC No. 67187, intended to enroll as a named plaintiff in this matter before his death on May 3, 2016, at age 76. Mr. Parks suffered a stroke in July 2014 while housed in the Ash-2 dorm, and made four requests for emergency medical attention, telling medical personnel he believed he was having a stroke due to numbness in his body, but Angola staff only took his blood pressure, said he was fine, and sent him back to the medical dorm. He only received medical attention after his fourth request. Early intervention is critical during a stroke and Defendants failed to appropriately diagnose and treat Mr. Parks for several hours. As a result of the stroke and the delays in treatment, Mr. Parks was unable to walk, experienced ongoing numbness in the left side of his face as well as ear pain, and had difficulty chewing. He was also blind as a result of untreated glaucoma. Mr. Parks was almost entirely confined to his bed following the
23

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 24 of 79
stroke. Mr. Parks’s attempts to exhaust Angola’s administrative grievance process were met with hindrance by the prison including delivering Administrative Remedy Procedure responses directly to the blind Mr. Parks rather than alerting the Inmate Counsel he was working with. 58. Attorneys working with Mr. Parks repeatedly noted the obvious neglect and apparent abuse he was suffering. In February 2015, Mr. Parks came to an attorney visit with long, jagged fingernails. He reported that he unwittingly cuts himself because they are so long. He said he had repeatedly asked a nurse to cut them and the nurse responded that they do not have nail clippers. His attorneys wrote to the prison to urge that even this most elemental hygienic task be performed. 59. Mr. Parks also met with the Plaintiffs’ attorneys in this matter on February 25, 2016. Upon arriving to the interview room, he immediately told the two attorneys conducting the visit that he had just been battered up by two orderlies in the bath. He was bleeding from his arm and had a visible scratch mark on his cheek. The attorneys thereafter reported this to staff, and an EMT was dispatched to come take Mr. Parks’s statement. Mr. Parks was placed in palliative care on or about April 28, 2016. He died May 3, 2016. 60. Cedric Evans, DOC No. 394117, was a named plaintiff in this matter until he left DOC custody on parole on January 22, 2016. At the time the complaint was filed on May 20, 2015, Mr. Evans was 50 years old and had been at Angola for 7 years. In 2014, he hurt his collarbone while lifting his locker box, which Defendants required him to do three times per week. He received an x-ray but was told nothing was wrong with his collarbone, even though he could not hold up his left arm. He hurt his right forearm a few months later, also while lifting his locker box. He later saw a specialist at LSU, who
24

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 25 of 79
x-rayed his arm and diagnosed it as broken. During the examination, the doctor noticed a knot on his collarbone, x-rayed it, and diagnosed it as broken, too. Mr. Evans was required to work in the field throughout this months-long stretch of having an undiagnosed broken clavicle and experienced severe pain. He made sick call and filed an administrative grievance. His clavicle appeared to be healing itself but had significant calcium buildup that caused pain and discomfort, impaired mobility in his left shoulder, and difficulty sleeping on his left side.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A.) Overview of Medical Care at Louisiana State Penitentiary 61. Angola has been operating as a prison for well over a century. It is the largest men’s prison and only maximum-security men’s prison in Louisiana. The facility houses over 6,000 prisoners. In 2010 (the most recent Annual Report available), the average age of the population was 41.6 with 18.3% at or over age 55, and the average length of sentence was 92.40 years. Angola also houses the state’s death row population. 62. Prisoners serving sentences at Angola are generally required to work, usually in the prison’s agricultural fields. Most of the men at Angola are serving sentences “at hard labor.” The most common job is agricultural work in the “fields.” This work consists of tending the crops over Angola’s 18,000-acre property. Field work is physically demanding, requiring men to bend at the knees, hips and back, as well as to walk long distances and hop across agricultural ditches—trenches some two to three feet wide— with no assistance. Even elderly prisoners are required to do this work. 63. Individual prisoners’ work restrictions, if any, are made through a “duty status,” which states specific work restrictions and the time period they cover.
25

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 26 of 79
64. The medical services DOC provides to prisoners at Angola consist of both on-site treatment by DOC personnel and off-site treatment by local hospitals and specialists. (1) On-site Care
65. The R.E. Barrow, Jr. Treatment Center (“TC”) opened at Angola in or around 1994. The TC houses several dozen recuperating or chronically ill prisoners on two wards; an original third ward was shuttered for use as storage space in 1994. The TC houses the Acute Treatment Unit (“ATU”) which functions as Angola’s emergency department and serves prisoners throughout the prison. Currently, Ward 1 of the TC serves Angola’s infirmary while Ward 2 houses prisoners with serious chronic care needs.
66. The prison offers some services on-site including primary care and a handful of specialty clinics for chronic illnesses such as diabetes, HIV, and hepatitis. Some lab work is performed on prison grounds, and some is sent off-site.
67. Subject to the supervision and oversight of Defendant Lamartiniere, Angola employs a medical staff consisting of Defendant Dr. Randy Lavespere, the Medical Director, and approximately five other doctors, as well as Defendant Sherwood Poret, RN, and several nurses.
68. Defendant Lamartiniere does not have a background in medical care and her previous job at Angola was as secretary to Warden Cain.
69. The failures in Angola’s delivery of medical care begin with its intake procedure and extend through the failure to diagnose or properly treat illnesses, including severe and even terminal illnesses.
26

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 27 of 79
70. To request health care, prisoners must submit a Health Care Request Form, Form HC-01A, known as a “sick call form,” describing the need for medical attention. Prisoners are charged $3.00 for “routine sick call” or $6.00 for emergency sick call.
71. Defendants threaten punishment to every prisoner who seeks emergency treatment, placing a written warning on the Health Care Request Form that states “if I declare myself a medical emergency and health care staff determine that an emergency does not exist, I may be subject to disciplinary action for malingering.” Defendants frequently make verbal threats of malingering charges as well. As punishment for supposed malingering, Defendants may issue a disciplinary write-up with consequences that include extended lock-down in a disciplinary camp, in addition to the denial of medical attention.
72. “Sick call” is handled by Emergency Medical Technicians (“EMTs”). EMTs perform an initial assessment of a prisoner’s condition and rank them from 1-4 in terms of urgency. Some are seen or sent to the ATU immediately; some do not see a doctor for months, or at all. Prisoners are charged the fees for sick call and prescriptions regardless of whether they see a doctor.
73. Under this protocol, persons lacking the medical training and experience of physicians, certified physician assistants, or registered nurses are delegated the responsibility and authority to determine whether a prisoner will be scheduled for an appointment with a doctor and what, if any, treatment short of a doctor’s appointment an ailing prisoner will receive.
74. Angola staff are also responsible for distributing prescription medications to prisoners through the “Pill Call” process. Outside the TC, medication distribution and management 27

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 28 of 79
is generally performed by security staff without appropriate medical training, rather than nurses. During Pill Call, prisoners are regularly forced to stand in line for extended periods of time including outdoors under harsh conditions. Pill Calls occur at irregular hours, leaving many prisoners unable to adhere to regular medication regimens. 75. Although Angola prisoners are not in possession of their prescriptions, they are expected to track their own need for prescription refills and request refills several days before the prescription runs out. Defendants do not assist prisoners in tracking this information, causing lapses in prisoners’ use of prescription medication. 76. Many tasks involving the care of chronically ill prisoners are left to so-called orderlies. Orderlies are Angola prisoners who have been assigned to work as medical staff. These men carry out a range of functions throughout the prison, including providing baths, changing wound dressings, and handling hospital linens. The orderlies are not properly trained for many of the duties they are required to perform. (2) Off-site Care 77. Angola does not have the capacity to perform most high-level and specialty care, including surgery. For such services, Defendants send prisoners to off-site facilities, mainly in the Louisiana State University (“LSU”) system. 78. In 2013 and 2014, the State of Louisiana privatized the seven hospitals in LSU’s Health Care Services Division. Six of the original seven hospitals in this system have been transformed to public-private partnerships, including the hospital that treated most Angola prisoners in need of hospital care, Earl K. Long Hospital in Baton Rouge. These hospitals now refuse to treat Angola prisoners.
28

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 29 of 79
79. Around the same time, the LSU School of Medicine terminated a residency rotation at Angola that brought medical students from LSU School of Medicine to Angola to perform diagnostic procedures and some surgeries.
80. Neither the DOC nor the State of Louisiana has adequately replaced the services provided by the defunct residency program or the LSU hospitals. At present, most Angola prisoners with acute medical needs requiring off-site attention are taken to University Medical Center (“UMC-NO,” formerly Interim LSU Hospital) in New Orleans, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge, Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center in Independence, or Lane Regional Medical Center in Zachary. Due to UMCNO’s distance from Angola, Defendants frequently decline to use it, even though Lallie Kemp, Lane, and Our Lady of the Lake have significantly less capacity.
81. Even though the LSU system has been reduced to one hospital, Defendants’ health care policies state that health care delivered outside of DOC facilities or the LSU system “shall only be allowed if that care is medically necessary to save life or limb.” DOC Health Care Policy No. HC-03(6)(C)(3)). B.) Louisiana’s Correctional Health Care System, Long One of the Country’s Most Overburdened Systems, Has Declined Precipitously in Recent Years
82. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 2001 and 2013, prisoners in Louisiana (in both state and federal facilities) had the highest mortality rate of any state in the country, with an average of 479 out of every 100,000 prisoners dying each year. Alex Greer, Louisiana is No. 1 in U.S. for Prisoner Deaths, THE TIMES-PICAYUNE, Apr. 27, 2016, available at www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2016/04/louisiana_leads_the_us_in_pris.html. Over that
29

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 30 of 79
period, Louisiana’s rate of cancer deaths was nearly 50% higher than the next closest state, it had the highest rate of AIDS-related deaths and deaths from heart disease, and it was among the five worst states in deaths from liver disease and respiratory disease. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Mortality in Local Jails and State Prisons, 2000-2013 – Statistical Tables,” Tab. 27. Similarly, Louisiana has the second highest rate of HIVpositive prisoners in the country. Human Rights Watch, Paying the Price: Failure to Deliver HIV Services in Louisiana Parish Jails 2 (Mar. 2016). 83. In the years since these mortality statistics were recorded, conditions at Louisiana prisons, including Angola, have continued to decline. Over the last several years, DOC has reduced its budget for hospital care for inmates from approximately $75 million to $30.2 million per year in fiscal year 2016. See Andrea Gallo, State Again Paying for Jail Inmate Hospital Care, but East Baton Rouge Jail Still Struggling with Medical Operations, THE ADVOCATE, Mar. 19, 2016, available at theadvocate.com/news/15032330-125/state-again-paying-for-jail-inmate-hospital-carebut-east-baton-rouge-jail-still-struggling-with-med. 84. Defendant Sec. LeBlanc has stated that the state does not provide enough funding for DOC to provide proper medical care to inmates, acknowledging that the shortfalls create constitutional violations. Bryn Stole, Corrections Outlines Plans for $14.2 Million Shortfall, Including Plans to Potentially Shut Down Two Privately Run Prisons, Reducing Sheriffs' Pay for Housing State Inmates, THE ADVOCATE, Feb. 19, 2016, http://theadvocate.com/news/14929795-123/corrections-outlines-plans-for-142-millionshortfall (“We can’t medicate them, we can’t house them, we can’t feed them – and those are constitutional issues.”).
30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 31 of 79
85. Because of budget shortfalls, Defendant DOC is reportedly considering a plan to close two privately run state prisons, Winn Correctional Center and Allen Correctional Center, and transfer the inmates with physical and mental illnesses to other state prisons, further burdening an overloaded system with foreseeable, significant negative impact on the provision of medical care to Angola prisoners. Id.
86. Defendants have publicly claimed that they have “vastly expanded the types of health care offered inside some prisons” since Earl K. Long’s closure, such that “[s]tate prisoners with health problems travel less and spend fewer hours admitted to hospitals under the new system.” See Ben Wallace, With Closure of Public Hospitals, Medical Care for Louisiana Inmates Shifts to Prisons, THE ADVOCATE, Dec. 1, 2014, available at theadvocate.com/news/10931711-123/with-closure-of-public-hospitals.
87. At Angola, however, there has been no discernable expansion of medical care since Earl K. Long’s closure. On the contrary, Plaintiffs and other prisoners report that they receive even less care now than under the previous system. For instance, few if any prisoners receive physical therapy, and screenings for common cancers and other medical conditions appear to have disappeared.
88. Defendants also stated in December 2014 that they planned to “treat[] some parish inmates at prisons such as the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola,” further burdening the Angola system and limiting the care available to members of the Plaintiff class. Id.
89. Similarly, Warden Cain, the predecessor of Defendant Warden Vannoy, stated that as a result of cutbacks and increased costs, “our pharmacy at Angola is doing the pharmacy work for Avoyelles and another prison or two.” Sue Lincoln, Inmate Care More Complicated Since Privatization, WRKF, Feb. 10, 2015, available at 31

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 32 of 79
wrkf.org/post/inmate-care-more-complicated-privatization. In addition to its own prisoners, Angola’s pharmacy services Dixon Correctional Institution and Avoyelles Correctional Center. Angola pharmacists report that they process about 263,000 prescriptions per month. 90. Defendants have not indicated that they hired additional pharmacy staff to address this increased workload. 91. Defendants have also acknowledged delayed and withheld care in emails. For example, in February 2012, Defendant Stacye Falgout sent an email to colleagues regarding “Offender visits to outside facilities,” in which she noted, “Secretary LeBlanc and Dr. Singh have expressed their concerns to Secretary Greenstein and the Governor’s Office regarding delay of critical care. DHH and the Governor’s office are in agreement that delay of care is not acceptable. . . . These are some examples of problems that have been brought up recently: Radiotherapy delayed for over 4 months after recommended; Refusal to provide a hip replacement until after the offender gets out of prison which is several years from now; Cancellation of an appointment and suggest resubmit if still needed. It appears that this may be a way of delaying care.” Email from Stacye Falgout, Corrections, to Bessie Carter et al., Feb. 2, 2012, 9:29 AM. 92. In recent months, Defendants have attempted to paper over the problems identified in this lawsuit by transferring many several disabled inmates—particularly those requiring wheelchairs—to EHCC. Far from improving the treatment of these inmates in DOC custody, these transfers have overburdened EHCC, which is not designed, outfitted, or staffed to accommodate such a significant influx of inmates with severe medical needs. These en masse transfers lacked any plausible correctional or medical basis; rather,
32

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 33 of 79
Defendants apparently moved dozens of wheelchair-bound inmates, many of whom had resided at Angola for decades, in an apparent attempt to improve Defendants’ chances in this lawsuit. However, Defendants have the power to transfer these inmates back to Angola at any time for any reason, just as they had the power to transfer them out of Angola to gain some perceived litigation benefit. B) Defendants’ Provision of Medical Care Is Medically and Constitutionally Deficient. 93. The Plaintiffs described above are suffering as a result of unconstitutional policies and practices that lead to endemic deficiencies in medical care. This inadequate care affects all Angola prisoners with serious medical needs, especially those with disabilities, and places every other prisoner at Angola at a risk of harm. 94. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide adequate medical care to prisoners, and are deliberately indifferent to the fact that their failure to do so subjects Plaintiffs to a substantial risk of serious harm, unnecessary suffering, clinical deterioration, or death. 95. Defendants fully control all medical care available to prisoners at Angola. Defendant DOC currently incarcerates at Angola significant numbers of individuals with disabilities, as that term is defined in the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Defendants fail to provide prisoners with disabilities with basic reasonable accommodations to ensure equivalent access to all of the programs, activities, and services offered at the prison. Defendants’ failure to accommodate prisoners with disabilities not only denies them access to prison programs and services, but also substantially increases the risk that they will be injured in an emergency. Defendants’ refusal to accommodate prisoners with disabilities contributes to the provision of inadequate medical care.
33

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 34 of 79
96. The following systemic policies and practices, both individually and in combination, deprive Plaintiffs of their right to adequate medical care. i. Defendants Routinely Delay Evaluation, Treatment, and Access to Specialty Care
97. Defendants routinely fail to provide timely access to health care at all stages of the health care delivery system.
98. First, Defendants delay evaluation and initial response when a medical need first arises or comes to their attention. Defendants fail to provide timely access to health care and are deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm and injury to prisoners that results from this systemic failure.
99. When a sick call form is submitted, it is not processed in a medically acceptable or timely manner. Inadequately trained lower-level staff triage the sick call forms and decide whether to schedule a visit with a doctor, nurse or other qualified staff, without sufficient information. Prisoners often face a delay of many weeks or often months before they receive medicine or are even examined by qualified clinicians. Prisoners experience harm and unnecessary pain and suffering as a result.
100. EMTs are trained to respond to immediate medical emergencies, and lack the training, expertise, and experience to evaluate or diagnose most medical needs. Thus Defendants’ sick call process delegates determinations regarding prisoners’ medical problems and needs to individuals unqualified to perform this function, with often severe consequences for those prisoners.
101. Lengthy delays in responding to sick call forms and providing necessary health care are the prison-wide norm. For example:
34

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 35 of 79
a. Plaintiff Rufus White awaited a chest x-ray for more than two years to investigate chronic chest pain. He is still awaiting diagnostic tests for frequent blood in his stool and other symptoms of pain and swelling in and around his abdomen.
b. Plaintiff Clyde Carter has suffered from an apparent torn knee ligament since December 2013 with neither diagnosis nor treatment. Mr. Carter has submitted approximately 15 sick call forms without receiving appropriate treatment.
c. Plaintiff Ricky Davis made sick call April 9, 2010, May 3, 2010, August 4, 2010, September 1, 2010, October 11, 2010, February 14, 2011, May 1, 2011, June 11, 2011, June 16, 2011, October 18, 2012, May 25, 2013, and March 16, 2015, complaining of back and leg pain and/or numbness in his legs.
d. Plaintiff Edward Giovanni made sick call about his breathing trouble and/or problems with intense summer heat on January 17, 2011, May 16, 2011, May 29, 2011, October 23, 2011, January 22, 2012, July 3, 2012, July 5, 2012, July 16, 2012, and August 1, 2012. Three of these were Emergency Sick Calls. He also made sick call for breathing trouble and a red spot on his leg, requesting examination and diagnosis, on October 11, 2012.
e. Plaintiff Shannon Hurd repeatedly requested medical attention for drastic deterioration of his health from 2010 to 2015 including when he began rapidly losing weight beginning in 2012. He was repeatedly told by Angola medical staff that nothing was wrong with him. When he finally received a CT scan in October 2015, he was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer including a tumor on his kidney that he was told had likely been there 3-4 years.
35

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 36 of 79
f. In addition to the named plaintiffs, Lionel Parks, who is now deceased, suffered a stroke in July 2014 while housed in the Ash-2 dorm. Mr. Parks made four requests for emergency medical attention, telling medical personnel he believed he was having a stroke due to numbness in his body, but Angola staff only took his blood pressure, said he was fine, and sent him back to the medical dorm. He only received medical attention after his fourth request.
g. One 64-year-old prisoner with a family history of kidney failure was urinating blood for more than four years with no diagnosis. In July 2014, he was sent to Lallie Kemp hospital, but Angola staff did not send his records so the hospital refused to admit him. He subsequently returned and had a scope (camera inserted in his penis) that left his penis torn and bleeding. Defendants failed to provide the prescribed follow-up treatment of antibiotics, warm baths, and daily checkups.
h. One 54-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 17 years has awaited a colonoscopy and a prostate cancer screening that were recommended several years prior, and has undiagnosed spots all over his skin. He often cannot empty his bladder, wakes up five times a night to urinate, only passes his bowels once every six days, and has had black and red blood in his stool. This prisoner’s symptoms are consistent with an enlarged prostate and require additional screening for cancer and attention from a urologist.
i. A 56-year-old prisoner with diagnosed Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder waited ten months to have a spot on his lung biopsied.
j. Former plaintiff Joseph Lewis, now deceased, had chronic throat problems since his arrival at Angola in 2012 and repeatedly filed sick call forms reporting his 36

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 37 of 79
symptoms. Defendants took no meaningful steps to diagnose the cause of his symptoms until January 2015, after attorneys visited Mr. Lewis. At that time, he was sent to LSU Hospital and recommended for an immediate biopsy by the LSU specialist. Defendants then waited another three months before allowing Mr. Lewis to receive a biopsy. He was diagnosed with throat cancer in April 2015 and died in November 2015. 102. Angola doctors tell prisoners that they can only talk to them about whatever problem was listed on the sick call form. Prisoners are not allowed to raise any other medical issues during these appointments, and to the extent they try to do so the doctors ignore them. 103. Even after a physician has recommended treatment or further diagnostic tests, Defendants routinely delay for months or years before providing the recommended care. For example: a. Dr. Roundtree recommended surgery at least ten years ago for Plaintiff John Tonubbee’s degenerative joint condition. To date, Mr. Tonnubee still has not received the recommended surgery. 104. Prisoners with HIV, including Plaintiff Reginald George, have been subjected to yearslong suspensions in the delivery of medications, doctor visits, and other forms of care. 105. In several instances, Defendants have denied care for years until Plaintiffs began to meet with attorneys in connection with this action. The prospect of legal action has repeatedly been the only thing that has spurred Defendants to provide long-delayed treatment. For example:
37

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 38 of 79
a. Plaintiff Rufus White received a chest x-ray that he had been requesting for more than two years only after meeting with attorneys. He was not informed of the results
b. Plaintiff Farrell Sampier only received surgery to relieve the pain of his split penis at the site of his catheter after he met with attorneys.
c. Plaintiff Ricky Davis was only brought to a neurosurgeon after he began meeting with attorneys, although he was already awaiting an appointment for about a year.
d. Plaintiff Clyde Carter, who needs knee surgery, was given a top bunk despite being officially assigned to a bottom bunk for a year after his injury. He received a bottom bunk in late 2014 after he began meeting with attorneys.
e. Plaintiff Edward Giovanni was only transferred from the Cypress-2 dorm to the TC Ward upon the urging of attorneys who were gravely concerned for his medical condition and the conditions in the Cypress-2 dorm.
f. Former named plaintiff Joseph Lewis, now deceased, did not have his throat biopsied until after he met with attorneys, despite years of requests. He was diagnosed in April 2015 with throat cancer and died in November 2015.
g. A 58-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 37 years was blinded by a cellmate in 1998. For the next 16 years, Defendants refused to give him a cane, house him in a ward with accommodations for vision-impaired prisoners, or provide him with any assistance from caretakers. Instead, he was dependent on fellow prisoners for most aspects of daily life. The prison first provided him a cane on February 11, 2015, immediately before a return visit by attorneys. Even
38

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 39 of 79
then, the cane was a standard support cane, not a tapping cane, and thus inappropriate for his disability. h. A 41-year-old prisoner, who has been at Angola for six years and suffers from severe hemorrhoids and rectal fissures he began to develop around 2009, received surgery in January 2015, after he began meeting with attorneys. The surgery did not resolve the problem. i. A 51-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 26 years suffered with an epididymis cyst in his testicle the size of a softball for five years before finally receiving surgery in September 2014, after he began to meet with attorneys. j. A 60-year-old prisoner who was awaiting hernia surgery since 2008 finally received surgery in 2015, after he began meeting with attorneys. k. A 56-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 38 years had an inguinal hernia on his right side for about four years and received no treatment for frequent stabbing pain other than occasional over-the-counter medications. During this time, Dr. Lavespere told this prisoner that he was on a list of some 200 men who need hernia surgery. This prisoner finally received his surgery in 2015 immediately after the original complaint was filed in this action. 106. In these instances, Defendants delayed treatment until they were aware that a lawsuit was imminent. ii. Defendants Routinely Deny Plaintiffs Medically Necessary Treatment 107. Not only do Defendants delay medical care to dangerous extremes, they have a practice of entirely denying Plaintiffs medically necessary care, including surgery, diagnostic
39

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 40 of 79
tests, follow-up care, medication, medical devices, physical therapy, and medical supplies. 108. Defendants’ long-standing refusal to perform hernia surgeries, which had persisted for years at the time this action was filed, illustrates their willful refusal to provide medically necessary care to prisoners, despite knowing that failure to do so will cause continuing and worsening pain and suffering. Several prisoners have been awaiting surgery for large hernias for years. 109. In 2012, Defendants gathered a group of prisoners with hernias in need of surgery, and told them that the prison will not perform surgeries because of budget cuts. Dr. Collins and other Angola staff informed a gathering of several class members that the prison would not pay for their needed surgeries and that, barring a lawsuit, they would simply not receive the treatment they needed. This practice has been noted in other litigation brought by individual Angola prisoners and has been acknowledged by this Court. Giovanni v. Cain et al., no. 13-cv-00566-BAJ-RLB, Doc. 32, Magistrate Judge’s report, Feb. 11, 2015 (denying summary judgment, citing “affidavits of defendants Kenny Norris and Stephanie Lamartiniere indicat[ing] that prison officials have admittedly relied upon the over-stressed charity hospital system for hernia surgeries, which system is only performing a limited number of such surgeries, and then only when the need for surgery has become an emergency,” and citing Hymel Varnado v. James LeBlanc, et al., Civil Action No. 13-0348-JWD-SCR; Kenneth Lesley v. N. Burl Cain, et al., Civil Action No. 13-0490-JJB-SCR; Wayne Fritz v. N. Burl Cain et al., Civil Action No. 13-0673-JWDSCR, noting that all of these cases survived summary judgment motions).
40

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 41 of 79
110. A 51-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for 26 years suffered with an epididymis cyst in his testicle the size of a softball for five years before finally receiving surgery in September 2014. A doctor told him in 2010 that surgery was the only treatment option, and that Angola was waiting for the New Orleans urology clinic to schedule the surgery. However, the prisoner saw a doctor in New Orleans in 2013 who asked him why he did not come to the surgery that had been scheduled a year previously. Throughout these years, he experienced constant, sometimes debilitating pain. His cyst once ruptured when he was hit with a softball, but refilled within two weeks.
111. Defendants’ outright refusal to provide medically necessary treatment—whether due to expense, inattention, or other reasons—extends to a wide variety of conditions. For example: a. Plaintiff John Tonubbee has received no treatment for a degenerative joint disorder diagnosed in 2005. Angola doctors have told him that he will not receive surgery due to a lack of funds. b. Plaintiff Otto Barrera has been refused reconstructive surgery for his face because the surgery was deemed “cosmetic,” even though he is missing the lower half of his jaw, is unable to eat, and has had an enteral tube and detachable port for eating and medication delivery. c. Plaintiff Kentrell Parker, who is quadriplegic, has for years received no physical therapy at all. d. Plaintiff Lionel Tolbert has been denied surgery to resolve arterial blockages in his legs and suffers extreme pain, swelling, and discoloration.
41

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 42 of 79
112. Similarly, Defendants fail to provide follow-up care that is ordered by outside medical providers. For example: a. Plaintiff Ricky Davis had surgery in February 2014, and instead of being allowed to convalesce in the infirmary as ordered, he was sent straight back to his dorm with staples still in his back. b. Plaintiff Alton Adams has undergone a series of amputations on his right leg, the first of which may have been avoidable altogether, but the second and third of which directly resulted from the improper management of his surgery site and his development of infections, including gangrene, while housed at Angola. c. After his penis was internally torn during a medical exam, a 64-year-old prisoner was prescribed antibiotics, warm baths, and daily checkups. He received none of these forms of follow-up care. d. Plaintiff Ian Cazenave faces the possibility of permanent disfigurement if Angola’s refusal to provide certain forms of medical care leaves no other option than that his legs be amputated.
113. Doctors at UMC-NO regularly make written requests for follow-up appointments with prisoners on the prisoners’ discharge forms, but find these requests ignored by DOC. As a result, these doctors may not see prisoners for several months, by which point the prisoners’ illnesses have become advanced or untreatable.
114. The inevitable consequences of Defendants’ denials of care are tragically illustrated by James Johnson, DOC No. 87338, who died March 10, 2015. He received treatment for multiple myeloma until 2012, when Defendants told him that the treatment was too
42

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 43 of 79
expensive to continue. Instead of receiving chemotherapy, he received steroids that caused his legs to swell and his blood sugar to remain high. His cancer progressed to the point where he could not even have a broken arm set, due to the deterioration of his shoulder. After denying curative treatment for years, Defendants placed him in hospice care in approximately June 2014. Before his death, he reported that his doctors only made rounds once every one to two months. 115. Joseph Lewis and Lionel Parks, whose medical declines and deaths are detailed supra (see “Former Plaintiffs”), similarly illustrate the inevitable consequences of Defendants’ denials of care. iii. Defendants Do Not Provide and Manage Medication in Accordance with
Prescriptions and Medically Appropriate Treatment Courses 116. Defendants do not properly provide or manage prescribed medication, leading to
widespread use of incorrect and inappropriate medication, interrupted or incomplete dosages, and sudden introduction or cessation of medications that are supposed to be gradually tapered up or down. As a consequence, Plaintiffs face a serious risk of unnecessary harm, ineffective treatment, and potentially severe or life-threatening side effects. 117. Prisoners at Angola are subject to abrupt changes in their prescribed medications. These include substitution of prescribed medication with other medication, which is not always clinically indicated for the prisoner’s medical need; failure to follow medically appropriate dispensation schedules; the sudden cessation of prescribed medications; and the failure to monitor medications that are supposed to be administered with oversight. Relatedly, Defendants fail to provide special diets that are prescribed to help manage an
43

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 44 of 79
illness, a medication, or both. Defendants also fail to provide necessary medical devices and supplies, including those prescribed by outside doctors. As a result of these practices, prisoners at Angola risk unnecessary pain and are subject to complications that can cause serious harm to their health. 118. Defendants routinely fail to provide prisoners with the full course of their medication, fail to provide medication as prescribed or in a timely fashion, and inappropriately start and stop medication. As a result, prisoners suffer unnecessary harm, including the risk of developing drug-resistant strains of bacteria. For example:
a. Plaintiff Reginald George was refused medications to manage his HIV between 2010 and 2012, despite his requests and despite the importance of consistency in antiretroviral treatment.
b. Plaintiff John Tonubee was prescribed cortisone shots for his knees four to six times a month, but only receives them approximately every six months.
c. Many class members have simply not been given their medication at all because Defendants failed to replenish the pharmacy supply.
d. A 51-year-old prisoner diagnosed with congestive heart failure in 2007 saw his diuretic medication abruptly switched by Defendants and began to experience more shortness of breath. The same prisoner received a laxative (milk of magnesia) when he had diarrhea, and received only ibuprofen when he came to the Treatment Center with a kidney stone (which he subsequently passed with extreme pain).
44

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 45 of 79
e. A 39-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for five years had, at the time the original complaint in this action was filed, a protruding abdominal hernia that caused severe pain and an inflamed, painful hemorrhoid in the crack of his buttocks. He had only been given Preparation H and suppositories, at times inconsistently.
f. A 41-year-old prisoner who has been at Angola for six years has suffered from severe hemorrhoids and rectal fissures for more than two years. He has requested treatment from Defendants on multiple occasions. His hemorrhoids are untreated. Although he received surgery to repair his rectal fissures in January 2015, the surgery did not resolve the problem. He received suppositories for some time, but stopped receiving them and was told they are too expensive.
119. Defendants only provide medications that are listed on a limited formulary of approved medication, and routinely substitute doctor-approved drug regimens with drugs on the formulary. While this policy could be constitutionally adequate in theory, in practice prisoners are deprived of medications that are well-established as effective for their health conditions, and receive inferior, inappropriate, or obsolete medications, or nothing at all.
120. Class members suffering severe pain provide an example of Defendants’ provision of inappropriate or inadequate medication. Several class members receive Keppra—a seizure medication—to treat pain, even though Keppra does not relieve pain. Indeed, Keppra is prescribed at far higher rates at Angola than at any other facility in the DOC system. Other prisoners have received only over-the-counter treatments like ibuprofen or Tylenol for very painful conditions such as kidney stones or hernias. 45

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 46 of 79
121. Defendants routinely fail to provide or maintain medically necessary devices. For example: a. Plaintiff Otto Barrera’s enteral feeding and medication tube was not cleaned or replaced for approximately a year and a half, until the day he was scheduled to meet with attorneys in connection with this action, April 29, 2015. At the prison where he was previously housed, the tube was cleaned regularly. When not changed regularly, the tube oozes blood every two or three days. He retained this tube until December 2015, when it fell out of his chest. b. Plaintiff Clyde Carter, who has had one or more apparent torn knee ligaments for over two years, has not only been refused surgery, but has also been refused a doctor-recommended stabilizing knee brace with metal rods, and instead given only a Velcro brace that does not hold his injured knee in place. He was later offered an oversized brace and told that he would be punished if it was misplaced; his declining of the offer of an ill-suited brace was apparently recorded as a refusal of treatment. He has regularly been forced to work in the fields with this inadequate device. c. Plaintiff Alton Batiste, who became blind while in custody at Angola, has never been furnished with a tapping cane. The only cane he has, a standard support cane, he received from another prisoner who died. Mr. Batiste resides in a housing unit where he is entirely dependent on the men around him to carry out the tasks of daily living. d. As described above, a 58-year-old prisoner who has been blind since 1998, was not given a cane for 16 years, until he was visited by attorneys. He then received 46

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 47 of 79
a standard support cane, not a medically appropriate tapping cane, on February 11, 2015. 122. Defendants also fail to maintain sufficient medical supplies on site. For example: a. In or around May 2014, the Angola hospital ran out of a number of hygienic supplies, including yellow plastic pads that assist in preventing bedsores from developing and becoming infected. Defendants informed prisoners that they would have to wait longer to have their mats changed. Many of the prisoners who utilize these pads are paraplegic; nearly all are bedridden. These men are forced to sit in their own urine and feces until they can get the attention of an orderly to change their pads. b. In addition to the shortage of hygienic pads, Plaintiff Kentrell Parker also endures regular shortages of tracheal supplies, subjecting him to unnecessary risk of infection or other complications. c. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff Farrell Sampier with wheelchair gloves to prevent the formation of callouses and blisters on his hands. He has purchased mittens from the Commissary to try to address this problem. d. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff John Tonubbee with orthopedic shoes that are appropriate to his condition. e. Likewise, Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff Alton Adams with an orthopedic shoe for his remaining foot.
47

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 48 of 79
iv. Defendants Do Not Maintain Medically Adequate Records or Ensure that Plaintiffs’ Medical Needs Are Addressed in Follow-Up Care or Conditions of Confinement
123. Defendants’ record-keeping practices are inadequate, not only contributing to the problems discussed above but also leading to a failure to provide adequate follow-up care. Similarly, Defendants’ failure to adequately track Plaintiffs’ medical care prevents Plaintiffs’ diagnoses and medical needs from being incorporated in their dietary plans, work requirements, housing assignments, and other aspects of their confinement.
124. Defendants’ system for tracking prescription medications expects prisoners themselves to track their need for prescription refills and make those requests several days before their prescriptions run out. Even when prisoners do make timely requests, they frequently face gaps in their prescription medication regimens.
125. Prisoners who request medical visits but are refused are entered into the system as “no shows” and are held responsible for having missed medical appointments, even where they had no ability to do otherwise.
126. Defendants’ record-keeping practices are also inadequate in that they regularly lead to prisoners being transported to outside hospitals only to learn that they cannot be seen because their records were not transmitted.
127. Doctors in New Orleans who treat Angola prisoners report that they often receive confusing and apparently padded medical records for these patients.
128. Many prisoners are on prescribed diets with medically important restrictions. Defendants do not provide compliant meals to many such prisoners. For example: a. Mr. Barrera is not supposed to be given large pieces of food because his lower jaw is missing, but he does not receive food different from anyone else. 48

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 49 of 79
b. Mr. Tolbert is supposed to receive a special diet because of his diabetes, but instead receives the same food as other prisoners but without seasoning.
c. A 59-year-old prisoner taking Coumadin, a blood thinner, is not provided with a medically required diet, even though an unregulated diet can lead to dangerously low levels of coagulants, with potentially fatal consequences.
129. Additionally, Defendants fail to monitor medications that are supposed to be administered with oversight, such as regular blood tests, subjecting prisoners to the substantial risk of serious harm. For example: a. The 59-year-old prisoner taking Coumadin, described above, was not receiving regular blood tests at the time the original complaint was filed in this action, although standard medical practice is to monitor patients’ clotting time with weekly or monthly blood tests to avoid potentially fatal complications. b. Several diabetic prisoners, including Plaintiffs Lionel Tolbert and Edward Washington, report that they have no means of monitoring their own blood sugar levels. Mr. Washington was previously housed at Camp J, among Angola’s most restrictive housing units, where he was required to self-administer insulin even though his diabetes has caused him to suffer vision impairment that made this task especially difficult and exposed him to the unnecessary risk of harm.
130. As a result of Defendants’ failure to appropriately staff Angola’s medical unit, even basic tasks of self-care and personal hygiene are not done for men who cannot do them on their own. For example, Plaintiff Kentrell Parker has missed several days of breakfast because, although his food was delivered, there was no one to feed him.
49

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 50 of 79
131. Prisoners with injuries or disabilities are often required to work in the fields. (See paragraph 62, above.) Although medical staff sometimes provide a “duty status” to prisoners who have a medical need for a work exemption or restriction (or would provide such status if prisoners were not denied medical examinations as described above), duty status is often assigned late, inadequately, or not at all. This includes only assigning duty status for a short period to prisoners with a long medical recovery period, or assigning certain restrictions but not other medically necessary restrictions. Moreover, even when duty status is assigned, Plaintiffs are often forced to perform work beyond its scope due to Defendants’ poor record-keeping or correctional officers’ sheer disregard of the duty status. For example: a. Plaintiff Cedric Evans was forced to work in the fields during several months where he had an undiagnosed broken clavicle. b. Since apparently tearing ligaments in his knee in October 2013, Plaintiff Clyde Carter has been issued short-term duty statuses restricting him from field work, but is repeatedly forced back into the fields before they are renewed. c. Plaintiff Ricky D. Davis was assigned to scrub kitchen pots and pans outdoors on the ground despite being given “No Kitchen” duty status. By assigning Mr. Davis to this task, Defendants willfully subjected him to a risk of exacerbating the back injury that his duty status was purportedly intended to avoid.
132. Defendants also discourage prisoners from seeking medically-based work restrictions by adding on punitive and medically unnecessary restrictions, such as bans on “hobbycraft” activities.
50

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 51 of 79
v. Defendants Use a “Malingering” Rule Designed to Discourage Plaintiffs from Requesting Medical Assistance and Retaliate Against Inmates Who Question Their Treatment by Denying Them Care
133. Defendants threaten to punish and do punish Plaintiffs for alleged malingering as a means of discouraging individuals from seeking access to medical care. As described supra, Defendants’ sick call form bears written warning to the prisoner that “if I declare myself a medical emergency and health care staff determine that an emergency does not exist, I may be subject to disciplinary action for malingering.”
134. Accusations of—and punishment for allegations of—malingering have a chilling effect on Angola prisoners’ ability to seek appropriate medical care. Defendants’ actions, ranging from disregard and neglect of medical complaints to actual disciplinary writeups, reflect their approach to Plaintiffs’ medical needs as, primarily, a matter of identifying who is malingering. For example, a. Plaintiff Clyde Carter was accused of malingering when he initially injured his knee, and has faced charges of disobedience when his injury interferes with his ability to perform field work. b. Plaintiff Kentrell Parker, who is quadriplegic, was put in an isolation cell after being accused of disobedience in response to his verbal complaints about receiving inadequate care, even though he is unable to move any body part below his neck and would be unable to notify staff if he undergoes a medical emergency while in an isolation room.
135. Several prisoners also report having been retaliated against, including by being sent to extended lockdown, for pursuing complaints about medical care. Many prisoners have
51

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 52 of 79
been verbally discouraged by staff from pursuing medical care. Some prisoners who were interviewed in the course of the investigation preceding this Complaint asked not to participate as named plaintiffs specifically because of their fear of retaliation. 136. The U.S. Department of Justice cited the threat of a malingering charge as a deterrent to seeking medical care as far back as the 1990s, as described below. 137. Defendants also retaliate against inmates who question their medical treatment or point out apparent problems by denying treatment altogether. Many inmates have been denied care after asking questions about the medications they were given, pointing out medical contraindications, or noting that a medical device the prison had on hand was not appropriate for their needs. In response, Defendants have listed them as refusing care and used this “refusal” as justification for both denying care at that particular instance and in the future. Defendants do this even though they know, as Dr. Singh noted in an email to Angola staff, that discontinuation of medication for noncompliance is “more punitive than prescriptive” and “if done negligently may result in a finding of malpractice.” vii. Defendants Fail to Employ Sufficient Medical Staff, and Employ Correctional
Personnel, Orderlies, or EMTs to Perform Tasks that Should Be Performed by Medical Professionals 138. Underlying many of the deficiencies in the delivery of medical care at Angola is Defendants’ chronic failure to fill enough health care positions with qualified professionals. Defendants do not employ enough medical, dental, and mental health professionals (not only licensed doctors, but also qualified nurses and physician’s assistants) to meet the needs of the Angola population and maintain a community standard of care for the men housed at the prison.
52

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 53 of 79
139. Defendants are well aware of this staffing problem. In 2012, Dr. Raman Singh, the Medical Director for the DOC, was quoted with regard to medical staffing, stating, “I can’t find a doctor at all for six months, and that creates a huge liability for the unit and for the institution. To me, it’s like running Angola without security. The point is, it’s easier to find security officers. It’s really impossible to find physicians. When I was new, I was told that ‘we just need a body in that job.’ Sometimes it’s so desperate a situation, you just need a body in the job.” Cindy Chang, Many doctors treating state’s prisoners have disciplinary records themselves, THE TIMES-PICAYUNE, July 29, 2012, available at www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/07/many_doctors_treating_states_p.html.
140. Several Angola doctors have restricted medical licenses that limit where they can practice, whom they can treat, or what type of treatment they can order. Id. These restrictions highlight the apparent scarcity of doctors willing to work at Angola.
141. Instead of maintaining an adequate medical staff to carry out the duties involved in caring for a population of more than 6,000 prisoners, Defendants call upon correctional personnel, EMTs, and prisoner orderlies to perform tasks that require qualified medical professionals. This directly contributes to the many deficiencies in care described above.
142. EMTs, in responding to Sick Call requests, are called upon to make medical decisions that they are not qualified to render. The EMTs effectively serve as gatekeepers between the vast majority of the men housed at Angola and the doctors, nurses, and other qualified medical staff at the prison. These lower-level medical staff may fail to recognize when a prisoner is experiencing an emergency.
53

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 54 of 79
143. In many parts of the prison beyond the Treatment Center, security staff perform Pill Call, where medications are dispensed multiple times per day. Security staff are unqualified to perform this role.
144. Defendants do not take adequate steps to make sure that medication distribution is correctly administered or accurately tracked. For example, correctional staff often distribute medication to dozens of inmates and only then, after the completion of distribution, record their recollection of which inmates received medication and what they received. This results in unreliable records of what medications have been taken and inadequate assurance that medications have been received, including medications whose abrupt discontinuance can lead to severe medical consequences.
145. Defendants have not adequately trained security and health care staff on how to handle health care emergencies, and as a result of this failure to respond properly and timely to emergencies, prisoners suffer avoidable harm and injuries, including unnecessary deaths. Correctional staff, who lack medical training, also act as gatekeepers, making critical decisions about whether emergency care is warranted when a medical situation arises in areas of the prison where medical staff may not be present. In the course of their general oversight responsibilities within the prison, these correctional officers decide whether and when to contact medical staff when a prisoner complains of or shows signs of a medical emergency.
146. Defendants do not maintain sufficient trained staff in Ward 2, the chronic care ward of the TC, to take care of prisoners with paraplegia or other conditions.
54

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 55 of 79
147. Nurses employed in Ward 2 rarely leave their glassed-in “pod” on Ward 2 to make rounds on the ward. This responsibility is instead left to prisoner orderlies who have been assigned to work as orderlies.
148. In addition to their lack of medical training, prisoner orderlies are tasked with more work than they are able to carry out in a given day. Ward 2 generally has only one orderly who is caring for dozens of prisoners. The orderly often has to ask assistance from other prisoners in order to perform certain tasks for the men in need of the most acute care. Orderlies receive minimal training and, for many of their tasks, no training at all.
149. Prisoners with paraplegia, such as Plaintiff Kentrell Parker, are entirely dependent upon orderlies to assist them with major life activities. The vast majority of Mr. Parker’s daily care is carried out by orderlies who lack sufficient medical training for the sorts of tasks they perform for him, including bathing and changing wound dressings. The same is true for Plaintiff Farrell Sampier and several other men on Ward 2 who have paraplegia.
150. Orderlies sometimes physically abuse men who are in their care. The lack of supervision from prison staff allows this abuse to occur. Prisoners have observed physical and sexual abuse of prisoners by orderlies, with no apparent punishment or intervention from prison staff.
151. The experiences of the named Plaintiffs as alleged herein provide only a partial view of the pervasive, systemic nature of the deficiencies characterizing Angola’s provision of and/or failure to provide medical care to the prisoners in its custody. The critical implications of the systemic deficiencies characterizing the provision of medical care at Angola are both apparent and disturbing.
55

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 56 of 79
C.) Defendants Have Been Deliberately Indifferent to the Substantial Risk of Serious Harm to Which Their Policies and Practices Expose Plaintiffs 152. Defendants are well aware that the systemic policies and practices discussed above are ongoing and pose a substantial risk of serious harm, including unnecessary pain and suffering, long-term disability or disfigurement, and death. Defendants are on notice from several sources, including direct observation and receipt of prisoner complaints, previous DOJ and class action litigation, and communications from Plaintiffs’ attorneys.
i. Defendants Are Aware of Prisoner Health Problems and the Care Prisoners Receive, from Direct Observation and Patient Complaints
153. Defendants have seen countless examples of the tragic consequences of their inadequate care. As outlined above, Defendants have repeatedly seen their prisoners—men entirely under their control and care—complain of health care problems for years before even being examined, and then learned that their conditions have progressed past the point of treatment. The many resulting deaths and permanent disabilities, only a few of which are outlined above, put Defendants on notice that their policies and practices were insufficient to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to Plaintiffs.
154. Plaintiffs themselves have repeatedly complained about Defendants’ practices, as have many members of the Plaintiff Class. Counsel for Plaintiffs have received reports of inadequate medical care from more than 200 men imprisoned at Angola, the vast majority of whom have complained to Defendants through Sick Call, the designated first-line mechanism to bring their medical complaints to the attention of Defendants. Many of these men, including all named Plaintiffs, have also utilized the Administrative Remedy Procedure (“ARP”) grievance process, which brings their concerns to the attention of various officials at the prison and the DOC.
56

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 57 of 79
155. When prisoners submit ARPs and Defendants provide a response (which does not always occur), the responses are incorrect, inadequate, incomplete, arbitrary, or even counterproductive. For example, one prisoner received an ARP response saying that he had seen a doctor on a date that had not yet occurred. Generally, ARP responses consist of formulaic language citing elements of the prisoner’s medical records and stating that their complaints are therefore unfounded. Second-step ARP responses, which come from DOC headquarters, generally say that the medical care the prisoner is receiving “is deemed adequate.” ii. The DOJ and Prior Litigation Identified Defendants’ Medical and Constitutional Deficiencies
156. In addition to contemporary complaints, Defendants have been aware that many of their policies and practices are medically and constitutionally deficient for more than 25 years.
157. At least as early as 1991, the United States Department of Justice informed DOC that its “[f]ailure to provide adequate medical and psychiatric care” deprived Angola prisoners of their constitutional rights. DOJ specifically cited a number of practices that Angola continues to this day, including delaying the provision of necessary medical care, providing inadequate follow-up care, maintaining inadequate medical records, having untrained personnel conducting sick call and distributing medication, employing the punitive malingering rule, and understaffing their medical personnel. See Exhibit A.
158. In January 1992, prisoners filed a class action lawsuit, Lynn v. Williams, case no. 92-cv001 (M.D.La.), against the DOC in this Court, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by the conditions of their confinement. In July 1994, DOJ asked the court to allow them to intervene under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42
57

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 58 of 79
U.S.C. § 1997, et seq. In September 1994, this Court granted the DOJ’s request to
intervene as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
159. DOJ provided an Executive Summary of its findings to the court. See Exhibit B. As the
DOJ reported:
“Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide LSP inmates with adequate medical care. The medical care at LSP is grossly deficient. The medical care delivery system at LSP fails to recognize, diagnose, treat, or monitor the serious medical needs of LSP inmates, including serious chronic illnesses and dangerous infectious and contagious diseases.
“During extensive investigative tours of LSP, the United States’ experts found and will testify to serious flaws in nearly all critical aspects of the LSP medical delivery system which include the following: (1) sick call screening and classification; (2) scheduling; (3) physician clinic; (4) infirmary care; (5) treatment of chronic illnesses; (6) specialty and subspecialty care; (7) treatment of contagious and infectious diseases; (8) medication administration; (9) maintenance of medical records; (10) security dominance of medical practice; (11) administrative organization such as overall planning and guidance and numbers of critical medical committees; and (12) staffing. As a result of inadequate medical care at LSP, inmates have suffered and continue to suffer serious harm and even death.”
160. The Executive Summary went on to discuss several other specific deficiencies, such as:
“Defendants fail to adequately recognize, screen, and classify (i.e. triage) the serious medical needs of inmates through sick call procedures. The Emergency Medical Technicians (“EMTs”) who conduct sick call are not adequately trained nor sufficiently experienced to recognize serious medical illnesses or to triage sick call. EMTs are trained to recognize emergency situations requiring emergency transportation to a hospital. LSP does not have an adequate training program for EMTs to identify serious illnesses at sick call. Defendants’ use of EMTs is not diagnostically productive. The EMTs are unable to adequately perform the fundamental task of triage and differentiate between acute, chronic, and minor illnesses. Defendants also do not provide the EMTs with basic and fundamental equipment necessary for proper triage.
“[T]he existence of a ‘malingering rule,’ designed to punish frequent users of the medical system, significantly erodes the EMTs’ objectivity and the inmates' confidence in that objectivity when they try to access the medical system. . . .
58

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 59 of 79
“Scheduling and rescheduling problems lead to missed appointments, extensive delays, patients left untreated altogether for extended periods of time and cause substantial harm to Angola inmates. . . .
“Defendants’ use of isolation rooms in the infirmary is improper and dangerous. Defendants place seriously ill patients in locked rooms that may adversely affect their medical conditions. Nurses in the nursing station are unable to see or hear inmates in the locked isolation rooms and infrequently check on the inmates in these rooms. . . .
“[L]imited bedspace in the infirmary coupled with the closing of one of the wards will lead to more inmates being placed in the general population where follow-up care is poor. . . .
“Even after identifying inmates with chronic illnesses, Angola does not provide adequate follow-up care for such inmates. . . . Diagnostic tests such as routine blood tests, electrocardiograms (EKGs), and chest x-rays are not reviewed and followed up on in a timely manner. . . .
“Inmates must wait for excessive and unacceptable periods for elective surgery and radiological services. . . . No physical therapy services exist for inmates requiring such services and Defendants have failed to make Angola adequately accessible to handicapped inmates, causing inmates significant harm including death. . . .
“The current method of medication administration is dangerous. Unlicensed security personnel administer medication with minimal training. . . . Medication administration is also rushed and haphazard. . . .
“Security unnecessarily and unacceptably dominates the medical care system of Angola. Security often overrides physician decisions to the detriment of inmates’ health. Untrained security personnel conduct and supervise sick call and medication administration to the substantial detriment of the inmates. Security also decides the manner and time of inmate transportation to medical care internally and off-site, leading to significant delays in treatment. Security controls the dietary services for inmates on special meals, often resulting in these inmates not receiving medically required diets. Finally, Defendants continue to enforce disciplinary rules known as “malingering” that punish inmates from accessing the health care system under certain conditions. . . .
“The medical department . . . budget is often exhausted before the end of the fiscal year, creating substantial shortages of critical medical supplies. . . .
59

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 60 of 79
“Defendants are inadequately operating a medical care delivery system at Angola with critical shortages of key personnel. Angola lacks sufficient key professional medical staff: (1) physicians, (2) licensed physician assistants (as opposed to unlicensed assistants to physicians), (3) registered nurses, (4) licensed practical nurses, (5) a medical records professional (necessary to handle the complex and voluminous medical record requirements of Angola), (6) a registered dietician, and (7) physical therapists. Furthermore, Defendants lack critical non-professional staff necessary to allow the professional staff to free themselves from current administrative duties . . . .”
161. Plaintiffs’ medical expert in the Lynn litigation, Michael Puisis, D.O., submitted a report
illustrating several of the problems described in the DOJ Executive Summary. See
Exhibit C. Dr. Puisis noted “shortages of supplies in various areas, including
pharmaceuticals” and “involvement of security in medical matters.” He expressed
concern about leaving infirm individuals in locked rooms alone:
“On ward 1 (the infirmary), security can place any individual in a locked room depending on their security classification. Escape risks and protective custody were two reasons cited for placing individuals in locked rooms. These rooms have heavy gauge steel doors with a small (approximately 6 inch square) glass viewing panel. Patients must gain the attention of nursing staff by screaming and banging on the door. Nurses sit behind an enclosed viewing area which muffles sound from the ward. There is no nursing call button in these rooms. On the day of my visit, an infirm AIDS patient, who had difficulty walking, was locked up in one of these rooms because he was described as an escape risk. I was told by the medical director that a man who had his feet amputated was classified as an escape risk and was placed in a locked room. In order for a physician to have a person removed from a locked room the physician must petition the warden. This practice of placing the infirm or seriously ill in locked rooms is dangerous and violates medical autonomy regarding care of the infirm.”
162. Dr. Puisis additionally noted that EMTs were “being used to make decisions which they
are not trained or experienced in making.” He related physician reports of “patients
splinted for fractures who were not seen again for months when the bone fractured had
healed in a deformed position.” He expressed concern that since one of the original three
chronic care units had been closed, “[t]his will place more chronically ill patients into
60

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 61 of 79
general population where follow up is poor.” He noted that “[h]ousing units, including the infirmary, still do not accommodate paraplegics.” 163. The Lynn v. Williams litigation led to the entry of a consent decree in September 1998. Warden Cain, the predecessor of Defendant Warden Vannoy, was Warden of Angola while the consent decree was in effect. The following year, however, over the objection of the DOJ, the consent decree was terminated.
iii.Plaintiffs’ Counsel Have Informed Defendants of Their Deficiencies 164. Plaintiffs’ counsel have contacted Defendants regarding concerns about medical care as
detailed in this complaint at numerous points since 2013. Defendants were aware of multiple visits conducted by Plaintiffs’ counsel to investigate allegations of inadequate medical care. On ten occasions, Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote letters or emails to Defendants regarding reports of specific urgent medical needs of some individuals. 165. On December 9, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter to Warden Cain detailing their concerns with regard to the inadequate provision of medical care. 166. Warden Cain responded by letter on December 22, 2014, citing the closure of Earl K. Long Medical Center and “the transition of medical care from state hospitals to private facilities” as causing interruptions and changes in the delivery of care, but maintaining that the prison has “established reasonable and sound medical practices and treatment” for prisoners. 167. Warden Cain’s response is inaccurate. As merely one example, the letter states that the prison has an on-site specialty clinic for Physical Therapy. However, according to
61

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 62 of 79
Angola personnel, no one is currently receiving physical therapy and those prisoners who ask about it are merely told that they are on the waiting list. D.) Defendants Fail to Adequately Accommodate Prisoners with Disabilities. 168. In addition to and overlapping with the inadequate delivery of medical care, Angola fails to reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities. 169. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Rehabilitation Act”), Defendants must provide reasonable accommodations in programs, services, and activities to prisoners who have disabilities. However, Defendants lack adequate policies and practices for identifying and tracking prisoners with disabilities, and refuse to provide the reasonable accommodations those prisoners require. 170. Defendants lack policies and practices to ensure that prisoners with disabilities who require assistive devices, including, but not limited to, wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, tapping canes, hearing aids, and pocket talkers, as accommodations are provided with and allowed to retain those devices. 171. Defendants fail to ensure that prisoners with disabilities have equal access to all programs and services offered at the prison. Defendants’ systemic failure to accommodate prisoners with disabilities results in the widespread exclusion of prisoners with disabilities from many of the programs, services, and activities offered by Defendants, including health care services and exercise. 172. Defendants fail to ensure that prisoners with disabilities are assigned to, and are actually housed in, housing units and bed assignments that are accessible and safe.
62

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 63 of 79
173. Prisoners with the most acute medical needs are housed in the TC, Angola’s prison hospital. When the TC opened it had three wards, but the DOC has since converted one of the wards into a storage space, eliminating much of the original medical capacity.
174. Currently, Ward 1 is Angola’s Infirmary while Ward 2 houses prisoners with serious chronic care needs. Several of the prisoners living on Ward 2 have been there for years. Conditions on Ward 2 are unhealthy and dangerous: the ward is not regularly cleaned and has visible dust on many surfaces. There are flies that land on prisoners’ food trays. Several men there have open wounds, often pressure sores from poor management of their conditions. The chair that is used to assist men in showering is merely hosed off between uses, not disinfected. This unhygienic practice exposes these men to the unnecessary risk of infection. Ward 2 often has a foul odor inside; parts of the bathroom area are covered with rust. Plaintiffs such as Mr. Parker suffer from unnecessary exposure to second-hand smoke caused when Angola staff and prisoners smoke cigarettes in close proximity to the living quarters. This practice further degrades the hygienic environment on the Ward.
175. Angola also operates at least two “medical dorms,” Ash-2, Cypress-2, and possibly Hickory-4, outside of the TC. These dorms were not designed to be medical facilities and are not equipped for prisoners with serious medical needs, nor are they staffed by medical personnel or assistive individuals such as ASL interpreters. They also house far more prisoners than they are designed to house. Plaintiff Edward Giovanni has been housed in the Ash dorm repeatedly, despite his very poor health, and has repeatedly developed life-threatening infections that require outside medical intervention and/or his return to the TC Ward.
63

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 64 of 79
176. Many areas of Angola are physically inaccessible to prisoners with disabilities, particularly in the two so-called “medical dorms,” both because of the facilities’ physical plant and because Defendants fail to provide needed assistive devices. Ash and Cypress lack basic features of accessibility, such as doorways wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs or bathroom facilities designed for handicapped access.
177. In some instances, disabled prisoners are excluded from participating in prison activities because of insufficient staff. For instance, Mr. Parker is excluded from attending church unless a nurse or EMT accompanies him, and they are frequently unavailable.
178. There is a shortage of bottom-bunk beds throughout the housing units at Angola relative to the needs of the prisoners. As a result, prisoners with ongoing disabilities as well as those with short-term medical ailments are frequently required to remain assigned to a top bunk. Plaintiff Clyde Carter had a top bunk for a year after being assigned bottom bunk status in or around December 2013.
179. Prisoners at Angola are required to lift their locker boxes, individual trunks for storing their personal effects which are made of steel and measure roughly 1.5’x1.5’x3’, about three times per week during inspections. These locker boxes are heavy and cumbersome. Prisoners sometimes injure themselves lifting these boxes; other times, they incur injuries elsewhere but suffer additional pain and potential injury from having to lift these boxes. Former Named Plaintiff Cedric Evans broke his collarbone lifting his locker box.
180. Angola’s principal handicapped transport van is insufficiently equipped and dangerous to use. Several prisoners have fallen while being transported. At times, prisoners’ wheelchairs are affixed to the floor of the van using “flex cuffs,” plastic handcuffs that are not designed for such use. The straps are broken and there are no shoulder harnesses 64

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 65 of 79
or seatbelts. This is the only van Angola uses to transport disabled prisoners. Plaintiff Ricky Davis has been forced to ride face-down across a front seat while being transported to Angola post-surgery because a handicap-equipped van was not available. 181. Angola has a more suitable transport van that it acquired after the closure of C. Paul Phelps state prison in 2012, but Defendants elect not to use this van, either because there is not sufficient seating for security, or so as not to subject it to normal wear and tear. E.) Defendants’ Failures Have a Disproportionately Harmful Effect on Prisoners with Disabilities. 182. Every failure of the Defendants to provide adequate medical care has an even more extreme effect on a prisoner with a disability. This is because prisoners with disabilities are in constant need of stabilizing care and the management of a chronic condition. Every failure potentially exacerbates a lifelong condition that will, as a result of the failure, need even more qualified care. Prisoners with disabilities at Angola are therefore condemned to a lifetime of poor care. 183. Defendants’ failure to properly staff and supply Ward 2 contributes to unsanitary conditions inside the ward itself, and to unsanitary conditions of the prisoners themselves. Prisoners who suffer from paralysis, such as Plaintiffs Sampier and Parker, must rely on staff to keep the area around them clean and to provide sterile medical supplies. Staff are required to assist prisoners with bathing, but are often pressed for time, leaving prisoners lying in their own excrement for hours. They are similarly unable to properly turn prisoners’ bodies to avoid pressure sores. This leads to life-threatening infections and unnecessary suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable prisoners.
65

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 66 of 79
184. Defendants’ failure to provide adequate accessible and emergency transportation means that prisoners with disabilities miss important appointments for off-site medical care, thus aggravating their conditions.
185. Prisoners with chronic conditions requiring medication suffer disproportionate harm as interruptions and mistakes in the delivery and administration of their medication lead to a worsening of their condition or death.
186. Prisoners with compromised immune systems, such as those with HIV who must wait on the Defendants’ slow sick call procedure, can seriously sicken in a shorter amount of time than those with intact immune systems. The delay in all levels of Angola’s medical care system takes a much heavier toll on such serious medical conditions.
187. The failure to screen for cancer appropriately means that the disease may not be detected soon enough for effective treatment and remission. Prisoners with cancer therefore suffer the risk of an unnecessarily progressed disease and possible disfigurement and death. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
I. Angola Prisoner Class 188. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all prisoners who are, or were as of May 20, 2015, or will in the future be, subjected to the medical care policies and practices of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (the “Plaintiff Class”). They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to terminate the ongoing course of conduct on the part of Defendants that is depriving the named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class of their constitutional right to adequate medical care, and to enjoin the policies and practices adopted and implemented by Defendants that result in the deprivation of those rights.
66

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 67 of 79
“Medical care” consists of attention and treatment by adequately trained professionals that seeks to manage, accommodate, resolve, or mitigate physical ailments affecting the human body. This includes primary care, necessary screening and diagnostic care, chronic care, surgical care, and care related to hearing, and vision. 189. The class includes prisoners who were transferred to Elayn Hunt Correctional Center since the original complaint was filed in this matter. As noted above, Defendants have transferred dozens of men with serious medical needs in recent months in an apparent attempt to affect the outcome of this litigation. But Defendants have the authority to transfer those inmates back to Angola at any time and return them to the same policies and the same unacceptable risks of serious injury, illness, or death. 190. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are over 6,000 prisoners in custody at Angola, all of whom are dependent entirely on Defendants for the provision of health care. Defendants’ policies and practices put all Angola prisoners at risk of receiving inadequate health care while in custody at Angola. 191. The Plaintiff Class members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary course of business by the DOC and/or Angola. 192. Members of the proposed Plaintiff Class are equally subject to the actual or potential adverse impacts on their physical health resulting from the longstanding and ongoing pattern and practice of systemic unconstitutional acts and omissions on the part of Defendants described in this Complaint. 193. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the class. Such questions include, but are not limited to:
67

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 68 of 79
a. whether Defendants’ medical care system fails to provide minimally adequate care in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment;
b. whether Defendants’ medical care system places the prisoners at Angola at an unreasonable risk of suffering new or worsening physical injury or illness, or premature death;
c. whether Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the resulting harm and risk of harm to Class members who are deprived of minimally adequate medical care; and
d. what injunctive relief is appropriate to bring Defendants’ medical care system into compliance with the Eighth Amendment.
194. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including denying that they are deliberately indifferent and denying that their actions violate the law.
195. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Plaintiff Class, as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, or courses of conduct, and their claims are based on the same theory of law as the class’s claims. The named Plaintiffs are individual prisoners at Angola suffering from an array of serious medical problems and reflecting a range of serious health care needs that are typical of the prisoner population at Angola. The named Plaintiffs and the proposed class they seek to represent have suffered direct injuries and will continue to be directly injured due to Defendants’ unlawful and unconstitutional pattern and practice of providing inadequate medical care at Angola.
68

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 69 of 79
196. Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Plaintiff class because Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the class. Plaintiffs, as well as the Plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in civil rights litigation, prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class action litigation.
197. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants’ policies, practices, actions, and omissions that form the basis of this complaint are common to and apply generally to all class members, and the injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate and will apply to all members of the class. Defendants’ health care policies are promulgated, disseminated, and enforced from Angola and the DOC headquarters in Baton Rouge. The injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate and will apply to all members of the Plaintiff class.
II. Disability Subclass 198. Plaintiffs with disabilities bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) and b(2), on behalf of a subclass of all qualified individuals with a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12101 and 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B), and who are now, were as of May 20, 2015, or will be in the future, subjected to the medical care policies and practices of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (“Disability Subclass”). All prisoners with disabilities who are incarcerated in the prison are being discriminated against or denied access to programs, services, and activities offered at the prison as a result of the policies and practices of Defendant DOC. 199. The class includes prisoners who were transferred to Elayn Hunt Correctional Center since the original complaint was filed in this matter. As noted above, Defendants have
69

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 70 of 79
transferred dozens of inmates with disabilities in recent months in an apparent attempt to affect the outcome of this litigation. But Defendants have the authority to transfer those inmates back to Angola at any time and return them to the same policies and the same unacceptable risks of serious injury, illness, or death. Moreover, EHCC is not designed, outfitted, or staffed to serve the needs of such a large number of individuals with disabilities, and thus subjects the transferees to similar violations of their rights. 200. The proposed subclass as defined is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members of the subclass is impracticable and infeasible. The exact number of members of the Disability Subclass is unknown, and class membership changes constantly as prisoners are transferred into and out of Angola. 201. The Disability Subclass members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary course of business by Defendants. 202. There are questions of law and fact common to the Disability Subclass, including but not limited to:
a. whether Defendants reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities; b. whether Defendants’ medical care system violates the Americans with Disabilities
Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and c. what injunctive relief is appropriate to bring Defendants’ medical care system into
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. 203. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including denying
that their actions violate the law.
70

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 71 of 79
204. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed subclass. Plaintiffs and all other members of the subclass have sustained similar injuries arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct and policies in violation of the law as alleged herein.
205. Plaintiffs are members of the subclass and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the putative class members because they have no disabling conflict(s) of interest that would be antagonistic to those of the other subclass members. Plaintiffs, as well as Disability Subclass members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and prisoners’ rights litigation.
206. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the subclass, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the subclass and will apply to all members of the subclass.
CAUSES OF ACTION I. EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF
CONFINEMENT (Against Defendants LeBlanc, Vannoy, Lamartiniere, Singh, Falgout, Lavespere,
Poret, and Park) 207. By their policies and practices described herein, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the
Plaintiff Class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from inadequate medical care. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by Defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of
71

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 72 of 79
the Plaintiffs’ and the Plaintiff Class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth Amendment. 208. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct. II. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT AMENDMENT ACT, AND REHABILITATION ACT (Against Defendant DOC)
209. The ADA prohibits public entities, including DOC, from denying “a qualified individual with a disability . . . the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of the public entity” because of the individual’s disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
210. Defendant DOC is responsible for all violations of the ADA committed by hired and contracted medical staff at Angola.
211. The ADA defines “a qualified individual with a disability” as a person who suffers from a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” including but not limited to, “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A). All Plaintiffs with Disabilities Subclass members are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in the ADA, as they have impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities.
212. The programs, services, and activities that Defendant DOC provides to prisoners include, but are not limited to, sleeping, eating, showering, toileting, exercising, safety and security, Angola’s administrative, disciplinary, and classification proceedings, medical,
72

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 73 of 79
mental health, and dental services, the library, educational, vocational, substance abuse, and other classes, and discharge services. Defendant DOC’s programs, services, and activities are covered by the ADA. 213. Under the ADA, Defendant DOC must provide prisoners with disabilities reasonable accommodations and modifications so that they can avail themselves of and participate in all programs and activities offered by Defendants. 214. Defendant DOC fails to accommodate the Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent as described above, including by: a. failing to “ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not,
because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(1); b. failing to “ensure that inmates or detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individuals,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(2); c. failing to “implement reasonable policies, including physical modifications to additional cells in accordance with the 2010 [accessibility] Standards, so as to ensure that each inmate with a disability is housed in a cell with the accessible elements necessary to afford the inmate access to safe, appropriate housing,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(3);
73

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 74 of 79
d. failing or refusing to provide Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent with reasonable accommodations and other services related to their disabilities, see generally 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a);
e. denying Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent “the opportunity to participate in or benefit from [an] aid, benefit, or service” provided by Defendants, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i);
f. failing to make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,” 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7);
g. failing to “maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities by the [ADA],” 28 C.F.R. 35.133(a); and
h. failing to “furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities . . . an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(1).
215. As a result of Defendant DOC’s discrimination against and failure to provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners with disabilities, Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent do not have equal access to prison activities, programs, and services for which they are otherwise qualified.
216. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant DOC was the recipient of federal funding within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. As recipients of federal funds, they are
74

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 75 of 79
required to reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities in their facilities, programs, activities, and services, and to provide a grievance procedure. 217. Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in the Rehabilitation Act. 218. By their policy and practice of discriminating against and failing to reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities, Defendant DOC violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. 219. As a result of Defendant DOC’s discriminating against and failing to provide a grievance procedure and reasonable accommodations, Plaintiffs and the Disability Subclass they represent do not have equal access to prison activities, programs, and services for which they are otherwise qualified. 220. Defendants’ methods of administration as described in this Complaint subject individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of both the ADA, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3), and the Rehabilitation Act, 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(3). Section 504’s regulations prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration . . . (i) that have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap [or] (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipients program with respect to handicapped persons.” 28 CFR 35.130(b)(3)(i)-(iii). 221. By depriving prisoners with disabilities timely sick call responses, adequate and qualified medical staffing, medical facilities, medical equipment, medication administration,
75

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 76 of 79
chronic illness care, surgery, and screening, Defendants are “defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of” the provision of constitutionally adequate medical care to prisoners. That failure has a more harmful impact on prisoners with disabilities and therefore has the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 222. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.
Plaintiffs also request attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses against DOC for the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 223. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are granted the relief they request. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court award the following relief: A. Declare that the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2), and certify a class consisting of all Angola prisoners who are or may be subject to the prison’s delivery of medical care and a subclass consisting of all Angola prisoners with disabilities; B. Grant declaratory and injunctive relief, as set out in this Complaint;
76

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 77 of 79
C. Enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, from subjecting Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to the illegal and unconstitutional conditions, acts, omissions, policies, and practices set forth above;
D. Order Defendants and their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, to develop and implement, as soon as practical, a plan to eliminate the substantial risk of serious harm that Plaintiffs and member of the Plaintiff Class suffer due to Defendants’ inadequate medical care. Defendants’ plan shall include but not be limited to: a. Staffing that is sufficient to provide Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class with timely access to qualified and competent clinicians who can provide routine, urgent, emergent, and specialty health care; b. Policies and practices that provide timely access to health care, including reliable screening for medical conditions; timely access to medically necessary surgeries; and access to adequate rehabilitative care; c. Timely and competent responses to health care emergencies; d. Timely and competent prescription and distribution of medications and supplies necessary for medically adequate care; e. Timely access to competent care for chronic diseases; f. Medically appropriate follow-up care, including but not limited to appropriate dietary, duty status, and medical monitoring plans;
77

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 78 of 79
g. Basic sanitary conditions that do not promote the spread or exacerbation of diseases or infections, including but not limited to maintaining sufficient hygiene supplies and a smoke-free environment;
h. Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities; i. A regular assessment of health care staff, services, procedures, and activities
designed to improve outcomes, and to identify and correct errors or systemic deficiencies; and j. Any other forms of relief necessary for the delivery of constitutionally adequate medical care. E. Enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, from retaliating against Plaintiffs in any manner for filing this complaint; F. Find that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this case and award them attorneys’ fees, court costs, expert costs, and litigation expenses under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205; G. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and, H. Grant such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just, to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. Date: July 19, 2016.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mercedes Montagnes
78

Case 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 71 07/25/16 Page 79 of 79
Mercedes Montagnes, La. Bar No. 33287 (Lead Counsel) Elizabeth Compa, La. Bar No. 35004 The Promise of Justice Initiative 636 Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 Facsimile: (504) 558-0378 mmontagnes@thejusticecenter.org bcompa@thejusticecenter.org
Jeffrey B. Dubner (pro hac vice) Daniel Small (pro hac vice) Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 jdubner@cohenmilstein.com
Miranda Tait, La. Bar No. 28898 Advocacy Center 600 Jefferson Street, Suite 812 Lafayette, LA 70501 Telephone: (337) 237-7380 Facsimile: (337) 237-0486 mtait@advocacyla.org
Candice C. Sirmon, La. Bar No. 30728 ACLU Foundation of Louisiana P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (504) 613-6511 csirmon@laaclu.org
79

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., et al.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-318-BAJ-RLB

BURL CAIN, et al.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production, Amend Deadlines, and Award Sanctions (R. Doc. 42), filed against Defendants on June 8, 2016. Defendants filed an Opposition in response to the Motion on June 16, 2016. (R. Doc. 45). On June 21, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Reply Memorandum.
According to Plaintiffs, they “move the Court to compel production of Electronically Stored Information relating to written discovery requests propounded beginning September 1, 2015,” as “Defendants have failed to meet the agreed-upon deadlines for production on June 1 and June 15, 2016.” (R. Doc. 42 at 1-2). As relief, Plaintiffs ask the Court to: “(a) order Defendants to complete production by June 22, (b) extend Plaintiffs’ deadline to file the amended complaint, and (c) award sanctions against Defendants to compensate Plaintiffs for the costs of making this motion.” (R. Doc. 42 at 2).
On June 17, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Withdraw (R. Doc. 47) their request to extend the amended pleading deadline, which the Court later granted (R. Doc. 52). The Court held a telephone conference with the parties on June 24, 2016 to discuss the status of the pending

Motion and the production at issue. (R. Doc. 59). During that conference, the Court granted in
part Plaintiffs’ Motion, to the “extent Plaintiffs requested a deadline for the production of the
remaining documents, absent those undergoing further privilege review.” (R. Doc. 59 at 2). To
the extent Plaintiffs sought a Court ordered deadline of June 22, 2016 (and presumably sanctions
should Defendants have failed to comply by that date), that request is denied. The Court ordered
production by July 1, 2016, and set the first of several telephone conferences in order to assist
the parties with any unforeseen issues. (R. Doc. 59 at 2). As such, the only remaining issue is
Plaintiffs’ requested “award [for] sanctions1 against Defendants to compensate Plaintiffs for the
costs of making this motion.” (R. Doc. 42 at 2).
Rule 37(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for an award of expenses
and attorney’s fees to be paid to the moving party when a motion to compel is granted. However,
when the motion is granted in part and denied in part, as is the case here,2 the Court “may, after
giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses” between the parties. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). Plaintiffs ask for a total of $13,341.23 in expenses incurred in drafting
the Motion to Compel and resulting from Defendants’ production delays. As discussed below,
based on its review of the record and the parties’ representations, the Court finds that Defendants
1 The Court instructed Plaintiffs to file an affidavit of costs associated with the Motion and provided the parties with opportunities to be heard, consistent with Rule 37(a)(5)(C). (R. Doc. 75) (setting deadlines for plaintiffs’ affidavit of costs and defendants’ response). Plaintiffs’ attorney submitted an Affidavit on August 5, 2016. (R. Doc. 84) (Plaintiffs’ attorney’s Affidavit regarding costs); (R. Doc. 104) (Defendants’ Response); (R. Doc. 112) (Plaintiffs’ Reply). 2 In their Reply in support of counsel’s Affidavit of expenses, Plaintiffs suggest that Rule 37(a)(5)(A) requires an award of expenses as the Court granted their Motion to Compel. (R. Doc. 112 at 2-3). The Court notes that the specific relief requested, a production deadline of June 22, 2016, was not granted. (R. Doc. 59 at 2). Even if the motion was granted for purposes of Rule 37(a)(5)(A), “the court must not order” the payment of expenses if the nondisclosure was substantially justified or if other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii). Based on the record in this case and for the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court finds that the Defendants inability to meet the originally proposed deadlines was substantially justified, based on the staffing and efforts expended in providing the requested discovery responses. For these same reasons, the Court finds that an award of expenses would be unjust.

were diligent in their efforts to complete production and that each party must bear its own costs associated with the Motion.
Following Plaintiffs’ initial request for the electronically stored information (ESI) or documents at issue, the parties eventually “negotiated an agreement in which Plaintiffs agreed to reduce most of the documents they were seeking drastically” — from approximately 600,000 to 115,000. (R. Doc. 42-1 at 1); (R. Doc. 40 at 1). According to the record, the parties did not reach this agreement on the search terms for ESI discovery until April 1, 2016, when they submitted their Joint Status Report. (R. Doc. 104 at 2); (R. Doc. 40). The Joint Status Report explained that Defendants were still awaiting approval on a contract with an e-discovery vendor, but in the meantime had “identified a feasible solution for performing the searches internally.” (R. Doc. 40 at 2). At this time, the parties anticipated that the “search would yield approximately 115,000 total files.” (R. Doc. 40 at 1). Based on that estimate, the parties agreed that Defendants would produce the outstanding documents within the following timeframe: 50,000 documents by May 2, 2016; another 50,000 documents by June 1, 2016; and the remaining documents by June 15, 2016. (R. Doc. 40 at 2). Within 7 days of their final production, Defendants would provide a privilege log describing any withheld documents. (R. Doc. 45 at 6). Finally, Defendants “reserve[d] the right to seek an extension of this deadline should it appear Defendants will be unable to produce all remaining documents by [June 15, 2016].” (R. Doc. 40 at 2). Indeed, the parties’ contemporaneous communications indicate that Defendants’ counsel had concerns about their ability to meet the deadlines. (R. Doc. 45-2) (“setting ourselves up for failure”).
On May 6, 2016, the parties informed the Court that Defendants’ production had fallen behind schedule as their internal searches had proved “infeasible” and an “outside vendor was required.” (R. Doc. 41 at 2). Defendants’ first production in May only consisted of 28,000

documents instead of 50,000. (R. Doc. 41 at 2). However, Defendants were able to produce the remaining documents within a week and were confident their “current staffing and pace of the review should be sufficient . . . and that the delay in meeting the initial production should not keep Defendants from complying with the scheduled production deadlines on June 1 and June 15.” (R. Doc. 41 at 2).
However, on June 1, 2016, Defendants informed Plaintiffs that they would only be producing 25,500 of the 50,000 documents due on that day. (R. Doc. 42-2). Defendants acknowledged “that this number [was] far short of the goal,” but believed it “highlight[ed] the point that this production [was] extremely cumbersome and [would] take longer than [they] had first estimated back in March.” (R. Doc. 42-2). Defendants then acknowledged that the production might not be completed until the end of July, and as a compromise, offered to produce the remaining documents on a weekly, rolling basis to minimize any burden on Plaintiffs. (R. Doc. 42-2).
Unsatisfied with the pace of production, on June 8, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 42), alleging that Defendants had not only delayed their first production of 50,000 documents until May 11, 2016, they also failed to make their second production of 50,000 documents by June 1, 2016. (R. Doc. 42-1 at 2). According to Plaintiffs, they were unaware of any production issues until the night of June 1, 2016, when Defendants sent the email explaining they were “only able to produce approximately 25,500 files.” (R. Doc. 41-1 at 7); (R. Doc. 42-2 at 1). Plaintiffs believe Defendants were dilatory in their efforts to produce the documents and requested an order requiring production by June 22, 2016.
Defendants, however, point out that after beginning production, the total number of documents was approximately 146,000, as opposed to 115,000. (R. Doc. 45 at 7). And while

Defendants originally anticipated devoting 5 to 6 people to the documents’ review, 12 to 13 people were eventually assigned to review the documents in an effort to meet their deadlines. (R. Doc. 45 at 7). As of May 31, 2016, “a total of 1,507 hours [had] been billed” by Defendants in connection with the document review and production. (R. Doc. 45-3 at 1). Defendants likewise expended over $7,000 on outside vendors hired in order to complete production. (R. Doc. 45-3 at 2). Ultimately, the review proved to be far more difficult and time-consuming than originally anticipated.
Indeed, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ requested timeframe of June 22, 2016 to be unreasonable, given the cumbersome nature of the review, as evidenced by the Court’s level of involvement since the filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The Court has held 4 status conferences with the parties between June 24, 2016 and July 26, 2016 and required the parties to file 3 letters regarding the production’s status in order to monitor its pace. (R. Docs. 59, 60, 64, 75). This level of involvement by the Court is abnormal and only highlights the unpredictable difficulties of compliance due to the nature of the discovery at issue. Throughout that time, Defendants have relayed their efforts to the Court, which were reasonable under the circumstances. Indeed, Defendants completed production of the non-privileged documents by July 1, 2016 — only 2 weeks past their original proposed deadline. (R. Doc. 60). While the Court recognizes that parties may behave differently when under its active supervision, that does not change the fact that Defendants were diligent in their efforts.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is DENIED to the extent it seeks an award for costs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5). In all other respects, the Motion to Compel is denied as moot. Because the Motion to Compel was granted in part and denied in part, and because the Court finds that Defendants’ failure to meet the parties’ agreed upon deadlines was substantially

justified and that awarding expenses under the circumstances would be unjust, each party shall bear its own costs.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 31, 2016.
S
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 1 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

15-318-SDD- RLB

BURL CAIN, ET AL.

RULING

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Class Certification1 filed Plaintiffs,

Joseph Lewis, Jr., Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Reginald George, John Tonubbee,

Otto Barrera, Clyde Carter, Edward Giovanni, Ricky D. Davis, Lionel Tolbert, and Rufus

White (“Plaintiffs”).2 Defendants, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

(“DOC”), Darrel Vannoy, in his official capacity as Warden of the Louisiana State

Penitentiary (“LSP” or “Angola”), Stephanie LaMartiniere, in her official capacity as

Assistant Warden of LSP, James M. Leblanc, in his official capacity as Secretary of DOC,

Raman Singh, M.D., in his official capacity as Medical Director for DOC, Stacye Falgout,

in her official capacity as the Chief Nursing Officer for DOC, Randy Lavespere, M.D., in

his official capacity as the Medical Director for LSP, Sherwood Poret, RN, in his official

capacity as the Director of Nursing for the LSP, and Cynthia Park, ACNP, in her official

capacity as an Acute Care Nurse Practitioner at LSP (jointly “Defendants”), have filed an

Opposition3 to this motion, to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply.4 The Court held a class

1 Rec. Doc. No. 133; Supporting Memorandum, Rec. Doc. No. 140. 2 Plaintiff Cedric Evans was terminated on June 21, 2016. 3 Rec. Doc. No. 174. 4 Rec. Doc. No. 187.
43681

Page 1 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 2 of 30
certification hearing on November 2, 2017, where the Parties presented argument and evidence regarding class certification.5 Subsequently, the Parties were allowed to submit post-hearing briefs for the Court’s consideration.6 For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion shall be granted. I. BACKGROUND AND PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
This suit is brought by several inmates incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”). Plaintiffs claim that the medical care provided at LSP violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs also claim that the medical treatment of disabled inmates at LSP violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)7 and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”).8
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all prisoners who are now, or will in the future, be confined at LSP (the “Class”), as well as an ADA Subclass of inmates with disabilities who are now, or will in the future, be confined at LSP (the “ADA Subclass”).9 Plaintiffs request injunctive relief to abate the alleged systemic deficiencies in Defendants’ policies and practices that subject all inmates to unreasonable risks of serious harm.10
The Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification arguing that both the proposed Class and ADA Subclass are not entitled to class-wide injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) because: (1) the class members have not “been harmed in essentially

5 Rec. Doc. No. 375. 6 See Rec. Doc. Nos. 377 & 378. 7 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. 8 29 U.S.C. § 701. 9 Rec. Doc. No. 140 at 2. 10 Id.
43681

Page 2 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 3 of 30
the same way,” and (2) a single injunction could not “provide relief to each member of the class.”11
In addition, Defendants assert that, even if the ADA Subclass meets the requirements of FRCP 23(a) and (b)(2), the ADA Subclass of individuals have failed to meet the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA”)12 exhaustion requirement. Thus, Defendants argue that the ADA Subclass - regardless of meeting the class certification requirements - cannot bring legal action until administrative remedies are exhausted. II. STANDING AND THE PLRA EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT
Only after the Court has determined if the Named Plaintiffs have standing may it consider whether they have representative capacity to assert the rights of others. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit holds that “[s]tanding is an inherent prerequisite to the class certification inquiry.”13 Defendants contend that several Named Plaintiffs lack standing to represent a class because their claims are moot for various reasons. Named Plaintiffs Joseph Lewis, Jr., Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, and Alton Batiste are now deceased. Cedric Evans has been released from DOC custody, and Alton Adams is no longer at LSP.14 Defendants also argue that Named Plaintiffs Kentrell Parker (“Parker”) and Farrell Sampier (“Sampier”) have failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by the PLRA.
11 Rec. Doc. No. 174. 12 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 13 Bertulli v. Indep. Ass’n of Cont’l Pilots, 242 F.3d 290, 294 (5th Cir. 2001). 14 Plaintiffs dispute whether Alton Adams is still a Named Plaintiff: “Plaintiffs dispute whether Defendants’ decision to transfer Mr. Adams to a different prison, transfer him back to LSP, and transfer him out again moots his claim.” Rec. Doc. No. 222, p. 2 (citing Rec. Doc. 201-3 at 2-3). Nevertheless, the Court cannot consider his ARP as it was filed after the filing of the Complaint on May 20, 2015. 43681
Page 3 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 4 of 30
The PLRA mandates that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions ... by a prisoner ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”15 The Supreme Court has held that “the PLRA's exhaustion requirement
applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes.”16 The Supreme Court made clear that exhaustion is now mandatory.17 The Fifth Circuit has held that the available administrative remedy must be pursued to its conclusion.18 In Gates v. Cook, the Fifth Circuit held that exhaustion of
remedies by one named representative plaintiff is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for the class.19
Defendants contend that, as of May 20, 2015, the date suit was filed, no Named
Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies as to the following claims: (1) the use
of a co-pay system; (2) malingering; (3) adequacy of the medical records; and (4) ADA facilities.20 Defendants argue that two of these do not relate to current Named Plaintiffs
and are therefore irrelevant, and the remaining two do not raise ADA facilities claims.
Defendants maintain that the grievances of Parker and Sampier do not raise a complaint
regarding the inadequacy of the facility structures themselves or any structural barriers
preventing them from accessing medical care or other LSP programs.
15 Supra n. 12. 16 Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). 17 Id. at 524, 122 S.Ct. 983. 18 Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001). 19 376 F.3d 323, 330 (5th Cir. 2004)(citing Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir.1968) (exhaustion of remedies requirement satisfied for class action if named plaintiff representing class exhausted remedies); 7A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1776 (2d ed. 1986) (“[W]hen prospective relief is the primary remedy being sought, a representative who has exhausted his administrative remedies may bring a class suit on behalf of those who have not done so.”). 20 Rec. Doc. No. 378, p. 4. 43681
Page 4 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 5 of 30
Plaintiffs claim that, before filing suit, Named Plaintiffs filed and exhausted at least twenty-eight (28) Administrative Remedy Procedure grievances (“ARPs”) regarding medical care and at least eight (8) specifically relating to an individual’s disability. Plaintiffs contend that the burden of establishing failure to exhaust administrative remedies is on the Defendants. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has held that, “[f]ailure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, such that the defendants have the burden of demonstrating that [plaintiff] failed to exhaust administrative remedies.”21 Plaintiffs further contend that the Defendants have failed to carry this burden as to the General Class and ADA Subclass based at least on the allegations set forth in the ARPs submitted by Parker, Sampier, and Davis.
As to the General Class, Defendants argue that no claims have been exhausted regarding the issue of co-pays or malingering.22 This is incorrect. In the ARPs filed by Clyde Carter (“Carter”), he clearly complains about being charged a $6.00 co-pay although he allegedly received no medical treatment.23 Further, in the same ARP, Carter complains that he was “locked up” “just for trying to get some kind of medical assistance”24 and requests relief that “no kind of retaliation be taken against me for the fling of this Administrative Remedy.”25 This ARP was exhausted on June 30, 2014, well before the filing of this action. This establishes that administrative remedies have been exhausted as to claims of malingering and co-pays.
21 Wilson v. Epps, 776 F.3d 296, 299, 5th Cir. 2015)(citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007)). 22 Defendants do not appear to challenge the exhaustion of other complaints of the General Glass. 23 Rec. Doc. No. 261-6, p. 6, 9-10. 24 Id. at p. 9. 25 Id. at p. 10. 43681
Page 5 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 6 of 30

As to the ADA Subclass, Parker’s ARP includes the following summarization of his complaint: “COMPLAINS THAT THE TREATMENT CENTER IS NOT SUITABLE [sic] STAFFED OR EQUIPPED TO ACCOMMODATE QUADRIPLEGIC PATIENTS SUCH AS HIMSELF.”26 Sampier’s ARP complains of several inadequacies in medical care and ultimately requests the following relief: “Complainant seek [sic] to be released to a medical facility that is equipped to adequately handle the basic and serious medical needs required for a quadriplegic.”27 The record reflects that both grievances were investigated, denied, appealed, and denied again. Carter also exhausted an ARP complaining about not being able to walk on “the uneven grounds” at LSP due to his knee disability.28 The ARP of Ricky Davis complains of the failure of LSP to transfer him to the hospital for surgery in a handicap accessible transport vehicle.29 It is undisputed that this claim was exhausted on April 1, 2015, prior to filing suit.
Plaintiffs cite to this Court’s recent decision in Hacker v. Cain,30 which involved an inmate’s Eighth Amendment and ADA/RA claims regarding treatment of his cataracts. Much like the present case, the defendants claimed the plaintiff’s administrative remedies were not exhausted because he failed to specifically request a particular accommodation. The Court denied the defendants’ argument, finding as follows:
Defendants' second argument in favor of summary judgment as to this claim—Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his remedies, as the PLRA requires, by not specifically requesting an accommodation (beyond cataracts surgery) pursuant to the ADA/RA in his ARP—is oversold. Per the

26 Rec. Doc. No. 359, p. 26. 27 Rec. Doc. No. 359-1, pp. 1-2. 28 Rec. Doc. No. 187-8, p. 3. 29 Rec. Doc. No. 359 at 42-53. 30 No. 3:14-00063-JWD-EWD, 2016 WL 3167176 (M.D. La. June 6, 2016).
43681

Page 6 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 7 of 30
PLRA, “a grievance complaint must provide administrators with a fair opportunity under the circumstances to address the problem that will later form the basis of the suit.” It need not “give adequate notice of all claims or potential defendants.” Rather, an ARP must do no more than “address the same inappropriate behavior by ... [Defendants] that is addressed in the” later filed suit. Plaintiff's ARP, as well as his medical record, leave no doubt as to the nature of his complaint: his worsening eyesight and approaching blindness. While he may have specifically asked for surgery, no reasonable reader could be confused about the underlying medical problem; indeed, LSP and LDPSC specifically define “cataracts surgery” as “medically necessary.” With enough evidence available to validate this inference, a reasonable jury could readily reach the pivotal subsidiary conclusion that Defendants were on notice of Plaintiff's need for an accommodation, as his declining vision necessarily rendered him unable to perform the work of an inmate whose vision was unimpaired. The PLRA requires no more than such holistic and general notice, one which Plaintiff's ARP sufficiently provided.31
Relying on Hacker, Plaintiffs maintain that, at least Parker’s, Sampier’s, and Davis’ ARPs
“provided Defendants with both specific and ‘holistic and general’ notice that LSP’s
facilities were not equipped to accommodate inmates with disabilities.”32
Plaintiffs also cite the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Johnson v. Johnson,33 holding that:
In deciding how much detail is required in a given case, we believe that a court must interpret the exhaustion requirement in light of its purposes, which include the goal of giving officials “time and opportunity to address complaints internally,” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). Thus, a grievance should be considered sufficient to the extent that the grievance gives officials a fair opportunity to address the problem that will later form the basis of the lawsuit.34
The Johnson court also quoted a federal rules decision from the Northern District of Illinois
holding that “inmates complaining about various aspects of the conditions in their housing
31 Id. at *18 (internal citations omitted)(emphasis added). 32 Rec. Doc. No. 377, p. 12, quoting Hacker at *19. Plaintiff contend that a number of other Plaintiffs exhausted claims on these issues; however, many of these were not filed or exhausted until after May 20, 2015. 33 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004). 34 Id. at 516-17. 43681
Page 7 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 8 of 30

unit need only grieve their placement in that unit, not each of the various alleged unconstitutional conditions present in the unit; ‘[o]therwise the defendants could obstruct legal remedies to unconstitutional actions by subdividing the grievances....’).”35
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that “extra-statutory limitations on a prisoner’s capacity to sue” generally excuse any lack of detail in named plaintiffs’ grievances.36 In this context, it is important to note that Defendants do not allow multiple complaints in a single grievance.37 Plaintiffs contend the Defendants exhaustion requirements necessitate little specificity, multiple complaints are not allowed in a single grievance, and inmates are barred from filing more than one grievance at a time.38 Thus, following Supreme Court precedent, Plaintiffs argue that any lack of detail in the Named Plaintiffs’ grievances is excused due to these extra-statutory limitations on [Plaintiffs’] capacity to sue.
Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants read the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement too broadly as Defendants appear to argue that each of the subdivided claims must be individually exhausted by one of the Named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs maintain that many of these subdivided claims may be exhausted by a single grievance. Thus, Plaintiffs contend that violations of the ADA/RA for non-compliance by the facilities housing and treating inmates and violations of the ADA/RA relating to the medical care and treatment provided (or not provided) to inmates with disabilities may both be exhausted by a single grievance claiming any violation of the ADA/RA with sufficient facts to place LSP on notice

35 Id. at 521 (quoting Lewis v. Washington, 197 F.R.D. 611, 614 (N.D.Ill.2000)). 36 Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1857 n. 1 (2016). 37 Rec. Doc. No. 187, Exhibit B at 6. 38 Rec. Doc. No. 180, p. 5.
43681

Page 8 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 9 of 30
of the problem(s). Further, because Defendants’ procedure requires little specificity and prohibits inmates from including multiple complaints in a single grievance, the standard for a sufficient ARP is low.
Considering the above, the Court finds that Parker’s, Sampier’s, and Davis’ ARPs put the Defendants on notice that they were complaining about LSP’s failure to accommodate inmates with disabilities in treatment, medical care, and access to handicap accessible transportation, facilities, and medical equipment. The grievances provided Defendants with a fair opportunity to address the problems that would later form the basis of the lawsuit, and it is meritless to argue that these ARPs failed to provide notice to Defendants that violations of the ADA/RA were implicated.
Moreover, the Court finds it disingenuous to now argue an exhaustion defense when the Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) designated representative Trish Foster testified, under oath and on the record, that the claims of the Named Plaintiffs, at that time, were exhausted:
Q: She can have it in front of her or she can answer maybe if there are any unresolved ARPs of any of the plaintiffs outstanding. A: I know there is none that – I know everybody has went through both steps. I did check that. Everybody has completed and exhausted their ARPs.
* * * Q: Was there any grievance in the plaintiffs that had not been exhausted that you recall? A: No. They have all went through the first and second step.39

39 Rec. Doc. No. 180-1, p. 27, lines 9-16, 23-25 through p. 28, line 1. 43681

Page 9 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 10 of 30
This testimony was given before the Complaint was amended, but Plaintiffs Parker, Sampier, and Davis were Named Plaintiffs at the time of this testimony. Parker later submitted a Declaration stating that “though she testified in her deposition that all of the Plaintiffs had exhausted the ARPs for their claims in the Complaint, she has come to the realization sometime after giving her deposition that this statement is not true.”40 Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has held that a party cannot defeat a summary judgment motion “using an affidavit that impeaches, without explanation, sworn testimony.”41 Considering that Defendants have an obligation “to prepare [their] designee to give binding answers” and “cannot later proffer new or different allegations that could have been made at the time of the 30(b)(6) deposition,”42 the Court finds that Defendants are bound by this sworn statement as to the Named Plaintiffs at the time of the deposition.
Accordingly, the Court finds that at least one Named Plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies and has standing to represent the ADA Subclass. Further, at least one Named Plaintiff has standing to represent the General Class for the Eighth Amendment claim on the theories advanced. III. CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23
Class action is the exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of individual named parties only.43 The requirements for class certification are
40 Rec. Doc. No. 198-2. 41 S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 495 (5th Cir. 1996). The Court acknowledges that this is not a motion for summary judgment but finds that the principle applies equally under the circumstances. 42 Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A., No. 06-cv-271, 2007 WL 4410370, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2007). 43 Ibe v. Jones, 836 F.3d 516, 528 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted). 43681
Page 10 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 11 of 30
governed by Rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To obtain class certification,
parties must satisfy Rule 23(a)’s four prerequisites:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of that class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Assuming the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs
must also establish the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3).44 Plaintiffs seek class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2), which permits certification if “the party opposing the
class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”45 Plaintiffs, as the party
seeking class certification, bear the burden of demonstrating that the requirements of
Rule 23 have been met.46 “Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.”47
It is well-established that “[a] district court must conduct a rigorous analysis of the
[R]ule 23 prerequisites before certifying a class.”48 Generally, “a district court has broad
discretion when deciding a motion for class certification.”49 Before concluding that a class
has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a), an analysis will “[f]requently … entail some
overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.”50 The Fifth Circuit has
44 M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 837 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Found., 493 F.3d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 2007)). 45 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). 46 Ibe, 836 F.3d at 528 (citing O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F. 3d 732, 737-38 (5th Cir. 2003)). 47 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). 48 Perry, 675 F.3d at 837 (quoting Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir. 1996)). 49 Dockery v. Fischer, No. 13-cv-326, 2015 WL 5737608 at *7 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 29, 2015) (citing Allison v. Citgo Petroluem Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir.1998)). 50 Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 351. 43681
Page 11 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 12 of 30
traditionally construed this directive to require a district court to “look beyond the
pleadings to understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination of the certification issues.”51
However, Rule 23 does not require Plaintiffs to show that questions common to the class “will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.”52 “Rule 23 grants courts
no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits
questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.”53
Class Certification of the Class and ADA Subclass
Numerosity Under Rule 23(a)(1), certification is only appropriate where “the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” The numerosity requirement
“requires examination of the specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations.”54 However, the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly noted that “the number of members in a proposed class is not determinative of whether joinder is impracticable.”55
In addition, courts must consider “the geographical dispersion of the class, the ease with
which class members may be identified, the nature of the action, and the size of each plaintiff’s claim.”56 Relevance of the numerosity requirement to class certification may in
51 Perry, 675 F.3d at 837 (quoting McManus v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 320 F.3d 545, 548 (5th Cir. 2007)(internal quotations omitted)). 52 Cole v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2016 WL 3258345 (S.D. Tex. June 14, 2016) (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 459, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2013)). 53 Amgen, 568 U.S. at 466, 133 S. Ct. at 1194-95. 54 Dockery, 2015 WL 5737608 at *8 (quoting General Tel. Co. of the NW., Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 329, 100 S.Ct. 1698, 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980)). 55 Ibe, 836 F.3d at 528 (quoting In re TWL Corp., 712 F.3d 886, 894 (5th Cir. 2013)). 56 Dockery, 2015 WL 5737608 at *8 (quoting Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir. 1981)). 43681
Page 12 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 13 of 30
appropriate cases be less significant where classwide discrimination has been alleged. In addition, the fluid nature of a plaintiff class, as in prison-litigation context, counsels in favor of certification of all present and future members. Although there is no strict threshold, classes containing more than 40 members are generally large enough to warrant certification.57
Plaintiffs’ proposed Class consists of approximately 6400 incarcerated individuals.58 While the number of members in Plaintiffs’ proposed ADA Subclass is not exact, Plaintiffs estimate that hundreds of inmates at LSP have mobility, visual, cognitive, or other medical impairments.59 To further support that the ADA Subclass satisfies the numerosity requirement, Plaintiffs cite a 2014 statistic demonstrating that 14.4% of noninstitutionalized males in Louisiana reported a disability.60 Applying this rate to LSP’s amount of inmates, Plaintiffs estimate that the ADA Subclass would consist of 900 members with disabilities.61 Defendants have conceded that numerosity is established in this case: “Defendants do not contest that Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity required in order for them to establish the purported Class and purported ADA Subclass as that class and subclass have been identified by Plaintiffs.”62 Therefore, the Court finds that the numerosity requirement is satisfied.

57 Braggs v. Dunn, 318 F.R.D. 653, 661 (M.D. Ala. 2017). 58 Doc. 140 at 15. 59 Id. 60 Id. (discussing Doc. 133-42). 61 Id. 62 Rec. Doc. No. 174, p. 8 (emphasis original).
43681

Page 13 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 14 of 30
Commonality & Typicality63 The Supreme Court, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, further defined the contours of the “rigorous analysis” required by Rule 23.64 Under Wal-Mart, “[w]hat matters to class certification…is not the raising of common ‘questions’—even in droves—but, rather the capacity of a class wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the potential to impede the generation of common answers.”65 The Wal-Mart decision has heightened the standards for establishing commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) demanding more than the presentation of questions that are common to the class “because any competently crafted class complaint literally raises common questions.”66 Furthermore, members of a proposed class do not establish that “their claims can productively be litigated at once,” merely by alleging a violation of the same legal provision by the same defendant.67 Thus, as evident in Perry, the commonality test requires more than establishing that there is “at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.”68 In order to satisfy commonality under Wal-Mart, the claims of every class member must “depend upon a common contention … that is capable of class wide resolution,” meaning that the contention is “of such a nature … that determination of its truth or falsity
63 The Parties agreed at the hearing that the same evidence supports the requirements of commonality and typicality, and the Court need not consider them separately. 64 Perry, 675 F.3d at 837 (citing Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2551-52). 65 131 S.Ct. at 2551 (quoting Richard A. Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 84 N.Y.U. L.REV. 97, 132 (2009)) (emphasis original). 66 131 S.Ct. at 2551 (quoting Nagareda, 84 N.Y.U. L.REV. at 131-32). 67 Id. 68 675 F.3d at 840 (quoting Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 994 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir.1993)) (original emphasis) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 43681
Page 14 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 15 of 30
will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each of the claims in one stroke.”69 Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members “have suffered the same injury.”70 Yet, the Fifth Circuit has clarified that “this contention need not relate specifically to the damages component of the class members’ claims. Even an instance of injurious conduct, which would usually relate more directly to the defendant’s liability than to the claimant’s damages, may constitute ‘the same injury.’”71
As to typicality, “Rule 23(a) requires that the named representatives’ claims be typical of those of the class.”72 Prior to Wal-Mart, the typicality test was “not demanding.”73 The extent to which Wal-Mart changed the threshold for typicality in unclear. The Court noted that “[t]he commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge.”74 As the Fifth Circuit has described it, “typicality is commonality addressed from the perspective of the named plaintiffs. Commonality requires showing that, in fact, all members of the proposed class share a common claim….Typicality requires showing that, in fact, the proposed representatives have that claim.”75 The claims of all class members need not be identical.76 However, typicality demands that claims “arise from a similar course of conduct and share the same legal theory.”77
69 131 S.Ct. at 2551. 70 Id. (quoting Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364). 71 Cole v. Livingston, No. 14-698, 2016 WL3258345 (S.D. Tex. June 14, 2016). 72 Lanbecker v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 476 F.3d 299, 314 (5th Cir. 2007). 73 Cole, 2016 WL 3258345 at *8, (quoting Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 625 (5th Cir. 1999)). 74 131 S.Ct. at 2551 n.5. 75 M.D. v. Perry, 297 F.R.D. 7, 29 (S.D. Tex. 2013). 76 Cole, 2016 WL3258345 at *8 (citing James v. City of Dallas, Tex., 254 F.3d 551, 571 (5th Cir. 2001)). 77 Id. 43681
Page 15 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 16 of 30
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have failed in their constitutional obligations by subjecting the Class and ADA Subclass members to unreasonable risks of harm.78 Failure to act can also constitute a policy or practice.79 To prove an Eighth Amendment
violation, Plaintiffs will need to prove that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk posed to LSP’s inmates.80
The conceptual gap between an individual person’s Eighth Amendment claim and
“the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury,” must be abridged
by significant proof that Defendants operated under a general policy that subjected all inmates to unreasonable risks of serious harm.81 Such proof appears to be present here.
Defendants admit that “policies and procedures regarding medical care apply across the board to all prisoners.”82 Additionally, Plaintiffs have offered a wide variety of evidence
alleging systemic deficiencies within Defendants’ medical healthcare policies and
procedures. Such allegations, if found to be true, subject all inmates to unreasonable
risks of serious harm.
To determine whether Plaintiffs present “common questions of law and fact, a court
must trace the class claims and conclude that the common questions, and answers, will resolve them without the need for additional extensive individualized inquiry.”83 Plaintiffs’
common questions regarding the General Class include:
(a) whether the medical system at Angola increases inmates’ risk of serious harm; (b) whether Defendants were aware that their system at Angola
78 Doc. 140 at 2. 79 Dockery v. Fischer, 2015 WL 5737608 at *8-13. 80 Cole, 2016 WL3258345 at *7. 81 Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct at 2553-2554 (quoting General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740). 82 Doc. 140 at 14. 83 Dockery, 2015 WL 5737608 at *11. 43681
Page 16 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 17 of 30
increases inmates’ risk of serious harm; (c) whether the staffing levels at Angola are adequate to provide constitutionally sufficient medical care; (d) whether correctional staff perform medical functions that are inappropriate given their limited training and lack of licensure; (e) whether the DOC applies its “medically necessary” policy in a way that impedes Class members’ ability to receive timely diagnosis and treatment; (f) whether Defendants’ malingering and co-pay policies impede Class members’ ability to receive timely diagnosis and treatment; and (g) what remedial measures are appropriate to mitigate the deficiencies in Defendants’ practices.84
Similarly, the Named Plaintiffs of the ADA Subclass claim Defendants have failed
in their obligations to inmates with disabilities to comply with the RA, the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards, and the ADA and its implementing regulations.85 Plaintiffs’
common questions as to whether LSP meets its obligations under the ADA and RA
include:
(a) whether LSP has architectural barriers that make its programs, services, and activities inaccessible to inmates with disabilities; (b) whether Defendants’ policies discriminate against individuals with disabilities; (c) whether Defendants ensure that every program, service, or activity offered to inmates is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; (d) whether Defendants adequately take disabilities into account in the disciplinary process; (e) whether Defendants adequately provide access to jobs for inmates with disabilities; (f) whether Defendants adequately identify, track, and provide the accommodations that inmates with disabilities require; (g) whether Defendants provide accessible transportation to transport inmates with disabilities within the prison and outside the prison; and (h) hat remedial measures are appropriate to mitigate the deficiencies in Defendants’ practices.86
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to meet the commonality and typicality
requirements because the Class and ADA Subclass members have not suffered the same
injury.87 However, the existence of factual variations within a proposed class does not

84 Doc. 140 at 16. 85 Doc. 140 at 10. 86 Id. at 17. 87 Doc. 174 at 8.
43681

Page 17 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 18 of 30
necessarily destroy commonality.88 The commonality requirement is satisfied, as long as the Class’s common questions are “dispositive of their claim and the claim arises out of a single course of conduct and on a single theory of liability.”89
The Named Plaintiffs of the Class claim that Defendants violated their Eighth Amendment rights. The claim arises out of Defendants’ alleged failure to provide a minimally adequate medical system that does not subject prisoners to a “substantial risk of serious harm,” by knowingly providing care that falls below the constitutional minimum.90 Thus, the Class’s common questions of law and fact establish commonality.
While Defendants assert that the individually Named Plaintiffs’ disabilities and alleged denied accommodations are different, the basis of liability Plaintiffs assert is not the denial of the accommodations themselves, but the denial of a system that would have the effect of ensuring that they and their fellow prisoners are appropriately accommodated. Furthermore, “[c]ourts regularly certify classes of inmates who are disabled, even if they do not have the same disability.”91
In addition, the Defendants fail to negate the injury at the center of the Class’s claims: the exposure to an unreasonable risk of serious harm. It seems unlikely that any two inmates would have the exact same exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm, but this should not destroy commonality. The evidence presented by Plaintiffs calls into serious question the adequacy of LSP’s healthcare and medical policies, as applied in practice, in reducing the health risk of inmates, and particularly for those inmates that are
88 Dockery, 2015 WL 5737608 at *11. 89 Id. (internal citations omitted). 90 Doc. 140 at 2. 91 Cole, 2016 WL3258345 at *6 (citing Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 149 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). 43681
Page 18 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 19 of 30

disabled. Plaintiffs offer common complaints that Defendants’ policies pose a substantial

risk of serious harm to the health of all inmates and argue Defendants have been

deliberately indifferent to this risk.

At the certification hearing, Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Michael Puisis, was accepted by

the Court as an expert in correctional medicine without opposition from the Defendants.92

In their post-hearing brief, Defendants make much of the fact that nurse practitioner

Madeleine LaMarre (“LaMarre”) and Dr. Suzi Vassallo (“Vassallo”) contributed to the

report submitted by Dr. Puisis, arguing that, to the extent Dr. Puisis relied on findings by

LaMarre and Vassallo, those opinions or findings should be “discarded.”93 However, Dr.

Puisis’ hearing testimony clearly undermines any suggestion that he adopted the opinions

of others without being personally involved with the investigation of LSP and his ultimate

findings. Dr. Puisis testified as follows:

I worked with two colleagues, Maddy Lamar, who is a nurse practitioner, and Suzie Vassallo, who is an emergency room physician. We reviewed multiple documents. And I should add that each of us looked at a particular area of specialty. We did some things in common. We took a tour of the facility, and we also made individual observations of certain practices. I believe both Maddy and I, maybe Suzie did as well, watched medication administration of one of the units. We got up at four in the morning and went to sick call, accompanied the medics on sick call so we could actually see how they do it. I toured all the units, all the clinics on campus, and Suzie went to the ATU and observed directly the process of the delivery of care in that emergency area.

Maddy went to the pharmacy and observed the inside of the pharmacy, and she observed nursing medication as well. So we did a fair amount of observation that supported our findings. And in addition to that, we interviewed a number of key staff. We talked to multiple inmates. And we reviewed multiple records. And in the review of the records, it’s important to note that we reviewed a large span of time for each record. So while we may have reviewed 40-some records, and actually we reviewed more than

92 See Transcript, Rec. Doc. No. 373, p. 37 93 Rec. Doc. No. 378, p. 11.
43681

Page 19 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 20 of 30
that if you include the named plaintiffs and other chronic care records that were reviewed that are not included in the report, we reviewed multiple episodes of care. So if we reviewed 40 records, we may have reviewed thousands of episodes of care within the span of that grouping. And the evidence for that is in our report, which is included as appendices. So the combination of that resulted in our report.94
It is clear to the Court that Dr. Puisis was a substantial participant in the investigation
which yielded his conclusions. Further, nothing prohibits an expert relying on a research
team to collect data and conduct research upon which the expert can base his ultimate findings and conclusions.95
Next, Defendants argue that very few LSP policies and procedures were actually
considered, and no LSP Healthcare Directives were discussed in Plaintiffs’ expert report,
although evidence established that the Healthcare Manual reviewed by Plaintiffs’ experts
contained LSP’s Directives. The Court finds this a curious argument considering that the Defendants were recently sanctioned96 for failing to disclose several LSP Directives that
were responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Further, Plaintiffs obtained a copy of the LSP Healthcare Manual - not from the Defendants as requested - but from a public records request, and the Manual did not include all of LSP’s current Directives.97
The Court finds that sufficient evidence has been presented to establish that the
commonality and typicality requirements are met. Warden Darrel Vannoy testified that
the prison’s policies and procedures regarding medical care apply across the board to all
94 Transcript, Rec. Doc. No. 373, p. 37, lines 18-25 through p. 38, lines 1-21. 95 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 578, 591 (1993)(“Unlike an ordinary witness, see Rule 701, an expert is permitted wide latitude to offer opinions, including those that are not based on first-hand knowledge or observation.” 96 See Rec. Doc. No. 388. 97 See Rec. Doc. No. 387, p. 3. 43681
Page 20 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 21 of 30
prisoners.98 A great deal of evidence was introduced to suggest that understaffing at LSP increases the risk of harm to inmates. The Fifth Circuit has held that “class claims could conceivably be based on an allegation that the State engages in a pattern or practice of agency action or inaction—including a failure to correct a structural deficiency within the agency, such as insufficient staffing—‘with respect to the class,’ so long as declaratory or injunctive relief ‘settling the legality of the [State's] behavior with respect to the class as a whole is appropriate.’”99 Dr. Puisis testified that, “what is eminently evident in Angola is that they lack staffing for sure in nursing and in physicians, and the EMT’s are misplaced. In other words, I think they’re doing the wrong assignments.”100 Dr. Puisis also testified that this understaffing was demonstrated by several non-nurses performing nursing duties. Dr. Puisis stated that inmates were performing nursing duties in the infirmary, inmate orderlies advised that they assist officers in administering medications, and a large number of officers are administering medications to a large number of seriously ill patients.101 Thus, in Dr. Puisis’ opinion: “you don’t have enough staff if you have to use officers to administer medication.”102 Additionally, Dr. Puisis was critical of his observation that “diabetics seldom get, diabetics who are taking insulin seldom get the number of blood sugar checks that I think is typical of a diabetic. And that’s a result of lack of access to nurses, I believe.”103
Dr. Puisis also testified, based on his thirty years of experience and management
98 Rec. Doc. No. 358-3, p. 32. 99 M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 847-48 (5th Cir. 2012)(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) 1966 Amendment advisory committee note). 100 Rec. Doc. No. 373, p. 45, lines 8-11. 101 Id. at p. 45, lines 12-20. 102 Id. 103 Id. at p. 45, lines 21-25 through p. 46, lines 1-2. 43681
Page 21 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 22 of 30
of prisons and jails, that “the number of inmates per physician is extremely high at
Angola.”104 Dr. Puisis testified:
If you look at the numbers and you say one doctor is seeing --responsible for 1600 people, and you review records and you note that when medics are seeing people, both in the ATU and in sick call, there is seldom a physician related evaluation. And you also note that the physicians seldom write histories and physical examinations. In part, I believe that is due to staffing. In part, I believe it is due to practice, inter-credential. But it became clear to us that under any scenario we could think of, both nursing and physicians midlevels and doctors were deficient.105
Dr. Puisis was also critical of the credentialing and training of the Angola
physicians. Dr. Puisis explained that, in a typical practice, physicians are credentialed,
meaning that the hiring authority reviews a physician’s experience and training and then
gives the physician privileges based on the credentials. Dr. Puisis testified that, in a
prison setting, the need for physicians is typically primary care medicine, so physicians
should be trained and privileged in either family practice or internal medicine, which
typically includes emergency room training.106 Yet, at Angola, Dr. Puisis testified that
“there really is no credentialing at all that I could tell.”107 Further problematic, in Dr. Puisis’
opinion, “the organization goes out of its way to just hire any physician they can get,
because they’re desperate for physicians.”108 Thus, the practice is “that the system
approaches the state licensing board to solicit physicians who have problems with their
license who are not permitted by the state to otherwise see civilian patients. But they are
permitted to see prisoners.”109 Dr. Puisis testified that, “the character issues of all five of
104 Id. at p. 46, lines 5-6. 105 Id. at p. 46, lines 6-16. 106 Id. at p. 47. 107 Id. at p. 48, lines 6-7. 108 Id., lines 10-12. Dr. Puisis testified about a comment in a newspaper article by Dr. Singh, who said the prison just needed to get any doctors because they were desperate. Id. 109 Id., lines 15-19. 43681
Page 22 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 23 of 30

the physicians that we looked at [at Angola] had prior state sanctions. And at one point

were not permitted to work in the civilian community for a variety of reasons.”110 Also

problematic for Dr. Puisis is that one of the five doctors is an orthopedic doctor who would

not be appropriate to provide general medical care in a prison based on the general kinds

of conditions presented. Dr. Puisis posed the question: “People have diabetes, what is

an orthopedic doctor going to do to manage the diabetes?”111

Dr. Puisis testified that there is a problem with Angola hiring doctors with

insufficient training and potential character issues because those doctors need to be

monitored and managed; however, “because everyone is in the same boat, the monitoring

will probably not occur, and we did not see evidence of it. So that’s my concern with the

credentialing at LSP.”112

Dr. Puisis was also critical of the use of emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”)

to provide care for sick calls. He explained that state regulations typically require EMTs

to work under direct supervision of a physician under a set of clearly defined protocols.

However, at LSP:

The way medics are used … is extremely different. So it’s out of the ordinary with respect to their training. So you would not have medics in the community going house to house, for example, when people have complaints about shortness of breath, or a rash, and then making a decision and giving them medication based on an evaluation without a communication with a provider. And what we noticed on multiple chart reviews was there was no documented communication to a provider, none. And we noticed that repeatedly on hundreds and hundreds of episodes of care.

And so basically the emergency medical technicians are working independently it appears based on the documentation. And we believe that

110 Id. at p. 49, lines 5-8. 111 Id., lines 13-14. 112 Id. at p. 49, lines 24-25 through p. 50, lines 1-2.
43681

Page 23 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 24 of 30
it is out of the scope of their license, and we believe it’s a direct impediment to access to care, because the patient in access to care is seeking a professional opinion with respect to their condition, and they’re not receiving it. Very few medic evaluations result in a physician evaluation.113
This was particularly troubling to Dr. Puisis because:
some of the deaths that we saw were inmates who were repeatedly trying to access care and were being seen by a medic and basically managed by a medic without physician intervention over multiple episodes of care even when they had extremely serious conditions such as shock, or they were about to die, literally, and some of them did within a matter of days.114
Plaintiffs also offered evidence that several policies and practices at LSP restrict
inmate access to diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Puisis testified about several systemic
practices that, in his opinion, contribute to the risk of inadequate medical care and serious
harm. In addition to his criticism of understaffing, lack of credentials and proper training,
use of EMTs to handle sick calls, and use of inmate orderlies and officers to administer
medication, Dr. Puisis also took issue with LSP’s policy regarding malingering. Dr. Puisis
testified that Angola is one of the only correctional programs in which he has seen this
policy. He explains:
Aggravated malingering is actually displayed on the sick call form. It warns the person filling out the form that if you complain and do not have the condition that you state you have, you can be punished. Well, imagine if you’re a civilian, and I go to an emergency room with chest pains. I really don’t know what I have when I go to the emergency room. I don’t know if I have an ulcer, or if I have a heart attack. That’s why I go to an emergency room. And yet to expect an inmate to know in advance that they will have or not have a condition, is so beyond the concept of, to me, fairness that it struck me as you could only have this if the leadership agree to it. And, but because any leadership that I’m familiar with would oppose that and get rid of that immediately.
113 Id. at pp. 55, lines 9-25 through p. 56, line 1. 114 Id. at p. 56, lines 4-10. Dr. Puisis also testified that the barrier to access was further demonstrated by the fact that, although at a typical correctional facility, approximately 80% of the sick calls would result in a physician or physician assistant consultation, at Angola, his team found “virtually no physician evaluations based on sick call requests.” Id. at p. 57, lines 2-4. 43681
Page 24 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 25 of 30
Another policy troubling to Dr. Puisis is the restriction of access to specialty care. Dr. Puisis testified that, “[w]hen the seriousness of a patient’s condition exceeds the ability of a physician at the site to care for the patient, the patient should be referred to a consultant who can properly care for the patient. That’s the kind of backdrop of what specialty care is in a prison.”115 However, Dr. Puisis testified that Angola utilizes a facility in New Orleans, nearly two hours away, and the system of managing specialty care “makes it extremely difficult to track whether people actually have received their care.”116 Dr. Puisis further testified that there are also numerous problems with the system utilized to refer a patient for offsite care, including timely scheduling, getting “lost” in the system, and timely appointments.117 Another problematic discovery regarding specialty care is that patient inmates would report to the specialist without the appropriate relevant testing done beforehand to provide to the specialist.118 Dr. Puisis also ascertained that there was “hardly ever”119 a follow-up with a primary care doctor to discuss what treatment the specialist had recommended. Dr. Puisis described one incident demonstrating this problem:
And tragically, in one circumstance a patient was admitted to a hospital and was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and started on a blood thinner. Because, as you know, blood thinners prevent atrial fibrillation from causing emboli. And the patient, the patient was not evaluated post-hospitalization with respect to what the recommendations were, so the anti-coagulant was never ordered. And within ten days the patient died of multiple pulmonary emboli in a cardiac thrombus.120

115 Id. at pp. 64, lines 23-23 through p. 65, lines 1-2. 116 Id. at p. 65, lines 7-9. 117 Id. at pp. 65-66. 118 Id. at p. 66. 119 Id. at p. 67, lines 8-9. 120 Id., lines 9-18.
43681

Page 25 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 26 of 30
Finally, with respect to specialty care, Dr. Puisis testified that there were many cases of delayed referral for patients who needed referral. He explained: “Many of the preventable deaths were people who for months or years had a complaint that required an evaluation which did not occur timely, and result[ed] in either morbidity or mortality.”121
The Court finds that the evidence clearly satisfies commonality and typicality as the challenged policies and practices pose several common question of fact and law as set forth above. Because Defendants admit that these policies and practices apply to all inmates, and all inmates will at some point will need some type of medical care while incarcerated, the alleged exposure of the entire Class to these policies is capable of classwide resolution under Rule 23. Further, the Court finds that there are common resolutions that would answer these common questions across the board.
ADA SubClass Turning to the ADA Subclass, Plaintiff claim that the policies and practices at LSP present common questions capable of classwide resolution. Plaintiffs contend that the policies and practices subject to the ADA claims fall into two broad categories: (1) denial of the benefit of services, programs, or activities on the basis of a disability, and (2) Defendants’ use of methods of administration that effect discrimination.122 The Supreme Court has held that Title II of the ADA applies to state prison facilities and state prison services.123 The Supreme Court has also recognized that, “insofar as
121 Id., lines 20-25. 122 See Rec. Doc. No. 377, p. 7. 123 See Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998) (noting that state prisons “fall squarely within the statutory definition of ‘public entity’” because the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B), defines public entity as “any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government”). 43681
Page 26 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 27 of 30
Title II creates a private cause of action against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity.”124 The RA applies to recipients of federal funding.125 Furthermore, when a plaintiff asserts a cause of action against an employer-municipality, under either the ADA or the RA, the public entity is liable for the vicarious acts of any of its employees as specifically provided by the ADA.126
Title II of the ADA, which governs access to “Public Services,” states in part that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”127 The Rehabilitation Act states that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance .... ”128 The ADA states that “[t]he remedies, procedures and rights” available under the Rehabilitation Act are also accessible under the ADA.129 The Fifth Circuit has recognized that “[j]urisprudence interpreting either section is applicable to both,”130 and that “[t]he RA and the ADA are judged under the same legal standards, and the same remedies are available under both Acts.”131
124 United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159, 126 S.Ct. 877, 163 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). 125 Delano–Pyle v. Victoria County, Tex., 302 F.3d 567, 574 (5th Cir. 2002). 126 Id. at 574–75. 127 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 128 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 129 Delano–Pyle v. Victoria County, Tex., 302 F.3d 567, 574 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12133). 130 Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 2000). 131 Kemp v. Holder, 610 F.3d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2010). 43681
Page 27 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 28 of 30
Considering the claim regarding access to programs, benefits, and services,
Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to certify an ADA Subclass on this issue.
Inmate Davis testified about the lack of a handicap accessible van to transport him back
to LSP from a hospital following his back surgery and the fact that he was laid face down
across the front seat in a rodeo van with staples in his back.132 A plethora of physical
barriers and inappropriately equipped facilities were found and documented in the
Evaluation by Plaintiffs’ architectural expert Mark Mazz.133 Evidence was presented
showing that disabled inmates with a duty status134 were prohibited from certain programs
and activities,135 were not provided reasonable accommodations, modifications, and
medical aids,136 and were not considered in LSP’s evacuation plans or emergency
planning.137
With regard to methods of administration, Plaintiffs submitted evidence regarding,
inter alia, the inadequacy of the current LSP ADA Coordinator as required by 28 C.F.R.
35.107(a),138 the failure to adequately train employees on the implementation of disability
policies,139 placing disabled inmates in “medical dormitories” not equipped for the
132 Rec. Doc. No. 358-5 at 14-16. 133 Rec. Doc. No. 358-2 at 294-296. 134 A “duty status” is a written designation assigned by a prison medical doctor indicating an inmate’s physical or mental ability to perform hard labor in accordance with his sentence. Duty statuses are generally assigned by physicians following a medical evaluation, and they are subject to change depending on changes in the medical condition of a particular inmate. Duty statuses may range from no duty (indicating a need for bed rest), to light duty or regular duty with restrictions, and finally to regular duty without restrictions (indicating the inmate is capable of performing any and all hard labor). Armant v. Stalder, 287 Fed. Appx. 351, 352 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2008). 135 Rec. Doc. No. 358-4 at 152; Rec. Doc. No. 358-5 at 132, 134; Rec. Doc. No. 358-2 at 294-96; Rec. Doc. No. 358-3 at 2. 136 Rec. Doc. No. 358-5 at 4-11. 137 Id. at 17-30; Rec. Doc. No. 358-4 at 167-68. 138 Rec. Doc. No. 358-3 at 2; Rec. Doc. No. 358-5 at 122-23, 127, 130; Rec. Doc. No. 358-6 at 94, 101, 103-104; Rec. Doc. No. 359 at 1. 139 Rec. Doc. No. 358-4 at 164. 43681
Page 28 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 29 of 30
disabled,140 and LSP’s alleged failure to provide adequate procedures for requesting accommodations and appealing denials.141
Because all of the ADA policies and procedures pose multiple common questions of fact and law and apply across the board to all disabled inmates, the Court finds that certification of the ADA Subclass is appropriate. Whether Defendants had knowledge of insufficient accommodations for persons with disabilities can be evaluated in “one stroke” for this entire Subclass.142 As the District Court for the Northern District of California succinctly stated: “No individualized inquiry into the experiences of any particular inmate or Plaintiff is necessary. The claims of the inmates with disabilities sub-class also satisfy the commonality requirement: either the Plaintiffs are housed in a facility that comports with the ADA or they are not.”143

140 Id. at 139-140, 142. 141 Rec. Doc. No. 385-6 at 96-97. 142 See Hernandez, 305 F.R.D. at 157. 143 Id.
43681

Page 29 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 394 02/26/18 Page 30 of 30
IV. CONCLUSION144 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification145 and appoints all Named Plaintiffs who are still living and currently housed at LSP, and have fully exhausted administrative remedies at the time of the filing of this lawsuit, as class representatives. The Court designates Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). The Class and Subclass are defined as follows: “all inmates who now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at LSP” and “all qualified individuals with a disability, as defined by the ADA/RA, who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at LSP.”
The Court will set a Scheduling Conference by separate notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on February 26, 2018.
S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
144 The Court notes that the findings herein regarding exhaustion under the PLRA are final and are the “law of the case”; however, the Court makes no definitive findings on the merits, and Plaintiffs will be required to prove the merits of their case at trial. 145 Rec. Doc. No. 133. 43681
Page 30 of 30

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580 03/28/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-00318

v.

JUDGE SDD

BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity, et al.,

MAGISTRATE RLB

Defendants.

EMERGENCY MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY REGARDING COVID-19
Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request the Court re-open discovery in this matter given the
imminent and dangerous threat that the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) poses to Plaintiffs and Class
members. The reasons for this emergency motion are set forth in the attached memorandum.
Plaintiffs attempted to schedule a meet-and-confer with Defendants prior to filing this motion with
the Court, which Defendants refused to meet. Given the significant threat that COVID-19 poses
and the limited discovery that Plaintiffs seek, they respectfully request that the Court expedite the
schedule for any additional briefing on this emergency motion.
Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2020.
Respectfully submitted by:
/s/ Mercedes Montagnes
Mercedes Montagnes, La. Bar No. 33287 Jamila Johnson, La. Bar No. 37953 Nishi Kumar, La. Bar No. 37415 The Promise of Justice Initiative 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 Facsimile: (504) 595-8006 Email: mmontagnes@defendla.org
Jeffrey B. Dubner (pro hac vice) P.O. Box 34553

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580 03/28/20 Page 2 of 2
Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 656-2722 Email: Jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com
Daniel A. Small (pro hac vice) Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
Bruce Hamilton, La. Bar No. 33170 ACLU Foundation of Louisiana P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, Louisiana 70156 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (504) 613-6511 Email: bhamilton@laaclu.org
Jared Davidson, La. Bar No. 37093 Southern Poverty Law Center 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 Email: jared.davidson@splcenter.org
Ronald K. Lospennato, La. Bar No. 32191 Advocacy Center 8325 Oak St. New Orleans, LA 700118 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (888) 534-2996 Email: rlospennato@advocacyla.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 28, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Mercedes Montagnes Mercedes Montagnes, La. Bar No. 33287
2

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-1 03/28/20 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-00318

v.

JUDGE SDD

BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity, et al.,

MAGISTRATE RLB

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY REGARDING COVID-19
Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request the Court reopen discovery in this matter given the imminent and dangerous threat that the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) poses to Plaintiffs and Class members. The reasons for this emergency motion are set forth below.
FACTS The COVID-19 pandemic is “a rapidly escalating public health crisis.”1 There is no curative medical treatment and no vaccine for this deadly virus.2 The virus can cause people to experience “essentially drowning in their own blood and fluids because their lungs are so full.”3 Current statistics indicate a fatality rate of 3.6% in Louisiana—which is substantially higher than the overall rate of 2.3%. Even where death does not occur, COVID-19 can cause serious illness and life-altering complications, especially for older people and those with underlying health conditions.4

1 Xochihua-Jaimes v. William P. Barr, Case No. 18-71460 (9th Cir. March 23, 2020). 2 Declaration of Dr. Michael Puisis (“Puisis Dec.”) at ¶ 2. Dr. Puisis served as one of three medical experts at the trial in this matter. 3 Lizzie Presser, A Medical Worker Describes Terrifying Lung Failure From COVID-19 — Even in His Young Patients, PROPUBLICA (Mar. 21, 2020 5:00 AM EDT), https://www.propublica.org/article/amedical-worker-describes--terrifying-lung-failure-from-covid19-even-in-his-young-patients. 4 Puisis Dec. at ¶ 12; see also Center for Disease Control (CDC), Are You at Higher Risk for Severe Illness? (Mar. 20, 2020) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/high-riskcomplications.html.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-1 03/28/20 Page 2 of 8
COVID-19 infection rates are rising rapidly, and the United States now has more than 80,000 cases—the highest number of any country in the world.5 Louisiana is increasingly becoming an epicenter for the virus’s spread, and the state “may be experiencing the world’s fastest growth in new cases.” 6 A new study reports that COVID-19 cases in Louisiana grew at a rate of 67.8% per day—the highest in the United States.7 According to the Louisiana Department of Health, as of March 26, 2020, there were 2,305 cases of COVID-19 in Louisiana and 83 deaths.8 Those grim numbers will grow exponentially with each passing day.
Prisons promote the spread of COVID-19 because of their crowded and congregate housing arrangements.9 The Louisiana State Penitentiary (“Angola”) itself is a tinderbox for COVID-19’s spread.10 Dormitories are crowded.11 Conditions make “social distancing” precautions functionally impossible.12
Making matters worse, a substantial number of people imprisoned at Angola are at the highest risk of serious infections, complications, and death. At Angola, a majority of detained people are elderly, have disabilities, and/or suffer from chronic illnesses or mental illnesses that place them at great risk.13 As a result, spread of COVID-19 at Angola may result in particularly high rates of death.14
Critically, the threat of COVID-19 at Angola is exponentially magnified by the prison’s preexisting inadequate medical system. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, medical care at Angola failed to provide patients with access to timely and adequate care; indeed, this Court recently
5 Id. at ¶ 3. 6 Katy Reckdahl et al, New Orleans Faces a Virus Nightmare, and Mardi Gras May Be Why, NYTIMES (Mar. 27, 2020 8:27 AM EDT), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/coronavirus-louisiananew-orleans.html. 7 Puisis Dec. at ¶ 4. 8 Id. at ¶ 4. 9 Id. at ¶ 10. 10 Id. at ¶ 10. 11 Id. at ¶ 10. 12 Id. at ¶ 10. 13 Id. at ¶ 12. 14 Id. at ¶ 12.
2

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-1 03/28/20 Page 3 of 8
acknowledged “that the medical care at Angola . . . is unconstitutional in some respects[.]”15 The COVID-19 outbreak will further strain Angola’s already broken and unconstitutional medical system.16 Moreover, Angola is far from hospitals that are equipped to treat COVID-19, and even those hospitals could imminently lack capacity to care for patients from Angola.17 Absent any substantial and intervening changes in circumstances, Angola is currently not equipped to provide hospital-level care for COVID-19, such as ventilation.18 This will invariably place Angola patients at a substantial risk of death.19
Spread of the virus within Angola is imminent. In fact, at least one Angola employee has already tested positive.20 Given the lack of testing, the virus’s long incubation period, and that many people show no symptoms, this documented case is likely just the tip of the iceberg in terms of current infections amongst Angola staff and those imprisoned there.
The question therefore is not if or even when COVID-19 will strike Angola. Rather, the crucial question that must be addressed immediately is: Is Angola taking proper measures to deal with this imminent and deadly virus and, if not, how many Class members will get sick, suffer serious complications, and die from COVID-19?
For that reason, on March 19, 2020, Plaintiffs requested via email information from Defendants concerning Defendants’ planned response to COVID-19 given serious concerns for the health and safety of Class members.21 Plaintiffs subsequently requested a meet-and-confer so they could discuss other information that they would need to ensure their clients’ protection, expressing their desire to work with Defendants to ensure the minimal burden possible on the DOC.22 On March 25, 2020, Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a Continuity of Operations Plan and a
15 Rec. Doc. 578. 16 Id. at ¶ 13. 17 Id. at ¶ 13. 18 Id. at ¶ 13. 19 Id. at ¶ 13. 20 Matt Sledge, Two Louisiana prison staffers, including Angola employee, test positive for coronavirus, THE NEW ORLEANS ADVOCATE (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_e947332a-6f70-11ea-83bf-8fb78c8ff09c.html. 21 Declaration of Jeffrey Dubner (“Dubner Dec.”) at ¶ 3. 22 Id. at ¶ 5.
3

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-1 03/28/20 Page 4 of 8
Pandemic Flu Plan.23 Neither document specifically references COVID-19. In addition, Defendants’ e-mail provided a “bullet point summary” of some precautionary measures allegedly being implemented at Angola, such as restricting movement, modifications to pill call procedures, the provision of testing for symptomatic staff and patients, screening of staff, and provision of free soap.24 Apart from providing that information, Defendants explicitly refused to meet and confer with Plaintiffs.25
Alarmingly, DOC’s COVID-19 guidance fails to address a number of critical issues, as documented by Dr. Michael Puisis in the attached declaration. Indeed, as Dr. Puisis explains, LSP's Pandemic Flu Plan is not a COVID-19 plan at all, but rather a “generic influenza-like-illness plan which is not consistent with [CDC] guidance regarding COVID-19 and should not be used.”26 Accordingly, on March 26, 2020, Plaintiffs requested additional information concerning COVID-19 from Defendants given serious concerns over the health and safety of Class members.27 Plaintiffs further informed Defendants of the type of information that they needed and again requested a meet-and-confer to discuss ways to minimize any burden. Plaintiffs explained that they would otherwise have no choice but to seek emergency relief from the court, including a motion to re-open discovery.28 Plaintiffs requested that Defendants let them know if they would meet and confer by 5:00pm CST on March 27, 2020.29 Defendants have since failed to respond or provide the requested information.30
ARGUMENT Discovery should be immediately reopened for the limited and sole purpose of ensuring that Defendants’ policies and practices concerning COVID-19 do not place Class members at substantial risk of serious harm or likely death.
23 Id. at ¶ 6. 24 Id. at ¶ 6. 25 Id. at ¶ 6. 26 Puisis Dec. at ¶ 21. 27 Dubner Dec. at ¶ 7. 28 Id. at ¶ 7. 29 Id. at ¶ 7. 30 Id. at ¶ 8.
4

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-1 03/28/20 Page 5 of 8
A district court has “considerable discretion” to reopen discovery. See Carpenter v. Scott, No. 14–3047, 2017 WL 4270624, *2 (.CD. Ill. Sep. 26, 2017); accord Marathon Fin. Ins., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 458, 469 (5th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision on whether to reopen discovery). In resolving the issue, courts may consider the following factors: (1) whether good cause exists to reopen discovery; (2) whether the need for discovery was precipitated by the neglect of the movant; (3) the specificity of the discovery that is sought; (4) the relevance of the discovery being sought; and (5) whether the opposing party would be prejudiced. See Ziegler v. Krisher, No: 2:14-cv-321, 2016 WL 8135536, *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2016).
Each of these factors strongly militates in Plaintiffs’ favor. First, there can be no serious dispute that the imminent and dangerous risks of COVID-19 constitute not only good—but also compelling—cause to reopen discovery to ensure that Defendants are not placing Class members in harm’s way. This is especially true given the Court’s recent decision finding that medical care at Angola is unconstitutional in some respects. Class members are already subject to unremediated unconstitutional conditions of confinement that place them at substantial risk of serious harm; those risks are magnified hundredfold in the current crisis. Second, Plaintiffs’ inability to obtain documents related to COVID-19 is not the result of any neglect; rather, Plaintiffs timely sought this information from Defendants before seeking judicial intervention. Third, Plaintiffs are seeking limited and specific discovery concerning Defendants’ response to COVID-19. Fourth, Defendants’ response to the COVID-19 epidemic is not only relevant but also strikes at the very heart of this case, and is also highly relevant for purposes of forthcoming remedial proceedings and for reducing the number of Class members who will be denied a remedy by suffering a preventable death in the epidemic. Fifth, Defendants will not suffer any prejudice as a result of re-opening discovery for these narrow purposes. The Court has already issued an order noting that the medical care at Angola is unconstitutional, and the sought-after information should be easily obtainable by Defendants. Plaintiffs have tailored their requests to include only information that they believe can be easily provided, and have repeatedly expressed their desire to shape their requests to ensure the lowest possible burden. Further, even assuming arguendo Defendants could claim some de minimus prejudice,
5

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-1 03/28/20 Page 6 of 8
that prejudice pales in comparison to the prejudice that Class members will suffer if they cannot be assured that Defendants have adequate policies and practices in place to protect them from COVID-19.
The very lives of Plaintiffs and Class members are in Defendants’ hands. Moreover, the adequacy of Defendants’ response to COVID-19 will have far-reaching consequences not only for Plaintiffs and the Class themselves but also for Angola staff, their families, and the community at large. If COVID-19 sweeps through an unprepared Angola, it will almost certainly spread outside the prison, dramatically increasing transmission in central Louisiana, with ramifications for the community at large.31 As Dr. Puisis explains in the attached declaration, the DOC’s plan to send people incarcerated in state and local facilities who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19 to Angola32 puts Plaintiffs—approximately 50% of whom are over the age of 50—at increased risk of infection and death.33 This Court’s recent observation that medical care at Angola is unconstitutional is itself an alarming foreshadowing of what may come if Defendants fail to adequately respond to this public health crisis. All Plaintiffs seek by this motion is the opportunity to obtain evidence to ensure that that response is an adequate one and protect their clients’ interests if it is not.34
CONCLUSION For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reopen discovery on an expedited basis. A proposed order is attached. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2020.
Respectfully submitted by: /s/ Mercedes Montagnes
31 Puisis Dec. at ¶ 18. 32 Emily Lane, Louisiana plans to house local and state inmates with coronavirus at Angola and Allen Correctional; WDSU NEWS (March 27, 2020), https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-plans-tohouse-inmates-with-coronavirus-at-angola-and-another-prison/31960114. 33 Id. at ¶ 18. 34 Plaintiffs wish to advise the Court that there is a high likelihood they will need to file additional emergency motions in the coming days dealing with the shortcomings in Defendants’ plans to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. Plaintiffs hope that the requested information and conferral with Defendants will allow them to avoid seeking injunctive relief, but Defendants’ response to date suggests that may not be possible.
6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-1 03/28/20 Page 7 of 8
Mercedes Montagnes, La. Bar No. 33287 Jamila Johnson, La. Bar No. 37953 Nishi Kumar, La. Bar No. 37415 The Promise of Justice Initiative 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 Facsimile: (504) 595-8006 Email: mmontagnes@defendla.org
Jeffrey B. Dubner (pro hac vice) P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 656-2722 Email: Jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com
Daniel A. Small (pro hac vice) Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
Bruce Hamilton, La. Bar No. 33170 ACLU Foundation of Louisiana P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, Louisiana 70156 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (504) 613-6511 Email: bhamilton@laaclu.org
Jared Davidson, La. Bar No. 37093 Southern Poverty Law Center 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 Email: jared.davidson@splcenter.org
Ronald K. Lospennato, La. Bar No. 32191 Advocacy Center 8325 Oak St. New Orleans, LA 700118 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (888) 534-2996 Email: rlospennato@advocacyla.org
7

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-1 03/28/20 Page 8 of 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 28, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Mercedes Montagnes Mercedes Montagnes La. Bar No. 33287
8

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-2 03/28/20 Page 1 of 7
DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL PUISIS CONCERNING THE RISK OF THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 IN THE LOUISIANA STATE PRISON (LSP) AT ANGOLA
1. Dr. Michael Puisis is an internist who has worked in correctional medicine for 35 years. He began working at the Cook County Jail as a physician in 1985 and became the Medical Director of Cook County Jail from 1991 to 1996 and Chief Operating Officer for the medical program at the Cook County Jail from 2009 to 2012. He has worked in and managed correctional medical programs in multiple state prisons including in Illinois and New Mexico. He has worked as a Monitor or Expert for Federal Courts on multiple cases and has worked as a Correctional Medical Expert for the Department of Justice on multiple cases. He has also participated in revisions of national standards for medical care for the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and for the American Public Health Association. He also participated in revision of tuberculosis standards for the Center for Disease Control. Dr. Puisis has edited the only textbook on correctional medicine, Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine. Dr. Puisis evaluated the Louisiana State Prison at Angola for The Promise of Justice Initiative in 2016 and previously monitored Louisiana State Prison at Angola for the Department of Justice.
2. Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral pandemic. This is a novel virus for which there is no established curative medical treatment and no vaccine.
3. The number of cases of COVID-19 in the United States are rising rapidly. On March 26, 2020, Johns Hopkins reported that there were 83,836 reported COVID-19 infections in the U.S. The number of deaths is over 1,000 but both cases and deaths are rising rapidly so by the time this declaration is read the numbers of both cases and deaths will be significantly larger. The number of cases of COVID-19 is the highest number of reported cases of any country in the world.
4. Louisiana has a rapidly accelerating rate of COVID-19 infections. A study from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette reported that COVID-19 cases grew at a 67.8% rate, the highest rate in the U.S.1 The Louisiana Department of Health reported on March 26, 2020 that there were 2,305 cases of COVID-19 with 83 deaths.
5. UpToDate2 reports an overall case mortality rate from the disease of 2.3. Louisiana has 83 deaths for 2,305 cases; 3.6% of persons diagnosed with the infection in Louisiana die.
6. COVID-19 is transmitted by droplets of infected aerosol when people with the infection cough. Droplets of respiratory secretions infected with the virus can survive as an aerosol
1 Coronavirus cases grew faster in Louisiana than anywhere else in the world: UL study, The Acadiana Advocate, Adam Daigle March 24, 2020, https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/coronavirus/article_94494420-6d4b-11ea-ac42ff7dd722c084.html. 2 UpToDate is an online medical reference widely used in hospitals, health organizations, and private physicians.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-2 03/28/20 Page 2 of 7
for up to three hours.3 4 Droplets can be directly transmitted by inhalation to other individuals in close proximity. Droplets can land on surfaces and be picked up by the hands of another person who can then become infected by contacting a mucous membrane (eyes, mouth, or nose) with their hand. Infected droplets can remain viable on surfaces for variable lengths of time, ranging from up to 3 hours on copper, 24 hours on cardboard, and 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel.5
7. Medical care for COVID-19 focuses on prevention, which emphasizes social distancing, handwashing, and respiratory hygiene. The current CDC recommendations for social distancing and frequent handwashing measures, which are the only measures available to protect against infection, are not possible in LSP. Furthermore, repeated sanitation of horizontal and touch surfaces in inmate living units and throughout LSP is not typically done based on our review and would be an overwhelming task. LSP has worse living conditions and higher comingling of people than cruise ships and nursing homes, where COVID-19 is known to have easily spread. Prevention of contact with an infected droplet is significantly more difficult in a prison than in the community.
8. With respect to transmission of disease by droplet inhalation, correctional environments, including LSP, actually promote spread of respiratory contagious disease. Jails and prisons are long known to be a breeding ground for infectious respiratory illness. Tuberculosis is a bacteria which is significantly less transmissible than COVID-19 yet has been responsible for numerous outbreaks of illness in prisons and jails over the years. Respiratory infectious disease like TB are thought to be made worse in prisons because of crowding and recirculated air. Because of transmissibility of TB in prisons the CDC still recommends screening for this condition in prisons. Proper screening for tuberculosis can control that disease in prison populations.
9. The COVID-19 virus is a different type of respiratory illness; its spread is rapid and it is more easily transmissible. Control through screening with a test as is done for TB in prisons would be optimal but current CDC guidance6 does not recommend a test as a screening method. Likely, this is due to a critical shortage of testing material. The method of control in an intake of a correctional facility is quarantine for up to 14 days.7 If testing material
3 National Institute of Health, available at https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/newcoronavirus-stable-hours-surfaces 4 Neeltje van Doremalen and Others, Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1, Correspondence in New England Journal of Medicine, March 17, 2020, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?cid=DM88773_&bid=171021451 5 Id. 6 Evaluating and Testing Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Centers for Disease Control as found at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html 7 In their Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities guidance the CDC recommends “If possible, consider quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general population (SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-2 03/28/20 Page 3 of 7
becomes readily available, I would recommend testing and a quarantine until the test is complete.
10. Jails and prisons promote spread of respiratory illnesses because of crowded congregate housing arrangements. LSP is the largest maximum security prison in the U. S. and has a population of approximately 6000 individuals. The main unit of LSP contains 32 dormitories. The remote camps C and D have a combination of dormitories and cellblocks. Camp F is a minimum dormitory. I have visited multiple inmate dormitories. All dormitories I visited were filled to capacity and were crowded. The dormitories are not arranged to provide social distancing as the distance between beds is approximately 3 feet. Large fans blow air through the units which is likely to spread contagious agents embedded in aerosol like COVID-19. Washing areas are shared. There is no privacy and it is not possible to remain 6 feet apart as recommended. Infirmary beds are in dormitory style setting and are close together. If inmates with COVID-19 are housed on the infirmary rather than outside hospitals, the infection is likely to spread throughout this unit of compromised patients. Photos in our prior 2016 report8 show what some of these dormitories and showers look like.9 Notable in these pictures is that soap is not consistently present on sinks used by staff and in showers used by inmates. Currently the President’s Task Force on COVID-19 recommends limiting gatherings to no more than 10 persons. Inmates at LSP live in large dormitories with over 80 persons per dormitory. These dormitories are incapable of allowing inmates to follow current CDC recommendations regarding prevention against COVID-19. Officers guarding the inmates can carry the infection into the prison. One couldn’t devise a system more contrary to current public health recommendations and the President’s Task Force recommendations than a prison like LSP. The elderly and those with significant medical conditions are housed together in some of these dormitories creating a nursing home like environment; environments where COVID-19 is known to have rapidly spread. Dormitories with large numbers of persons with severe medical conditions are similar to nursing homes where COVID is known to have caused significant death.
11. There is a lack of information about what is occurring within LSP and testing is not being widely performed. A bullet point summary of the LSP COVID-19 plan states that “any LSP offender presenting with symptoms is given both a flu test and COVID-19 test.” A news report on March 26, 2020 stated that two employees at different state prisons tested positive for COVID-19 but that no inmates have tested positive. The newspaper reported that only 32 inmates in the entire Louisiana Department of Corrections have been tested and all have tested negative. Currently, transfers into LSP have been suspended absent extenuating circumstances and if an inmate is transferred into LSP, they are supposed to be quarantined
case). As found at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correctiondetention/guidance-correctional-detention.html 8 Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola; Health Care Evaluation Submitted October 3, 2016; Lewis et al v. Cain et al Class Action Complaint. United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Case No. 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 133-1 10/14/16 9 Photos PX006.0279, PX006.0280, PX006.0277

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-2 03/28/20 Page 4 of 7
for a 14-day period. LSP screens visitors and new inmates with symptom screening and a temperature. These measures are consistent with recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) correctional guidelines.10 However, based on our review of this facility in 2018, we noted ineffective medical care with several unqualified physicians, insufficient nurse staff, no infection control nurse, and lack of supervision of front line medical staff. While CDC procedures are in place I question the ability to effectively carry out the procedures as stated.
12. An individual’s immune system is the primary defense against this infection. As a result, people over age 65 years of age and persons with impaired immunity may have a higher probability of death if they are infected. Age related risk is a result of impaired immunity with aging. The older a person is the greater the apparent risk. In LSP 90% of inmates are incarcerated for life and approximately 50% of inmates are over age 50. People on immunosuppressive medication, with diseases causing impaired immunity, or with significant cardiac or pulmonary medical conditions also are at increased risk of death. It has recently been reported that younger patients with cardiovascular disease or hypertension may have unappreciated risk for severe disease.11 This has significant implications for correctional facilities with high rates of hypertension. Persons with severe mental illness in prisons are also, in my opinion, at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting infection because they are unable to understand social distancing and hand hygiene and may be unable to communicate symptoms appropriately. Also, by classification, like other prison systems, LSP houses inmates who are elderly, have disabilities, are mentally ill or have severe chronic illness profiles in specific housing areas, making this population at great risk if one of them becomes infected. Because LSP has a very large elderly population with significant chronic illness spread of infection in LSP would result in high rates of death.
13. Based on our review of care at LSP in 2016, inmates lacked access to hospital care under ordinary circumstances; the COVID-19 pandemic will only make that worse. Currently, severe COVID-19 disease is treated only with supportive care including respiratory isolation, oxygen, and mechanical ventilation as a last resort. LSP is a remote prison which is also remote from hospitals. There are reports that Louisiana’s hospitals could be overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases.12 The reports of possible lack of hospital beds would place LSP
10 Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted March 23, 2020 as found at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html 11 ACE2 is the SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Required for Cell Entry, Summary, New England Journal of Medicine, March 18, 2020 Review of article of Hoffman, M et al in Cell 2020 Mar 5 12 Louisiana’s hospitals could be overwhelmed by COVID-19 virus in all but best scenario; Daily Adviser March 26, 2020 as found at https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2020/03/26/coronavirus-louisiana-hospitalsoverwhelmed-under-all-covid-19-scenarios/2884019001/

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-2 03/28/20 Page 5 of 7
inmates in a dire predicament.13 Also, LSP is not set up to manage hospital level care including ventilation. The infirmary is a dormitory and housing a COVID-19 patient on this unit would result in spread to other uninfected but medically compromised patients. There is therefore no place to treat an ill person with COVID-19 except in a general housing unit or on the infirmary, both of which would expose other patients to infection. The existing staff at LSP could not manage any hospital-level patient and getting a patient to a hospital from LSP will be challenging under current circumstances. This will invariably place inmates at risk of death.
Recommendations
14. Steps should be taken to release any inmate who is a low risk to the community. The additional risk to inmates by virtue of crowding in prisons and the risk of promoting spread of the infection to the inmate population, and thereby to the community, needs to be weighed against the reason for not releasing the inmate from incarceration. Release based on risk should prioritize inmates over 65 years of age, inmates with immune disorders, inmates with significant cardiac (including hypertension) or pulmonary conditions, or inmates with cognitive disorders. Keeping healthy individuals in prison for short sentences, or for parole violations or other marginal public safety reasons only promotes crowding. Crowding decreases the ability of maintaining distancing of prisoners which risks spread of the virus. Therefore, healthy prisoners with low risk sentences are best sent home as a preventive measure.
15. Because LSP is a maximum security prison with a 90% of inmates having a life sentence, depopulation of low risk inmates may not yield many inmates who can be released. Depopulating should be done at other Louisiana prisons to permit LSP to reassign inmates to other prisons that will permit appropriate distancing in dormitories. Such reassignment is permissible under CDC guideline on the basis of depopulation. Current dormitory arrangements are inconsistent with current public health and CDC recommendations regarding social distancing and if COVID-19 transmission penetrates the prison, the infection will spread widely.
16. If and when COVID-19 testing becomes readily available, expanded testing should be done.
17. All persons over 65, with severe mental illness, with immune disorders, with serious cardiac or pulmonary disease, or with any cognitive disorder should have daily symptom screening and temperature screening. Any positive symptom or temperature should require respiratory isolation and testing for COVID-19. Temperatures should be taken with infrared no-touch thermometers so that symptom screening and temperatures can be taken without touching the patient.
13 Who gets a ventilator? Hospitals facing coronavirus surge are preparing for life-or-death decisions. NBC News as found at https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/who-gets-ventilatorhospitals-facing-coronavirus-surge-are-preparing-life-n1162721

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-2 03/28/20 Page 6 of 7
18. Persons suspicious for or known to be infected with COVID-19 should NOT be transferred to LSP unless specifically approved and recommended by the Louisiana Department of Health.14 LSP and West Feliciana Parish have no cases of COVID-19 as of March 26, 2020. To send patients infected with COVID-19 to a parish and correctional facility with no known cases risks spreading the disease further into Louisiana and has ramifications for the community at large. Furthermore, approximately 50% of the LSP population is over age 50 with many high risk medical conditions and a majority of inmates live in dormitories. This increases risk of transmission into an uninfected population and increases risk of death.
19. The CDC recommends suspending all transfers between facilities or jurisdictions.15 LSP should enact this recommendation. However, if a transfer must be done, any person is transferred from one prison to another, they should have a negative COVID-19 test result or be quarantined for 14 days prior to transfer and known to not have COVID-19.
20. LSP needs to develop guidelines for when to send patients to a hospital. These should be developed with the reference hospital. Contact information with the reference hospital should be established as soon as possible. Criteria for hospital referral should be established in advance and posted so that all physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners are aware.
21. The current Pandemic Flu Plan (PFP) of LSP is a generic influenza-like-illness plan which is not consistent with guidance regarding COVID-1916 and should not be used. Instead, rather than re-writing a document at this late stage, I recommend the existing CDC guidelines
14 Louisiana plans to house local and state inmates with coronavirus at Angola and Allen Correctional; Emily Lane, WDSU News March 27, 2020; as found at https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-plans-to-house-inmates-with-coronavirus-at-angola-andanother-prison/31960114 15 In the Operations item of the Management section of the CDC correctional guidance, it states, “Suspend all transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities (including work release where relevant), unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding”. LSP is not a location ideal for medical isolation or medical care due to poor service history, lack of nearby hospitals, and because the prison and surrounding area have no cases. Sending patients with COVID-19 to this facility risk spread and places them in a facility with less medical resources than a facility closer to a large city. 16 I give only one example. Item 4.a, of the Yellow/Orange Phase of the LSP plan states that “employees will complete a self-screening at roll call. Employees who state they are sick shall be triaged by medical staff or health trained staff, and if found to have a fever shall be sent home. Staff with ILI shall remain at home at least 24 hours after they are free of fever (100F) or signs of fever, without the use of fever medication”. This is incorrect information with respect to COVID-19 and could result in increased transmission of infection. The CDC recommends not returning to work until there is resolution of fever without use of medication and improvement of symptoms and negative COVID-19 tests on at least two consecutive occasions24 hours apart OR at least 3 days since resolution of fever without use of medication and improvement of respiratory symptoms and at least 7 days have passed since symptoms first appeared.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-2 03/28/20 Page 7 of 7
should be used as a plan and appropriately adapted to LSP conditions. The adaptions and CDC guidelines should be widely distributed to health and custody staff. 22. A point of contact with the Louisiana Department of Health should be established and contact information shared with medical leadership. The Department of Health should have contact information of LSP medical leadership and an update conference call with the Department of Health should occur every few days or more frequently if needed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on March 27, 2020 in Chicago, Illinois.
/s/ Michael Puisis Michael Puisis D.O.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-3 03/28/20 Page 1 of 2
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY DUBNER
I, Jeffrey Dubner, state and declare as follows:
1. My name is Jeffrey Dubner, and I am over 18 years of age.
2. I am an attorney of record in this case representing the Plaintiff Class.
3. On March 19, 2020, I emailed Defendants’ counsel to request that DOC share its plan for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. See Ex. A.
4. On March 20, 2020, Defendants’ counsel informed me that they would respond to our email by March 24 or March 25. See Ex. A.
5. In light of the rapidly escalating COVID-19 crisis, I followed up on March 23 to request a telephonic meet and confer, explaining that we anticipate requiring additional information to safeguard our clients’ interests. I expressed that class counsel would be available at any time to discuss the matter and requested that someone from the DOC participate in the meet and confer. See Ex. A.
6. On March 25, 2020, Defendants’ counsel emailed us to provide LSP’s background “continuity of operations” plan and “Pandemic Flu Plan,” along with bullet points of “the key issues that LSP is addressing with offenders to both avoid exposure to the virus and provide for increased family contact.” He stated without explanation that LSP’s “current procedures ensure that proper housing, housekeeping, nutrition, medical care, and sanitation requirements are met despite the additional challenges to staff and the offender population.” He explicitly rejected my request to meet and confer, stating in part, “At this time DOC and LSP do not need your assistance in dealing with this event and we decline your invitation to meet and confer later this week.” Ex. A.
7. On March 26, 2020, I responded to Defendants’ counsel’s email clarifying that class counsel represents “a certified class of all inmates at Angola who have alleged — and proven — that the DOC's medical system exposes them to an unconstitutional risk of serious harm” and that “we have an ethical and fiduciary duty to determine whether emergency relief is required while we await the District Court’s order remediating that risk.” I provided a list of the specific types of information that we sought, and repeated that we wished to discuss “the least intrusive way to get this information.” I explained that “[i]f Defendants are not willing to provide us with the information we need to determine whether action is necessary, we will have no choice but to request that the Court reopen limited discovery to determine if injunctive steps are needed” and expressed class counsel’s preference for working with Defendants rather than seeking recourse through the Court. I restated class counsel’s willingness to speak and informed Defendants’ counsel that if we did not hear from them by 5:00 pm on Friday, March 27, we would move for appropriate relief before the Court. Ex. A.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-3 03/28/20 Page 2 of 2
8. As of midnight on Friday, March 27, we have received no further correspondence from Defendants’ counsel.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements above are true and correct. Executed on this 27th day of March, 2020.
/s/ Jeffrey Dubner Jeffrey Dubner

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 1 of 54

Nishi Kumar
From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject:

Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Thursday, March 26, 2020 4:50 PM Randy Robert John Conine; Jeffrey Cody; Caroline Tomeny; Randal J. Robert; Keith J. Fernandez; Connell L. Archey; Mercedes Montagnes; Rebecca Ramaswamy; Jared Davidson; Jamila Johnson; Bruce Hamilton; rlospennato@advocacyla.org; Nishi Kumar Re: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested

Randy,
Thank you for your email. To be clear, we represent a certified class of all inmates at Angola who have alleged -- and proven -- that the DOC's medical system exposes them to an unconstitutional risk of serious harm. We have an ethical and fiduciary duty to determine whether emergency relief is required while we await the District Court's order remediating that risk. If Defendants are not willing to provide us with the information we need to determine whether action is necessary, we will have no choice but to request that the Court reopen limited discovery to determine if injunctive steps are needed. We requested a meet and confer in the hopes of avoiding that possibility and ensuring that our need to protect our clients poses the least burden possible on DOC. If we must seek relief from the Court, it will not be to "interfere" with DOC's operations but to ensure that our clients are safe despite your intransigence. Of course, we would prefer to work with Defendants to avoid the need of going to court, but that will require cooperation between the parties given the urgent circumstances.
Below are the types of information we will need to ensure that emergency relief is not necessary at this time. Again, we are more than willing to discuss with you and/or DOC the least intrusive way to get this information.
 Weekly population numbers for people housed at Angola beginning January 1;  Documentation of Angola's criteria for transport to an outside hospital for confirmed or suspected
COVID-10 infection;  Documentation of trips to outside hospitals, including but not limited to ambulance runs and requests to
transport by both Angola and the outside hospitals;  Any criteria for who is being given a COVID-19 test and information on who is administering that
screening;  How many ventilators are available at Angola and where those ventilators are located;  Documentation of medical supply inventory currently available at Camp J and anywhere else staff or
patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 are being held;  Monthly medical staffing reports beginning January 1;  Any written materials, handouts, or presentations being used to educate staff and patients on COVID-19
or preventive measures;  Weekly reports of how many people have been tested for COVID-19 and the results of those tests;  Plans for infection surge and corresponding impact on staffing and facilities and equipment;  Identity of any working group/committee on COVID-19 response, including membership, and any
documents generated;  Clinical guidance provided to medical staff for screening and treatment;  Plans for social distancing;  Plans for screening of and precautions for medically vulnerable people.

1

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 2 of 54 Again, we would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you at your earliest convenience. If we do not hear from you by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, Friday March 27, we will move for appropriate relief before the Court.
In the meantime, we are reviewing the plan you provided and will convey our concerns as soon as possible.
Regards, Jeff
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 4:04 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote:
Jeff:
Thank you for your concerns for the well-being of the offender population at Louisiana State Penitentiary. You may rest assured that the main priority of Secretary Le Blanc, DOC officials and LSP staff during the COVID-19 emergency declaration is the health and safety of our incarcerated population at LSP.
In order to limit offender exposure to COVID-19, Warden Darrel Vannoy ordered implementation of the attached LSP Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”) as updated in March 2020 to comply with applicable US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidelines.
Below is a bullet point summary of some of the key issues that LSP is addressing with offenders to both avoid exposure to the virus and provide for increased family contact:
 Offender movement within the facility has been restricted, and reverse isolation is being practiced with our most vulnerable population to protect those prisoners from unnecessary exposure to staff. LSP staff in these areas are required to wear masks and only make contact when absolutely necessary.
 Lines for pill call are being alternated. Medicine is distributed unit by unit so that offenders from different units do not come into contact with one another.
 Meal times are also being alternated, and the dining facilities are being both cleaned and sanitized before and after each unit has meal time. Yard time is also being allocated on a unit by unit basis.
 Transfers between DOC facilities and/or local facilities have been suspended indefinitely absent extenuating circumstances, and any offender transferring into LSP is required to quarantine for a 14-day period. If the offender develops symptoms, he is placed into isolation.
 Any LSP offender presenting with symptoms is given both a flu test and COVID-19 test.  All employees entering the facility are screened daily by means of a temperature check and
a series of questions regarding COVID-19 symptoms and recent travel.
2

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 3 of 54
 Offenders are currently being provided two free telephone calls per week, and Warden Vannoy has chosen to allow any offender being moved into quarantine or isolation a free telephone call to update family or friends.
 Offenders are being provided with soap and sanitizer free of charge though out the duration of this event.
Our current procedures ensure that proper housing, housekeeping, nutrition, medical care, and sanitation requirements are met despite the additional challenges to staff and the offender population. As the situation continues to evolve, LSP staff is ready to adapt as necessary.
We hope that this response will help to alleviate your concerns. DOC and LSP officials are working round the clock to protect the inmate population from exposure to this virus. LSP has adequate supplies and tests to satisfy its current needs. As of today, there have been no positive tests among the inmate population at Angola. We are providing you with detailed information regarding the efforts being undertaken and we hope that you will allow DOC and LSP officials to do their jobs without interference. At this time DOC and LSP do not need your assistance in dealing with this event and we decline your invitation to meet and confer later this week.
Regards - Randy
Randal J. Robert
Butler Snow LLP
D: (225) 325-8735 | F: (225) 325-8800
445 North Boulevard, Suite 300, Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com| vCard | Bio
Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube
From: Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 3:22 PM To: Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> Cc: John Conine <coninej@scwllp.com>; Jeffrey Cody <jeffreyc@scwllp.com>; Caroline Tomeny <caroline@scwllp.com>; Randal J. Robert <RANDY@kswb.com>; Keith J. Fernandez <Keith@kswb.com>; Connell L. Archey <CONNELL@kswb.com>; Mercedes Montagnes <MMontagnes@defendla.org>; Rebecca Ramaswamy <RRamaswamy@defendla.org>; Jared Davidson <Jared.Davidson@splcenter.org>; Jamila
3

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 4 of 54 Johnson <JJohnson@defendla.org>; Bruce Hamilton <bhamilton@laaclu.org>; rlospennato@advocacyla.org; Nishi Kumar <NKumar@defendla.org> Subject: Re: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested
Counsel,
In light of the evolving and urgent situation facing all of our clients at Angola due the mounting concerns of a COVID-19 outbreak in jails and prisons across the state, we think it makes sense to schedule a meet and confer to discuss the situation in addition to having your clients respond to our previous request. In order to protect our clients while we await the Court's ruling, we anticipate that there is additional, ongoing information we will require in addition to our request for the DOC and Angola plans. As we said in our previous email, we understand how complex the situation is for your clients and hope that we can aid the DOC in keeping Angola's inmates safe and informed. We are happy to discuss further any time this week that is convenient for you. We would also request that someone from the DOC be present at the meet and confer.
Best, Jeff
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:14 PM Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> wrote: Randy,
Thank you for your email. Tuesday or Wednesday is fine with us. We'll look forward to your response.
Again, we wish you all the best in these difficult times.
Regards, Jeff
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:35 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote: Jeff:
4

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 5 of 54
Thanks for you deep heartfelt concerns for us. We appreciate the lovely sentiments.
I have passed you concerns on to those on the frontline at DOC and they have agreed to provide you with a reasonable response to your inquiry. As you are well aware, DOC officials have pressing matters and cannot respond to you “immediately.” However, I anticipate that we will be able to provide you with a response by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
Regards - Randy
Randal J. Robert Butler Snow LLP
D: (225) 325-8735 | F: (225) 325-8800 445 North Boulevard, Suite 300, Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com| vCard | Bio
Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube
From: Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 8:38 PM To: John Conine <coninej@scwllp.com>; Jeffrey Cody <jeffreyc@scwllp.com>; Caroline Tomeny <caroline@scwllp.com>; Randal J. Robert <RANDY@kswb.com>; Keith J. Fernandez <Keith@kswb.com>; Connell L. Archey <CONNELL@kswb.com> Cc: Mercedes Montagnes <MMontagnes@defendla.org>; Rebecca Ramaswamy <RRamaswamy@defendla.org>; Jared Davidson <Jared.Davidson@splcenter.org>; Jamila Johnson <JJohnson@defendla.org>; Bruce Hamilton <bhamilton@laaclu.org>; rlospennato@advocacyla.org Subject: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested
Counsel, We hope this email finds you all safe and healthy. In light of the rapidly escalating numbers of confirmed cases of COVID-19 across the state, we are reaching out because we are concerned about the health and well-being of each of our 6000+ clients housed at Angola. As we are sure you have heard, the virus that
5

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 6 of 54 causes COVID-19 is easily spread in institutional settings like Angola and typical prevention measures – such as avoiding close contact and frequent cleaning and disinfecting of surfaces – are not always possible in jails and prisons. With so many of our clients already at high risk of complications and death from COVID19 due to advanced age, chronic medical conditions, or otherwise compromised immune systems, we think everyone would agree that measures must be put in place to prevent a widespread outbreak and provide medical care to anyone who may exhibit symptoms in the future. We know the DOC and Angola staff are likely overburdened right now and we do not want to do anything to impede their efforts on behalf of our clients. We simply request that you share whatever plan the DOC has put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and that we are timely provided with updated versions as that plan evolves. It is vital that we have access to this information as it impacts the immediate safety of our clients. We urge you to share those plans with us as soon as possible. Thank you for your help. This is a concerning time for everyone and we hope you all are able to take the necessary precautions to keep yourselves and your loved ones safe. Best, Jeff
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law office and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
6

COOP

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 7 of 54
CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLAN
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Darrel Vannoy—Warden
March 2020

LouCisaiasnea3D:e1p5a-rctmv-e0n0t 3of1P8u-bSliDc DSa-RfeLtyBand CDoorrceucmtioenns t 580-4 03/28/20 Page 8 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ______________________________________________________________________________________
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

LouCisaiasnea3D:e1p5a-rctmv-e0n0t 3of1P8u-bSliDc DSa-RfeLtyBand CDoorrceucmtioenns t 580-4 03/28/20 Page 9 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ______________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Concept of Operations

1

A. Phase I: Activation and Relocation

1

1. Decision Process

2. Alert, Notification, and Implementation Process

3. Leadership

B. Phase II: Alternate Facility Operations

5

1. Mission Critical Systems

2. Vital Files, Records, and Databases

C. Phase III: Reconstitution

5

1. Overview

2. Procedures

3. After-Action Review and Remedial Action Plans

II.

COOP Planning and Responsibilities

7

III.

Logistics

8

A. Alternate Location

B. Interoperable Communication

IV.

Testing Training and Exercise

9

V.

Multi-Year Strategy and Program Management Plan

10

VI.

COOP Plan Maintenance

11

Annex A: Alternate Location (Primary)

12

Annex B: Alternate Location (Secondary)

13

Annex C: Alternate Location (Tertiary)

14

Attachment 1 –LSP Organizational Chart

Attachment 2 – Orders of Succession Organizational Chart

Attachment 3 – Essential Functions

Attachment 4 – Evacuation Plan

Attachment 5 – EOP Annex 9 LSP Angola Mass Evacuation Plan

Attachment 6 – LSP Angola Evacuation Emergency Housing Action Plan

Attachment 7 – LSP Full Scale Evacuation Plan

Attachment 8 – Pandemic Flu Plan

Attachment 9 – Vehicle Roster

Attachment 10 – Approved Drivers List

Attachment 11 – Employee Telephone Listing

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 10 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MARCH 2020

1

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 11 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
I. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) directs and controls emergency/disaster operations in accordance with Departmental Regulation No. OP-B-1 ”Incident Management Center,” through the Incident Management Center (IMC) located at Corrections Services Headquarters, 504 Mayflower, Baton Rouge, LA. Should the IMC become inoperative, isolated and/or unusable, the Secretary or his designee, shall issue relocation instructions to B. B. Rayburn Correctional Center (RCC) located at 27268 Highway 21 in Angie, Louisiana.
A. Phase I: Activation and Relocation
1. Decision Process
The necessity for activation of the COOP plan for LSP may come with or without warning. In instances where circumstances and time allows, the COOP activation decisions will be made by the Warden or his designee. In cases where circumstances or time does not allow for the activation to be made in this manner, the decision will be made by the senior chain of command authority available at that time. The decision will, as time and circumstances allow, be made in a logical risk assessment manner taking into account Situational Reports (SITREPs) from the IMC, Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Emergency Operations Center (GHOSEP, EOC) or credible information from any other competent agency or authority such as parish or municipal emergency management, fire or law enforcement, industry incident alerts or similar credible information sources.
2. Alert, Notification, and Implementation Process
In the event of an alert to pending or possible COOP activations, Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) Control Center will notify all Corrections Services Senior Staff (Regional Warden, Chief of Operations, Secretary) and LSP Staff according to Attachment 1 – LSP Organizational Chart of this plan via electronic, telephonic (First Alert System) or radio communication. Senior Staff will, utilizing all available contact / notification resources such as “calling trees,” e-mail groupings, or direct contact, make immediate notification to their respective staffs / personnel of the alert and relative information. All staff must be mindful that situational circumstances are very likely to preclude any opportunity to provide timely alert to COOP activation but rather result in COOP activation notification only.
Notification of COOP activation will likewise be issued in similar fashion, time and circumstances allowing. Event circumstances may require the use

MARCH 2020

2

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 12 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
of the most expedient or direct method of notification possible to maximize implementation/response while minimizing time. Notification of COOP activation requires immediate implementation. The scope of implementation will be dictated by the circumstances with the greatest potential risk or impact being assumed.
COOP plan implementation will begin immediately upon notification. Implementation will be supervised and coordinated through the chain of command with full communications not only vertically (up and down) through the chain of command but laterally as well to minimize miscommunication, dispel rumors/misinformation and facilitate efficient plan implementation (see Attachment 2 – Orders of Succession Organizational Chart and Attachment 7 – LSP Full Scale Evacuation).
3. Leadership
Orders of Succession
The following organizational chart outlines the chain of command or supersession within the Institution. Authority of each position may be delegated if required for the efficient management of the emergency event. Succession orders may be verbally conveyed by senior chain of command authority with instructions to assume the authority of that position should event circumstances necessitate such orders. Direct instructions for response or operations should accompany the instructions to assume authority. The LSP Orders of Succession organization chart is contained in this plan as Attachment 3.
LSP
1. Corrections Warden 5 2. Deputy Warden Security
• Asst. Warden Security o Asst. Warden Outcamps  Outcamp Asst. Wardens • Outcamp Colonels o Asst. Warden Main Prison  Main Prison Asst. Wardens • Main Prison Colonels o Asst. Warden Support Services  Asst. Warden Field Operations
3. Deputy Warden Operations • Asst. Warden Health Services
4. Deputy Warden Programming • Asst. Warden Programming • Asst. Warden Adminsitrative Services

MARCH 2020

3

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 13 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________

Delegations of Authority

The authorities for policy determinations and operational decisions will follow the LSP organizational chart (Attachment 1) or during times of COOP activation and implementation, the order as defined in the Essential Functions (Attachment 3) and Orders of Succession.

Operational authorities for certain functions, at the Warden’s discretion, may be pre-determined. Functions subject to pre-determination include:

•

Major medical/health incident management to be under the direction

of the Deputy Warden/Operations, LSP’s Medical Director and/or

the Department’s Medical Director

•

Major multiple tactical unit deployment management to be under the

direction of LSP’s Tactical Unit Coordinator and/or the Department’s

Tactical Unit Coordinator.

Emergency management operations to be under the command of the designated Incident Commander in compliance with National Incident Management System (NIMS) / Incident Command System (ICS) and Incident Management Center (IMC) operations to be under the direction of the IMC Director.

Additional delegations of authority may be designated by the appropriate command authority as necessary. Pre-determined delegations of authority may be cancelled by the appropriate command authority when circumstances or situational requirements dictate the appropriateness of such cancellations or the return to normal delegations of authority is warranted.

Devolution

LSP under a worst-case scenario where the Warden and command staff are unavailable or incapacitated will transfer command authority to the Chief of Operations or his designee.

The decision to implement the measures required under devolution scenario will be made by the highest-ranking available command authority. Essential functions, which have been identified and enumerated on a priority basis, are contained and located within this plan as Attachment 3.

MARCH 2020

4

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 14 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
B. Phase II: Alternate Facility Operations

1. Mission Critical Systems

SYSTEM NAME Offender Records Offender Banking Computer Servers Offender Medical Records Human Resource Employee Files Purchasing/Budgeting

CURRENT LOCATIONS LSP Admin Bldg LSP Admin Bldg LSP Admin Bldg/Infirmary/IT Building LSP Infirmary LSP Admin Bldg LSP Admin Bldg

EHCC HDQ HDQ EHCC HDQ HDQ

OTHER LOCATIONS

2. Vital Files, Records, and Databases

Records management policy is in accordance with Department Regulation

No. A-01-009 (AM-D-1), “Records Management” which incorporates the

requirements

mandated by the Division of Administration. Critical

Mission Data Systems as noted in the above matrix are replicated and

maintained at OIS HQ. The LSP server contains electronic copies of

Department emergency operations plans, COOP Plans, telephone rosters,

devolution contact list and legal authority contact. LSP provides the

Corrections Incident Management Center (IMC) with hardcopies of the

above items. The COOP plan will be updated annually, and is likewise

distributed and available to all LSP senior staff offices and personnel.

Vital File, Record, or Database
COOP Plan Phone Roster Devolution Contact List

Form of Record (e.g., hardcopy, electronic) Electronic/HARDCOPY Electronic/HARDCOPY Electronic/HARDCOPY

Pre-positioned at Alternate Site X X X

Hand carried to Alternate Facility
X X X

Backed up at Third Location

C. Phase III: Reconstitution
1. Overview
Initially, key senior and executive staff as well as critical support staff may be required to be “on-duty: either in person or by electronic means, 24/7. As the emergency event stabilizes and recovery steps are initiated, staff will be scaled back at the alternate work location as appropriate. Select key staff may be detailed to the event location so on-site decisions can be made to facilitate speed of recovery.
2. Procedures
Upon the emergency event being resolved or operationally under control, staff assigned to the alternate site location will be transitioned back to the primary work site as a group. The group move will preclude key staff being

MARCH 2020

5

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 15 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
at different locations, which inherently compound communication, and decision-making difficulties. At such time as the staff can be safely and securely returned to their primary work site, a date and time will be transmitted to all department staff.
3. After–Action Review and Remedial Action Plans
Within time frame guidelines established by the Secretary’s office, the emergency event and related responses will under go an After-Action Review and as necessary appropriate remedial action plans developed.

MARCH 2020

6

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 16 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
II. COOP Planning Responsibilities

RESPONSIBILITY

POSITION

Update COOP Annually

Warden, Deputy Warden Operations, DW Security, DW Programming, AW Admin. Services, and Security Warden, COOP Committee

Update Telephone Rosters Annually DW Programming

Review status of vital files, records, and OTS staff stationed at LSP

databases

Conduct alert and notification tests

Security Warden

Develop and lead COOP training

Security Warden

Plan COOP exercises

Security Warden

MARCH 2020

7

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 17 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
III. Logistics
A. Alternate Location
The primary alternate location, Corrections Services HDQ, is a fully resource facility with the necessary infrastructure and assets to support alternate location operations for LSP’s Command Staff for an extended period of time. DCI was selected as the secondary location upon risk assessment of all suitable sites.
B. Interoperable Communications
LSP’s communication interoperability is based on primary and redundant systems. Radio communication is maintained through the state’s truncated 700 MHz radio system with all Corrections Services facilities, divisions and command staff being suitably equipped. Telephone communications are augmented beyond the everyday land based systems with satellite telephone assets at each facility and command staff personnel. Cell phones, blackberry assets with text messaging capability are likewise appropriately deployed. Communications interoperability is maintained via electronic data systems and resources as well. Satellite platform based Internet Protocol (IP) assets have been successfully deployed to support operations when major infrastructure failures occur. Similar assets are available on a contingency basis.

MARCH 2020

8

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 18 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
IV. Testing Training and Exercise
Quarterly testing of all emergency management systems is conducted in conjunction with the Office of Information Services tests of data systems. Training of staff in emergency operations is coordinated through the Training Section as well as with the Incident Management Director. Table Top Exercises (TTX) are scheduled annually, generally in conjunction with those conducted by the IMC.

MARCH 2020

9

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 19 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
V. Multi-Year Strategy and Program Management Plan
MYSPMP is being developed under a separate document.

MARCH 2020

10

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 20 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
VI. COOP Plan Maintenance
LSP’s Emergency Operations and COOP plans under go a complete review on an annual basis with appropriate information or changes being updated. Input from key personnel is considered during this review process.

MARCH 2020

11

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 21 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX A – ALTERNATE LOCATION
PRIMARY MAP – Department of Public Safety and Corrections – Headquarters
PRIMARY: Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Headquarters 504 Mayflower St, Baton Rouge, LA
Headquarters 24 hour Contact Information: Telephone: 1-800-317-3117 Satellite Telephone: 254-204-7218 Radio Channel: A-DOC Fax Number: 225-219-0359
Driving Directions to Headquarters: From LSP: LA 66 south to US-61 south, merge onto I-110 south, take Exit 1A (Government St./LA-73) and turn right on Government St, turn left onto S 10th St, Turn Right onto Mayflower, Headquarters is on the left with appropriate signs.

MARCH 2020

12

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 22 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX B – ALTERNATE LOCATION
SECONDARY MAP – Dixon Correctional Institution (DCI)
SECONDARY: Dixon Correctional Institution (DCI) 5568 Highway 68 Jackson, LA 70748
DCI 24 hour Control Center Contact Information: Telephone: 225-634-1200 Satellite Telephone: 254-204-7266 Radio Channel: A-DOC Fax Number: 225-634-4149
Driving Directions to DCI: From LSP: LA 66 south, turn onto US-61 south, take left onto LA Hwy 10, follow LA Hwy 10 through the town of Jackson, LA. Turn right on LA Hwy 68, approximately .08 miles to DCI.

MARCH 2020

13

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 23 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX C – ALTERNATE LOCATION
TERTIARY MAP – B.B. Rayburn Correctional Center (RCC)
TERTIARY: B. B. Rayburn Correctional Center (RCC) 27268 Highway 21 Angie, Louisiana
RCC 24 hour Control Center Contact Information: Telephone: 985-661-6300 Fax Number: 985-661-6395
Driving Directions to RCC: From LSP: LA 66 south, turn onto US-61 south, merge onto I-110 south, go east to Interstate 12 to the second Convington exit. This will lead to HWY. 190. Go north on 190 approximately three miles. Merge to the right onto HWY 21. Go approximately 20 miles through Bush, LA. HWY 21 will dead-end. Turn left (north) through Sun, Bogalusa and Varnado. The facility’s entrance (large sign) will be approximately 1.5 miles on the right past Varnado.

MARCH 2020

14

LouisiaCnaasDee3pa:1rt5m-ecnvt-o0f0P3u1b8lic-SSDafDet-yRaLnBd CorDreoctciounms ent 580-4 03/28/20 Page 24 of 54
Louisiana State Penitentiary COOP ____________________________________________________________________________________
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MARCH 2020

15

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 25 of 54

Attachment 8 – Pandemic Flu Plan

OPERATIONAL PLAN

A. INCIDENT COMMAND TEAM

The institutional Incident Command Team (ICT) shall determine actions to be taken to prevent the spread of pandemic flu among staff, offenders, volunteers, visitors and other civilians. The team will consist of all wardens, medical director, director of nursing, infection control nurse, pharmacy director, information services, and administrative program director. The Deputy Warden/Operations will serve as the Pandemic Flu Coordinator and shall have the responsibility for pandemic influenza planning and preparedness.

B. ACTIVATION

The necessity for activation of the Pandemic Flu COOP will not come without prior warning. Causes of pandemic flu from around the world are constantly being monitored and information updated as need by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO). Current information is also available from the United States Government Avian and Pandemic Flu website (www.pandemicflu.gov), the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Disease Control and Prevention Health Alert Network (www.cdc.gov/HAN/index.asp), and Louisiana Department of Health and Hospital website (www.flula.com). These sites will be monitored by LSP’s Medical Director. Updates concerning pandemic flu outbreaks will be provided through the Departments Medical/Mental Health Director, the IMC, the LSP Medical Director, and/or the ICT to staff and offenders as appropriate through such means as staff meetings, roll call, e-mails, KLSP TV and radio broadcasts, or as deemed appropriate under existent circumstances.

LSP shall use the following phases for pandemic flu alert as a guideline for activation of the COOP and the implementation of necessary actions. The three phases of pandemic alert increase the seriousness of the threat and the need to launch progressively more intense preparedness activities.

Phase Ready/Green (Watch)

World Health Organization (WHO) & United States Government (USG)
Pandemic Response Stages

Case Location

WHO Inter-Pandemic Period Phases 1-2; USG Stage 0

Anywhere Outside of the Continental United States and Bordering Countries (i.e. Canada and Mexico)

Yellow/Orange (Alert) WHO Pandemic Alert Period Phases First Human Case in the Mainland United States

3-5; USG Stages 0-2

(excluding Louisiana and Neighboring States)

Red (Pandemic)

WHO’s Pandemic Alert Period Phases 3-5; USG Stages 0-2

First Human Case in Louisiana or Neighboring States

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 1 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 26 of 54
READY/GREEN PHASE
At this phase, pandemic flu is anywhere outside of the continental United States and bordering countries (i.e. Canada and Mexico). Staff listed in “Assignment of Responsibility” shall complete the following:
1. Maintain adequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplies at all times and as directed by the Incident Command Team to include the following: a. Tissues; b. Gloves; c. Biohazard Bags; d. Hazard Receptacles; e. N-95 Respirator Masks; f. Surgical Masks; g. Waterless Hand Sanitizers; h. Colored Wristbands (Red, Blue and Green); i. "Ask for a Mask” Signs
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Health Services, Assistant Warden/Administrative Services, Medical Director and Central Supply.
2. Establish points of contact for influenza pandemic preparedness in the local and state health departments, local, regional or state agency preparedness groups and local hospitals. Maintain agreement with the Office of Public Health to be a point of dispensing and have required procedures in place.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Health Services and Medical Director.
3. Provide education and training regarding pandemic influenza to staff and offenders.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Deputy Warden/Programming and Training Director.
4. Ensure that all staff is familiar with the local Incident Command System (ICS) and understand the roles and persons assigned within that structure.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Deputy Warden/Programming, Training Director and Staff Supervisors.
5. Incorporate pandemic flu plan into unit emergency management planning and exercise.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Deputy Warden/Security and Medical Director.
6. Determine the potential impact of a pandemic on the unit by using multiple possible scenarios of varying severity relative to illness, absenteeism, supplies, availability of resources, access to legal system representatives, etc.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 2 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 27 of 54

ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: All Wardens and Medical Director.
7. Identify areas within LSP that could be used to create additional acute care beds for expanded health care capacity.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Deputy Wardens, Assistant Wardens, Medical Director, and Director of Nursing.
8. Institutional staff shall develop written policies and procedures for cohorting offenders with known or suspected pandemic influenza using one or more of the following strategies:
a. Confining ill and exposed offenders to their cells; b. Placing offenders with symptoms of pandemic influenza together in one
area of the facility, or closing off units that have symptomatic offenders; c. Create policies and protocols for restricting staff and offenders who are
assigned to work on affected units from working on other units to prevent cross contamination.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Deputy Wardens, Assistant Warden/Health Services, Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
9. Institutional staff shall also identify an area in the facility that can be used as a temporary morgue.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Health Services and Medical Director.
10. At the Incident Command Team’s discretion, healthcare clinicians will screen individuals who report pneumonia or respiratory infection according to the screening checklist to identify possible clusters or groups of ill individuals who may be linked.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: ICT, Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
11. Maintain a list of high risk offenders for seasonal influenza (based on current CDC guidelines) which should be updated quarterly for mass vaccination.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Health Services, Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
12. Ensure that health care personnel are updated with the latest CDC recommendations regarding ILI, such as symptoms/signs, diagnostic criteria, treatment protocols, indications of anti-viral medication use, etc.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Health Services, Medical Director and Director of Nursing.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 3 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 28 of 54

13. Classify all employee positions into one of the following three exposure risk categories.
a. High Exposure Risk: Staff with high potential for exposure to known or suspected sources of pandemic influenza virus, such as healthcare delivery and support staff, staff transporting known or suspected pandemic influenza infected patients, etc.
b. Medium Exposure Risk: Staff with high-frequency contact within six feet of the offender population, such as security staff, social workers, chaplains, etc. that work in dorms or cellblocks.
c. Lower Exposure Risk (caution): Staff that do not require routine contact with the offender population, such as administrative staff (i.e. institution Business Office, Human Resources, etc). Activities outside of the workplace shall be considered when classifying employees into low exposure risk, such as other employment that may involve routine contact with an offender population (part-time security.) Such risky activities outside of the workplace shall be discouraged for low risk staff in the event of a pandemic flu.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Deputy Warden/Operations, Assistant Warden/Human Resources, Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
14 Possible clusters shall be reported to the Headquarters Incident Management Center (IMC) at 1-800-317-3117. The IMC shall contact the State’s Infectious Disease Epidemiology Section at 1-800-256-2748.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden, Assistant Warden/Health Services, Medical Director and EMO.
14. Clusters may be defined as five or more clinically compatible individuals with the onset of symptoms less than 10 days apart (this may be altered as more information about the pandemic influenza strain becomes available). The Louisiana Office of Public Health will follow the Center for Disease Control's recommendations as they are released.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Health Services and Medical Director.
16. All staff, offenders, volunteers, visitors and civilians shall use droplet precautions with appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) within six feet of an ill individual for all contact with any individual who has a new cough and fever.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director.
17. Use Form B-06-004-A Entitled Level Ready Green as a guide for preparedness and response checklist purposes.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden and Medical Director.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 4 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 29 of 54

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 5 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 30 of 54

YELLOW/ORANGE PHASE
At this phase, pandemic flu has been confirmed in the mainland United States. In addition to the previous steps in the Green Phase, the following additional steps will be incorporated into pandemic flu preparedness activities:
1. Monitor: a. The Incident Command Team shall meet weekly or as directed by the Medical/Mental Health Director.
b. The Medical Director and Pandemic Flu Coordinator will monitor sick call reports and clinic visits in an effort to identify ILI in the offender population. Findings will be reported to the Warden.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: ICT, Deputy Warden/Operations and Medical Director.
2. Supplies: a. The Medical Director shall discuss with the Medical/Mental Health Director regarding stockpiling requirements of antibiotics and necessary medical supplies; b. A current list of stock of all Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplies (See Ready/Green Phase for specific PPE supplies) shall be sent to the Medical/Mental Health Director.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director, Director of Nursing, Infection Control Nurse and Central Supply.
3. Access/Control: a. The Secretary, Chief of Operations, Medical/Mental Health Director and Regional Wardens shall be notified, and any outside travel except medical/mental health emergencies and court trips will cease; b. Restrict vendors, visitors and conferences/group activities; c. At the Incident Command Team’s discretion, staff, offenders, visitors, volunteers and civilians may be required to wear identification wristbands designated by color at all times.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden, Deputy Warden/Security, Assistant Warden/Security and Medical Director.
d. Transfers within the Department may be suspended on a unit-by-unit basis or department-wide.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical/Mental Health Director and Warden.
4. Surveillance, Screening and Triage:

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 6 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 31 of 54
a. Employees will complete a self screening at roll call. Employees who state they are sick shall be triaged by medical staff or health trained staff, and if found to have a fever shall be sent home. Staff with ILI shall remain at home at least 24 hours after they are free of fever (100° F), or signs of fever, without the use of fever reducing medications.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical/Mental Health Director and Warden will decide to take action. Medical Director, Director of Nursing, Unit Wardens, Department Heads and employees.
b. Screening of visitors/vendors may be initiated and visitors with symptoms of pandemic flu may be denied entry to LSP. Symptomatic vendors may be granted access based upon need and shall be required to wear a mask while on institutional grounds.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical/Mental Health Director and Warden will decide to take action. Medical Director, Director of Nursing and Unit Wardens.
c. “Ask for a Mask” signs shall be posted at all entrances and in all common areas. Posters shall include specific risk factors for the targeted infection to encourage all persons in the unit to self-screen for infection;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
d. Persons who self-identify as at-risk via the screening checklist available throughout the institution will be seen by Medical 3 for further screening and instructions;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
e. Encourage offenders to notify health care/security staff at the onset of symptoms of ILI. Offenders should be informed that early detection is vital to reduce the transmission of an influenza outbreak.
Healthcare personnel who suspect, after initial clinical evaluation, that an individual may have an Epidemic Respiratory Infection (ERI) shall immediately notify the Louisiana Office of Public Health (LOPH) and the Headquarters IMC At 1-800-317-3117;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden, Unit Wardens, Assistant Warden/Health Services, Medical Director and EMO.
f. Staff traveling to designated high risk areas (as determined by the LOPH) or offenders who recently traveled in the last 10 days to a high risk area (as determined by the LOPH) may be required to register with the institution’s medical department and complete the screening checklist for five consecutive days. Healthcare staff shall review the checklist and maintain a list of those individuals under surveillance;

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 7 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 32 of 54
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
g. Staff members who have contact with suspected patients must report to the infection control department for direction recommended by the Incident Command Team.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Incident Command Team, Medical Director, Director of Nursing and employees.
h. On-site clinics may be allowed to operate on a case-by-case basis. Specialty clinics that can be accomplished via telemedicine will be strongly encouraged.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical/Mental Health Director and Warden will decide to take action. Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
5. Infection Control/Precautions: Institute Infection Control Precautions with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for any person screened as a possible Epidemic Respiratory Infection (ERI) case.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
6. Communication/Education/Preparedness: a. The unit shall use the mode of communication used most by staff and/or offenders to keep the unit's community informed and to provide education regarding prevention and symptom surveillance;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden, Medical Director and Director of Nursing. KLSP TV and radio broadcasts, staff meetings.
b. The Incident Command Team shall meet daily to review the situation and alter strategies (such as housing re-assignments for isolation purposes or quarantine);
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: ICT
c. A situation report shall be forwarded to the Headquarters IMC daily.
Reporting requirements to the Secretary, Chief of Operations, Medical/Mental Health Director shall be in accordance with Department Regulation No. C-05-001. In addition, local, state, and federal agencies will be notified as appropriate.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: EMO
7. Use Form B-06-004-B entitled Level Yellow-Orange as a guide for preparedness and response checklist purposes.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 8 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 33 of 54 ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden and Medical Director.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 9 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 34 of 54

RED PHASE
At this phase, there is evidence of transmission of the Influenza Like Illness (ILI) in the unit or there is widespread human-to-human transmission in the region of the unit. Red indicates the highest level of alert, with restrictions on access to the unit, more active screening and a shift away from normal unit operations. In addition to the previous steps in the Green Phase and the Yellow/Orange Phase, the following additional steps will be incorporated into pandemic flu preparedness activities:
1. Access/Control: a. All entrances to the unit shall be locked except for the main entrance. Those that cannot be locked will be guarded by security personnel;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Security.
b. Entry into the unit may be restricted to only staff with valid identification. Any others allowed into the unit must be screened via the screening checklist;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Security and Medical Director.
c. Offender group activities may be suspended;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Security.
d. Normal eating activities may be suspended. A plan shall exist for delivering meals to offenders if cafeteria or group-style dining is closed;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Health Servies and Director of Nursing.
e. Pill call may be modified as necessary to reduce the risk of influenza transmission.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Director of Nursing.
f. The request to close the institution to further admissions may also be made as a means to prevent the further spread of an epidemic by the Incident Command Team. This request shall be approved by the Secretary or designee.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: ICT and Medical Director.
1. Surveillance, Screening and Triage:

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 10 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 35 of 54
a. Vaccination/Antiviral medication priorities shall be determined and distributed.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical/Mental Health Director
b. Routine sick call shall be suspended. Offenders will have access to healthcare via emergency sick call. All non-emergent healthcare services shall be suspended; waive the health care co-payment fee for sick calls related to ILI.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
c. Offenders who are identified to have fever and/or cough will be instructed to don Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), use good hand washing techniques and will be sent to the medical department. Contact information will be updated in medical records;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
d. The number of persons seen with the suspected ILI by healthcare staff will be recorded and reported weekly to the Chief of Operations and Medical/Mental Health Director;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden, Assistant Warden/Health Services and EMO.
e. If the person warrants evaluation in a hospital setting, medical staff shall alert the referral hospital that a suspected or confirmed case needs evaluation so that the referral center can make arrangements for infection control precautions.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director.
3. Infection Control/Precautions: a. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and contact precautions are required for all staff having contact with any person who has fever and/or new cough (this includes staff conducting screenings at facility entrances);
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
b. Adequate supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) shall be maintained at the facility;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Administrative Services, Assistant Warden/Health Services, Medical Director and Central Supply.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 11 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 36 of 54
c. Everyone providing patient care will have access to appropriately fitting Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); surgical masks and gloves shall be worn by staff having director (within 6 feet) of offenders who have suspected or probable or confirmed influenza in the designated isolation areas; good hand washing must take place between patients contacts and glove changes. Surgical masks shall only be worn in the designated isolation areas. Offenders who become symptomatic and require movement shall don a mask prior to movement. Movement to and from isolation and quarantine areas shall be kept to a minimum and necessary services to the extent possible shall be delivered to these offenders in the isolation and quarantine areas.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Unit Wardens, Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
d. Recommendations shall be made for quarantine of non-ill contacts. Offenders who may have been exposed but are asymptomatic shall be quarantined. Arrangements shall be made to provide those quarantined with necessary daily items including meals, water and hygiene.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Unit Warden, Medical Director, and Director of Nursing.
e. Offenders with ILI symptoms shall be isolated. This can be done in a group setting as well, if multiple offenders rquire isolation. Arrangements shall be made to provide those isolated with necessary daily items including meals, water, and hygiene. All efforts shall be made to limit any movement of isolated offenders (bring meals, medications , etc. to them) but if offender requires to leave the isolation area then a proper mask shall be worn before leaving isolation area and the offender shall not be allowed to remove the mask until returned to the isolation area.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Unit Wardens, Medical Director and Director of Nursing.
f. Offenders diagnosed with ILI shall be monitored for early signs of complicating illnesses, i.e. pneumonia. Offenders who are at high risk for these complications or those who are sicker at presentation shall be admitted to the infirmary for closer observation.
If the suspected or confirmed case does not require hospitalization, housing needs (specific quarantine area) shall be assessed. Arrangements shall be made to provide the offenders with necessary daily items including meals, water and hygiene.
May consider instituting a standing order/treatment protocol for ILI.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 12 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 37 of 54
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Security and Medical Director.
g. Phone Triage for Staff: Staff who have ILI symptoms or are ill may be triaged by phone. Triage shall be performed by medical staff or health trained staff. All absences related to ILI shall be tracked.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director, Director of Nursing and Assistant Warden/Human Resources.
h. With guidance from Headquarters, the institution will identify close contacts within the facility to a probable, suspected or confirmed case of the influenza. Contacts are typically defined as those who spent greater than 15 minutes within three feet of the case during the infectious period (two days before illness onset to five days after illness onset) or those who live in the same cellblock tier or housing area (dorm);
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Health Services and Medical Director.
i. Staff and offenders who have had contact with suspected patients may be required to register with the medical department and be screened daily utilizing the screening checklist for five consecutive days after last documented or suspected contact or for a period determined by the health authority;
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Deputy Wardens, Assistant Warden/Health Services and Medical Director.
j. With guidance from Headquarters, recommendations may be required for quarantine of non-ill contacts. Guidance shall be provided regarding details of quarantine, including cohorting of contacts, sites to use for quarantine and legal authority. As with a case in isolation, arrangements shall be made to provide those quarantined with necessary daily items including meals, water and hygiene.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Assistant Warden/Security and Medical Director.
4. Communication/Education:
a. The facility will provide daily or more frequent updates to staff and offenders as more information is obtained.
b. Provide education to employees and offenders on basic hygiene, respiratory etiquette, and high risk medical conditions.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden and Medical Director.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 13 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 38 of 54
5. A situation report shall be forwarded to the Department’s Medical/Mental Health Director to include: the number of newly diagnosed cases (suspected or probable or confirmed); the number of offenders in isolation; the number of offenders quarantined; the number of staff absences security/medical; and deaths. The Department’s Medical/ Mental Health Director shall decide the frequency of this report for each unit.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Medical Director, Director of Nursing, and EMO.
6. Use Form B-06-004-C entitled Level Red as a guide for preparedness and response checklist.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: Warden and Medical Director.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 14 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 39 of 54

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 15 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 40 of 54
C. ISOLATION SITE
1. Camp J shall serve as the isolation area for ill staff and offenders on an as needed basis.
2. Minimum and medium custody offenders will be treated in Bass dormitory. Maximum custody offenders will be treated in cellblocks. Staff will be treated in the Chapel.
3. A decontamination area must be set up in each dorm/cellblock/chapel and needs:
a. privacy area b. shower c. soap dispensers d. paper towels e. plastic bags to double bag contaminated clothing to be sent to
laundry f. towels
4. Medical supplies needed at Camp J:
a. O2 b. O2 Mask (15 at each site) c. Suction machines and canisters (2 machines and 25 canisters) d. Yanker suctions with tubing (25) e. Thermometers and covers (3 at each area) f. B/P monitors (2at each area) g. Stethoscopes (2) h. IV fluids (10) i. IV tubing (10) j. IV start kits (10) k. Tape (5 rolls) l. Gauze (1 case at each site) m. Wash basins ( 25) n. Disposable wash cloths (1 case at each site) o. Foley catheters (10) p. IV catheters (5 of each size 20G, 22G, 18G, 24G) q. Disposable gowns (1 case at each site) r. N 95 masks (2 boxes at each site) s. Bedpans (20 at each site) t. Crash cart fully supplied (1 at each site) u. Vacutainers (1 box at each site) v. Blood tubes (1 package of each type at each site) w. Butterfly needles (1 box at each site) x. Gloves (case of each size) y. Alcohol preps (5 boxes at each site) z. Hand sanitizers (6 bottles at each site) aa. Bleach with dispenser bottles (4 bottles at each site)

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 16 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 41 of 54
bb. Tissue (1 case) cc. Diapers (1 case) dd. Blue pads (1 case) ee. Potty chairs (10) ff. Red bags (1 case) gg. Glucometer at each site hh. Syringes with needles (1 case at each site) ii. Medicine cups (1 case at each site) jj. Ice bags (1 case at each site) kk. IV poles (4 at each site) ll. Sharps containers (2 large at each site)
5. Medication needed at Camp J:
a. Tylenol b. Motrin c. NS for IV flush d. Immodium e. Insulin
Replenish supplies and when stock at each area goes down.
6. Staff and offender clothing will be laundered at Camp J.
D. FACILITY STAFFING AND OPERATIONS
The essential functions listed in attachment 4 will be determined on an ongoing basis by the Incident Command Team.
1. The following essential facility operations will be maintained or enhanced:
a. Health Services b. Security Services
1) Unit manpower as indicated on Section E 2) Control Center 3) Armory 4) Angola Roving Security 5) BOQ 6) Camp A Laundry and Unit Laundries 7) Timekeeping 8) Investigative Services 9) Perimeter Gates c. Food Services d. Emergency Operations Center e. Information Services f. Safety g. Business Services 1) Accounting/Budget 2) Purchasing

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 17 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 42 of 54
3) Offender Banking 4) Cashiers Office h. Human Resources – Payroll i. 909 and 915 Warehouses j. Mail/Package Room k. Mental Health l. Public Relations m. Chaplains
2. The following facility operations will be considered non-essential and suspended:
a. Field operations b. Visiting c. Education d. Call outs (other than essential medical) e. Staff training f. Disciplinary boards g. Recreation h. Classification i. Offender Records j. Legal – ARP/Property Claims/Appeals k. Library (including law libraries) l. Maintenance (except for critical emergencies) m. Canteens n. Museum o. Accreditation p. Shakedown Teams q. K-9 Training r. Offender organization functions s. Hobbyshops t. Sick call (except for emergencies) u. Clinics v. Trips (funeral, hospital, court order must be pre-approved)
Staff from these operations will be reassigned to essential facility operations as needed.
3. Off duty staff will be housed in BOQ and Training Academy.
4. Tact team staff will be assigned to pick up and deliver items necessary for operations from outside resources/vendors.

E. MANPOWER AT OFFENDER HOUSING UNITS

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 18 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 43 of 54

CAMP C

Bear 1, 2, 3, 4 Bear Hall Wolf 1, 2, 3, 4 Wolf Hall Tiger 1, 2, 3, 4 Jaguar 1, 2, 3, 4 Kitchen Sallyport Medication Supervisors (Major, Captain)

TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

CAMP D

Eagle 1, 2, 3, 4 Eagle Hall Falcon 1, 2, 3, 4 Falcon Hall Hawk 1, 2, 3, 4 Raven 1, 2, 3, 4 Kitchen Sallyport Supervisors (Major, Captain)

TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

CAMP F

Dorm 1 & 2 Dorm 3 U & L Dorm 4 L & R Kitchen Supervisor (Lieutenant)

TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

CAMP J (currently closed) Gar 1, 2, 3, 4 Shark 1, 2, 3, 4 Cuda 1, 2, 3, 4 Gator 1, 2, 3, 4 Bass Dorm Kitchen Entrance Building Supervisors (Major, Captain)
TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

# of Officers Per Shift
4 1 4 1 4 4 1 1 1 2
23
# of Officers Per Shift
4 1 4 1 4 4 1 1 2
22
# of Officers Per Shift
1 1 1 1 1
5
# of Officers Per Shift
4 4 4 4 1 1 1 2
21

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 19 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 44 of 54

RC Currently housing female o offenders staffed by LCIW
Lower A & B Lower C Lower A, B, C Hall Upper A & B Upper C & d Upper Control Supervisor (Lieutenant)
TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

# of Officers Per Shift
2 1 1 2 1 1 1
9

DEATH ROW

H & A Tier B & C Tier D & E Tier F & G Tier Control Room Towers Supervisor (Lieutenant)

TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

MAIN PRISON EAST YARD Ash 1, 2, 3, 4 Ash Hall Magnolia 1, 2, 3, 4 Magnolia Hall Cypress 1, 2, 3, 4 Cypress Hall Spruce 1, 2, 3, 4 Spruce Hall A Building Kitchen MPO Medication Supervisor (Major, Captain)
TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

REBTC

Unit 1 Unit 2 Control Sallyport Supervisor (Lieutenant)

TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

# of Officers Per Shift
1 1 1 1 1 2 1
8
# of Officers Per Shift
4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2
26 # of Officers Per Shift
1 1 1 1 1
5

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 20 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 45 of 54

MAIN PRISON WEST YARD Oak 1, 2, 3, 4 Oak Hall Pine 1, 2, 3, 4 Pine Hall Walnut 1, 2, 3, 4 Walnut Hall Hickory 1, 2, 3, 4 Hickory Hall CBA U & L CBB U & L CBC U & L CBC U & L Medication Supervisors (Major, Captain, Lt)
TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

# of Officers Per Shift
4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 2 2 2 2 1 3
32

TU Upper and Lower A & B Upper and Lower C & D Upper and Lower E & F Medication Supervisor (Lieutenant)
TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

# of Officers Per Shift
2 2 2 1 1
8

UNIT Camp C Camp D Camp F Camp J (currently closed) RC (currently closed) Death Row OUTCAMP TOTAL

# of Officers Per Shift
23 22
5 21
9 8
87

MPE REBTC MPW TU MAIN PRISON TOTAL

26 5
32 8 71

GRAND TOTAL # OF OFFICERS PER SHIFT

PERIMETER GATES

Front Gate Ferry Gate

TOTAL OFFICERS PER SHIFT

158
# of Officers Per Shift
2 1 3

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 21 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 46 of 54
INFECTION CONTROL PRECAUTIONS
PURPOSE:
To ensure the safety and welfare of employees, offenders and public, the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) establishes a procedure for pandemic preparation and response to pandemic events as they are identified.
RULE:
A. YELLOW/ORANGE PHASE
1. For the prevention of transmission of any infectious agent and to promote general facility and personal hygiene the medical department shall ensure the following practices are used in any secure facility by all offenders and employees and ensure the availability of adequate supplies. ALL EMPLOYEES AND OFFENDERS shall participate in the following activities:
a. Hand washing: 1) With soap and water; 2) Minimal duration of 20 seconds; 3) Frequency: a) Upon entry into a facility b) Upon entry into a housing, education, or medical unit; c) Before meals d) Handling food; e) After participation in activities to include work, and sports; and f) After toileting g) Other times as deemed appropriate. 4) Hand sanitizing with non-alcohol commercially available antibacterial solution is acceptable in the above circumstances when hand washing is not feasible. a) Dispensers and antibacterial solutions shall be made available at the appropriate locations if hand washing is not feasible. 5) Maximize access to alcohol based hand sanitizer in areas with high traffic flow auch as the kitchen and pill call. 6) Make soap dispensers or hand soap available in all employee and offender restrooms.
b. Utilization of general sick behavior etiquette:
1) Respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette: a) Cough or sneeze into the elbow, into the interior of clothing, or into a facial tissue;

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 22 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 47 of 54
b) Wear a surgical mask when sick with upper respiratory infection (URI) if symptoms include coughing or sneezing;
2) When sick, avoid close contact (within 6 feet) of others; 3) Avoid close contact (within 6 feet) with sick persons; 4) Employees should not report to work when ill
c. General facility cleanliness and sanitation: 1) Daily cleaning and disinfection of surfaces that are touched regularly, for example, door knobs and frames, counter tops, tables, chairs, keys, telephones, etc. 2) Use a cleaning solution that has both cleaning and antimicrobial properties. a) In emergency situations when no other acceptable options are available, an alternative is washing with a detergent based solution followed by disinfection with 10% bleach and 90% water solution.
d. Formal and informal education regarding the above shall be provided to employees and offenders that include but is not limited to: 1) Posters supplied by Homeland Security and approved by the medical director and his designee; 2) Presentations during orientation for employees and offenders. 3) Individual/ group instruction by the infection control department through use of LSP radio and TV.
e. Promotion of immunization against infectious diseases. 1) Encourage employees and offenders in getting the annual flu vaccine; 2) Vaccinations of offenders and staff shall occur in accordance with policy set up by Department of Corrections, Secretary of State.
2. The MEDICAL DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE shall ensure Standard, Universal and droplet Precautions as outlined by the US Department of Health and Human services, Centers for disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov) are used by all employees and offenders throughout LSP secure facilities in accordance with the Universal , Standard and Droplet Precautions.
3. MEDICAL DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE shall ensure that:
a. Each unit has sufficient medical supplies to assist in the prevention and symptomatic treatment of any pandemic event.
b. Emergency medical supplies are:

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 23 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 48 of 54
1) Properly stored within the units in a secure designated area; (central supply)
2) Inventoried on a monthly basis; 3) Rotated as necessary to preserve freshness and function.
c. A reporting system is in place for informing LSP medical providers and the Regional Medical Director of patient symptoms that could indicate and infectious outbreak. 1) MEDICAL PROVIDERS may initiate confirmatory laboratory evaluations to ascertain if a infectious agent is responsible for the symptoms; 2) The infection control department shall notify the appropriate public health authorities and the regional medical director of positive confirmatory test results; 3) The infection control department at the direction of the medical director or his designee shall initiate the appropriate infection control measures when an outbreak is suspected or confirmed.
d. The Facilities Medical Director or his designee in conjunction with the homeland security coordinator shall ensure: 1) Adequate emergency supplies are maintained for both employees and offenders in a pandemic event to include but not limited to: a) Non- perishable food; b) Drinking water; c) Iv fluids d) Facial tissue e) Surgical mask for the patients f) Adequate supply of N-95 mask for all in direct contact with the infected patient. g) Paper towels h) Toilet paper i) Biohazard bags j) Trash bags k) Anti-bacterial soap; l) Anti-bacterial hand sanitizing agents and dispensers m) Cleaning solutions with both cleaning and antimicrobial properties n) Other supplies as deemed necessary.
2) Emergency supplies are stored in a secure ventilated area (central supply)
3) Emergency supplies are inventoried monthly and;
4) Emergency supplies are rotated as necessary to preserve freshness/function.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 24 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 49 of 54
B. RED PHASE:
1. Medical Director and designees shall maintain the above inter-pandemic and Pandemic Alert Period standards at a minimum;
2. The Medical Director or Designee may:
a. Initiate screening for signs and symptoms of all personnel, offenders and visitors entering LSP. 1) Screening Criteria shall be developed utilizing current pandemic signs and symptoms.
b. Refuse entry to persons experiencing signs of infection.
c. Require symptomatic individuals who are granted access to wear surgical masks and adhere to other infection control requirements.
3. The Medical Director or Designee shall:
a. Initiate a tracking system to follow patients with new diagnosis of infection with the pandemic agent and follow patients in isolation and quarantine;
b. Perform patient triage as indicated;
c. Initiate separate patient waiting and treatment areas when feasible (use MPG as isolation/ treatment area)
d. Designate non-medical personnel to administer medications and treatment, if necessary due to absence of multiple medical personnel ill with the pandemic symptoms.
e. Direct the assessment and distribution of medications and medical supplies as deemed appropriate;
f. Designate isolation, quarantine, and morgue areas.
g. Work in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security through the regional medical director and other appropriate agencies for emergency management in response to the successive stages of the pandemic event;
h. Provide the necessary level of response efforts as practicable.
i. Advise the Medical Director or Designee of the following: 1) Isolation/quarantine of the affected population to include: a) Containment boundaries

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 25 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 50 of 54

b) Need for appropriate environmental adjustments to

include but not limited to :

i.

All windows, doors, fans, and heating/air

conditioning systems and any other opening

to the outside can be closed and secured if

directed to prevent air exchange.

ii.

Ordering, distributing, and rationing food

supplies and dietary supplements;

iii.

Health and safety issues

iv.

emergency release of personnel

v.

Other issues as appropriate.

4. The Medical Director, with advisement of the regional Medical Director, and the Regional Warden or his designee, shall be responsible for the internal operations and the activation of the appropriate level of response for a pandemic event for each affected secure facility.

5. The Medical Director, Regional Medical Director and the Regional Warden or his designee shall be responsible for the expanded internal level of response and the organization of employees in the Incident Management System to include:

a. Managing incident response functions;

b. Declaring a lockdown where normal programming ceases.

c. Requiring employees to function outside their normal area of expertise as needed

d. Ensuring the escalated level of response structure develops at a pace which stays ahead of the tactical deployment of personnel and resources;
e. Ensuring adequate personnel resources are available.

f. Not permitting any person to; 1) Respond to a crisis situation unless instructed to do so; or 2) Enter any secure unit if exhibiting any type of flu symptoms as stated above.

6. The Director and/or his designee shall ensure:

a. Appropriate levels of communication are established with the family members of the affected employees and offenders (RN Program Coordinator of Communications)

C. POST PANDEMIC PERIOD:

1. Medical practice will resume as in the Inter-pandemic Period Standards.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 26 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 51 of 54
2. The Regional Warden or his designee in consultation with the Medical Director and the Regional Medical Director shall:
a. Arrange for debriefing to gather pertinent information that may be applied to future emergency response efforts.
b. Complete an after action report to include: a) Review incident; b) event analysis; c) Identify areas in need of improvement; d) Create a corrective action plan for future events to be used in the revision of this pandemic event protocol.

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 27 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 52 of 54
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY
H1N1 FLU

SCREENING CHECKLIST – EMPLOYEE/OFFENDER

Name:

DOC # (if applicable):

Employee Work Assignment or Offender Housing Assignment:

YES

NO

1.

Spent any time in the H1N1 flu affected areas within the past 7 days? 



2.

Spent any time with anyone from these areas within the past 7 days? 



3.

Did the offender arrive at this facility within the last 8 days?





4.

Does the employee/offender present any of the following signs?

 Temperature > than 100°





 Sore Throat





 Cough





 Shortness of breath, Dyspnea, ↓ 02 sats





 Nasal congestion or drainage





 Vomiting





 Lethargy





5.

Does the employee/offender report any of these symptoms within the

past 24 hours?

 Body aches





 Unexplained fatigue or weakness





 Nausea/vomiting





 Diarrhea





COMMENTS:

________________________________ Signature of Medical Interviewer
________________________________ Signature of Reviewing Provider

________________________________ Date of Interview
________________________________ Date of Review

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 28 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 53 of 54
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY
H1N1 FLU

Name:

QUESTIONNAIRE – FRONT GATE
Company:

YES

NO

1.

Spent any time in the H1N1 flu affected areas within the past 7 days? 



2.

Spent any time with anyone from these areas within the past 7 days? 



3.

Over the past 24 hours, has the person had any of the following?

 Temperature > than 100°





 Sore Throat





 Cough





 Shortness of breath





 Achy feeling/fatigue





 Runny or stuffy nose





 Nausea/vomiting





 Diarrhea





If the person answers yes to 2 or more, please notify medical.

________________________________ Signature of Interviewer

________________________________ Date of Interview

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 29 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-4 03/28/20 Page 54 of 54

March 18, 2020

Attachment 8 –

Page 30 of 30

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 580-5 03/28/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-00318

v.

JUDGE SDD

BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity, et al.,

MAGISTRATE RLB

Defendants.

ORDER Considering the foregoing Emergency Motion to Re-Open Discovery Regarding COVID19, it is ordered that the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiffs are granted leave to re-open discovery on an expedited basis for the limited basis of obtaining information from Defendants concerning COVID-19. The parties are directed to meet and confer within 24 hours regarding this discovery and Defendants’ plans for addressing COVID-19. A representative from DOC who can knowledgeably discuss the least burdensome means of providing information shall participate in this meet and confer.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this ___ day of ______________, 2020.

_______________________________ Chief Judge Shelly Dick

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582 03/31/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-00318

v.

JUDGE SDD

BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity, et al.,

MAGISTRATE RLB

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO RESTRAIN DEFENDANTS FROM TRANSFERRING COVID-19 CARRIERS TO LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY
NOW INTO COURT COME Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter, through undersigned counsel, who move this Honorable Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in order to prevent Defendants from enacting a plan to transfer to LSP people who are COVID-19 carriers from state and local facilities across Louisiana. 1 As established throughout the course of this case, LSP houses a uniquely high number of inmates who are at particularly high risk for severe or even fatal consequences if they contract COVID-19 because they are elderly, immunocompromised, or disabled, or have cardiac, pulmonary, or cardiovascular conditions. Intentionally bringing COVID-19 carriers to LSP, particularly given this Court’s notice of intent to find that the medical care provided at LSP is unconstitutional in at least some respects, will expose the most vulnerable people in the DOC system to an unconscionably high risk of death or serious harm.
Even if the COVID-19 transferees to LSP could successfully be placed in medical isolation and adequately cared for on-site, medical personnel and other correctional staff would be required to move between them and other areas at LSP, creating a high likelihood of transmission of the virus to the rest of the prison population and – through staff – to the community at large. The community

1 See, e.g., Emily Lane, Louisiana plans to house local and state inmates with coronavirus at Angola and Allen Correctional; WDSU NEWS (March 27, 2020), https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-plans-tohouse-inmates-with-coronavirus-at-angola-and-another-prison/31960114.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582 03/31/20 Page 2 of 4
in the populated areas close to Angola have thus far been largely unaffected by the transmission of COVID-19. Additionally, intentionally introducing COVID-19 into LSP increases the risk of harm for Class members with on-going chronic medical issues by exacerbating medical understaffing issues and other inadequate procedures and practices that are already on the record.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) provides that the Court should levy “security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Given that there are no costs or damages associated with the relief Plaintiffs request (simply restraining Defendants from transferring people to LSP), the “proper” amount is zero dollars.
If the Court does determine that a different amount would be proper, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court waive the bond requirement, given the obviousness of the risk to Class members’ health, their indigence, and the strong public interest involved.2 Furthermore, the requirement of a bond is contrary to the proposition that inadequate resources under no circumstances justify a prison’s deprivation of constitutional rights.3 Consistent with this wellestablished principle, this Court should not require Plaintiffs, who are indigent, to post a bond in order to protect their constitutional rights.
For the reasons in the attached memorandum, the Court should immediately issue an order temporarily restraining Defendants from transferring inmates with COVID-19 to LSP; and, after a hearing, preliminarily enjoin Defendants from doing so. Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mercedes Montagnes and Jeff Dubner, will both be available by phone at the pleasure of the Court. They have called chambers to provide their cell phone numbers.
Respectfully submitted this 31th day of March, 2020.
Respectfully submitted by:
2 See, e.g., Molton Co v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 55 F.3d 1171, 1176 (6th Cir. 1995) (approving waiver of bond given strength of case and “the strong public interest” involved); Campos v. INS, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1310 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (because plaintiffs were indigent and sought to vindicate their constitutional rights, consistent with the public interest, the court did not require a bond). 3 See, e.g., Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 1977) (inadequate resources can never be a justification for depriving an inmate of his constitutional rights).
2

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582 03/31/20 Page 3 of 4
/s/ Mercedes Montagnes
Mercedes Montagnes, La. Bar No. 33287 Jamila Johnson, La. Bar No. 37953 Nishi Kumar, La. Bar No. 37415 The Promise of Justice Initiative 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 Facsimile: (504) 595-8006 Email: mmontagnes@defendla.org
Jeffrey B. Dubner (pro hac vice) P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 656-2722 Email: Jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com
Daniel A. Small (pro hac vice) Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
Bruce Hamilton, La. Bar No. 33170 ACLU Foundation of Louisiana P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, Louisiana 70156 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (504) 613-6511 Email: bhamilton@laaclu.org
Jared Davidson, La. Bar No. 37093 Southern Poverty Law Center 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 Email: jared.davidson@splcenter.org
Ronald K. Lospennato, La. Bar No. 32191 Advocacy Center 8325 Oak St. New Orleans, LA 700118 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (888) 534-2996
3

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582 03/31/20 Page 4 of 4 Email: rlospennato@advocacyla.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 31, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I further certify that copies of all pleadings and other papers filed in the action to date or to be presented to the Court at the hearing, have been furnished to the Defendants’ attorneys, who have already made an appearance in this matter.
/s/ Mercedes Montagnes Mercedes Montagnes La. Bar No. 33287
4

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-00318

v.

JUDGE SDD

BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity, et al.,

MAGISTRATE RLB

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO RESTRAIN DEFENDANTS FROM TRANSFERRING COVID-19 CARRIERS TO
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY Defendants are about to embark on a course of action that will likely result in the death of dozens if not hundreds of Class members. According to multiple press reports, Defendants intend to transfer persons with COVID-19 from prisons and jails throughout Louisiana to the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (“LSP”).1 But LSP has “no place to treat an ill person with COVID-19 except in a general housing unit or on the infirmary, both of which would expose other patients to infection.”2 And even if Defendants could somehow isolate the transferred inmates while treating their condition, LSP’s inappropriate policy on staff who may have contracted COVID-19 makes it likely that staff would transmit the virus to other staff and to the general population of LSP. In such settings, transmission to large numbers of Class members is inevitable.3 As established at the 2018 trial in this case, LSP has a uniquely high number of inmates who are elderly, immuno-compromised, or disabled, or have cardiac, pulmonary, or cardiovascular conditions—individuals who are at particularly high risk for severe or even fatal consequences if

1 See, e.g., Emily Lane, Louisiana plans to house local and state inmates with coronavirus at Angola and Allen Correctional; WDSU NEWS (March 27, 2020), https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-plans-tohouse-inmates-with-coronavirus-at-angola-and-another-prison/31960114. 2 Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Michael Puisis (“Supp. Puisis Dec.”), ¶ 13. 3 Id. ¶¶ 7-10.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 2 of 18
they contract COVID-19.4 If Defendants intentionally bring carriers of COVID-19 to LSP and treat them in the infirmary—the only place at LSP where even moderate cases of COVID-19 could conceivably be treated—“the infection is likely to spread throughout this unit of compromised patients,” just like “nursing homes where COVID is known to have caused significant death.”5 Defendants will be intentionally and willfully exposing the most vulnerable people in the entire DOC system to an unconscionably high risk of death or serious harm.
Moreover, as proven at the 2018 trial in this case, the medical system at LSP is unconstitutional at its worst and severely overtaxed at its best. The transfer of numerous patients requiring intensive medical care, and the increased risk of an outbreak sweeping through both the Class and the medical personnel who treat them, will devastate LSP’s capacity to provide care to even those inmates who do not contract COVID-19. This will exacerbate the already unconstitutional risk to which Defendants subject Class members, and result in avoidable suffering and death.
Plaintiffs have expressed this concern to Defendants, who have refused to confirm whether DOC intends to transfer patients with COVID-19 to LSP.6 Indeed, they have refused even to get on the phone with Plaintiffs.7 Instead, they have stated that they will respond only in their briefing on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Re-Open Discovery Regarding COVID-19. But if Defendants carry out their reported plan before the Court has the opportunity to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion, it will be too late to provide meaningful relief: Defendants will have already introduced COVID-19 to LSP and the risk of transmission will be impossible to undo.
The four-factor test for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is therefore readily satisfied. Plaintiffs can likely show that the transfer plan will knowingly and unconstitutionally place Class members at a substantial risk of serious harm, and there can be no question that that harm would be irreparable. The public interest weighs heavily against a plan that would introduce
4 Id. ¶ 12. 5 Id. ¶ 10. 6 See Supplemental Declaration of Jeffrey Dubner (“Supp. Dubner Dec.”), Ex. A, ¶¶ 4-12. 7 See id. ¶ 3; Declaration of Jeffrey Dubner (“First Dubner Dec.), Rec. Doc. No. 580-3, ¶¶ 5-8.
2

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 3 of 18
COVID-19 to a population where it is not known to have spread, and from where it could easily spread to the broader community and devastate the region’s medical infrastructure. And Defendants would suffer no harm from an injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court immediately restrain Defendants from knowingly transferring patients with COVID-19 to LSP, and then issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer plan once the parties have fully briefed the issue.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. COVID-19 COVID-19 “is a novel virus for which there is no established curative medical treatment and no vaccine.”8 Compared with past outbreaks of communicable diseases, the COVID-19 pandemic is of “unprecedented magnitude” because of the “magnitude and speed of transmission of COVID19.”9 COVID-19 “is transmitted by droplets of infected aerosol when people with the infection cough,” which can survive in the air for up to three hours—and on surfaces such as plastic and stainless steel for up to 2-3 days.10 COVID-19 is an acute respiratory syndrome that can cause pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory failure, heart failure, sepsis, and other potentially fatal conditions.11 Treatment for severe cases of COVID-19 include “respiratory isolation, oxygen, and mechanical ventilation.”12 COVID-19 is particularly dangerous for elderly or immunocompromised individuals and those who have chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, severe obesity, or other medical conditions such as diabetes, renal failure, or liver disease, particularly if not well controlled.13 According to a study of nearly 1600 COVID-19 cases, “patients with at least
8 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 2. 9 United States v. Martin, No. 19-cv-140-13, 2020 WL 1274857, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2020). 10 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 6. 11 Fei Zhou et al., Clinical Course and Risk Factors for Mortality of Adult Inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A Retrospective Cohort Study, 395 LANCET 1054 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext. 12 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 13. 13 Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), “People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness” (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higherrisk.html.
3

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 4 of 18
one co-morbidity—including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic kidney diseases—‘had a
79% greater chance of requiring intensive care or a respirator or both, or of dying.’”14 Nationwide,
the mortality rate among persons aged 55-64 is 1-3%; among persons aged 65-84, 3-11%; and
among persons 85 or older, 10-27%.15
To reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (“CDC”) advises all people—and particularly those “at higher risk of severe illness”—to
“[s]tay home,” “[w]ash your hands often,” “[a]void close contact (6 feet, which is about two arm
lengths) with people who are sick,” and “[c]lean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces.”16 The
President’s Task Force on COVID-19 recommends avoiding gatherings of more than 10 people.17
Louisiana is experiencing some of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in the world. As of
March 29, 2020, Louisiana had 3540 confirmed cases of COVID-19, with at least 151 deaths.18 A
study from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette reported that COVID-19 cases grew at 67.8%,
the highest rate in the United States.19 New Orleans “is quickly becoming a coronavirus epicenter in
14 Coronel v. Decker, No. 20-cv-2472, 2020 WL 1487274, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (slip op.) (quoting Sharon Begley, Who Is Getting Sick, and How Sick? A Breakdown of Coronavirus Risk by Demographic Factors, STAT NEWS (Mar. 3, 2020), https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/03/who-isgetting-sick-and-how-sick-a-breakdown-of-coronavirus-risk-by-demographic-factors/; see also Jason Oke & Carl Heneghan, Global Covid-19 Case Fatality Rates, Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service (Mar. 28, 2020), https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ (“Patients with comorbid conditions had much higher [fatality] rates.”). 15 CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)—United States, February 12–March 16, 2020, 69 MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 343 (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm; see also Oke & Heneghan, supra n.14 (finding similar mortality rates globally). 16 CDC, “What You Can Do” (Mar. 21, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/needextra-precautions/what-you-can-do.html; see also Martin, 2020 WL 1274857, at *2 (“With no known effective treatment, and vaccines months (or more) away, public health officials have been left to urge the public to practice ‘social distancing,’ frequent (and thorough) hand washing, and avoidance of close contact with others … all of which are extremely difficult to implement in a detention facility.”). 17 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 10. 18 Coronavirus Updates in Louisiana: 3540 COVID-19 Cases in State; 151 Deaths Reported, WDSU NEWS (Mar. 29, 2020), https://www.wdsu.com/article/coronavirus-updates-in-louisiana-3540-covid-19cases-in-state-151-deaths-reported/31969586#. 19 Adam Daigle, Coronavirus Cases Grew Faster in Louisiana Than Anywhere Else in the World: UL Study, THE ACADIANA ADVOCATE (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.wdsu.com/article/coronavirus-updatesin-louisiana-3540-covid-19-cases-in-state-151-deaths-reported/31969586#.
4

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 5 of 18
the U.S.,”20 while “an equally alarming outbreak” is occurring in Shreveport.21 As of yet, however,
West Feliciana Parish, where LSP is located, is only known to have one or two confirmed COVID-
19 cases.22
II. LSP Presents a Heightened Risk of Transmission of COVID-19
As a rule, “[i]ndividuals in carceral settings are at a significantly higher risk of spreading
infectious diseases.”23 This is because it is typically “not possible to isolate … detainees from the
outside world (including from staff and vendors who may have been exposed to COVID-19), nor is
it possible to isolate them from one another.”24 “Prevention of contact with an infected droplet is
significantly more difficult in a prison than in the community.”25As a result, “[j]ails and prisons are
long known to be a breeding ground for infectious respiratory illness.”26 And as has long been
understood, “[t]he probability of transmission of potentially pathogenic organisms is increased by
crowding, delays in medical evaluation and treatment, rationed access to soap, water, and clean
laundry, [and] insufficient infection-control expertise.”27
LSP poses a particularly high risk of transmission. The CDC recommendations described
above “are not possible in LSP.”28 The majority of inmates live in dormitories of up to 86 people,
20 Erika Edwards, Why New Orleans Is Quickly Becoming a Coronavirus Epicenter in the U.S., NBC NEWS (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-new-orleans-quicklybecoming-coronavirus-epicenter-u-s-n1169376. 21 Kent Sepkowitz, The Alarming Message of Louisiana’s Sharp Rise in Covid-19 Cases, CNN (Mar. 29, 2020) (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/29/opinions/shreveport-louisiana-new-orleanscoronavirus-kent-sepkowitz-opinion/index.html). 22 Charles Lussier, School Leader in West Feliciana Parish in Hospital for “Presumed Coronavirus,” THE ADVOCATE (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_91166ce4-7037-11ea-b95d3b57904f3ce6.html; Matt Sledge, Two Louisiana Prison Staffers, Including Angola Employee, Test Positive for Coronavirus, NOLA.com (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_e947332a-6f70-11ea-83bf-8fb78c8ff09c.html. 23 Coronel, 2020 WL 1487274 (internal quotation omitted). 24 Id. 25 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 7. 26 Id. ¶ 8. 27 United States v. Stephens, No. 15-cr-95, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 1295155, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (quoting Joseph A. Bick, Infection Control in Jails and Prisons, 45 CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES 1047, 1047 (Oct. 2007), https://doi.org/10.1086/521910. 28 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 7.
5

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 6 of 18
which “are not arranged to provide social distancing as the distance between beds is approximately 3 feet.”29 “Large fans blow air through the units which is likely to spread contagious agents embedded in aerosol like COVID-19.”30 As a result, “[o]ne couldn’t devise a system more contrary to current public health recommendations and the President’s Task Force recommendations than a prison like LSP.”31 Indeed, “LSP has worse living conditions and higher commingling of people than cruise ships and nursing homes, where COVID-19 is known to have easily spread” and “caused significant death.”32
III. LSP Houses Thousands of Class Members Who Are at Particular Risk of
Death If They Contract COVID-19 As shown on the record throughout the course of this case, LSP houses thousands of people who are at high risk of suffering severe or even fatal effects if they contract COVID-19 due to the “aging and elderly” population,33 as well as the extremely high numbers of people suffering from chronic diseases.34 The most vulnerable among the LSP population are the patients at the infirmaries in the Treatment Center. Most if not all of these patients have one or more conditions that put them at high risk. Their “beds are in dormitory style setting and are close together.”35 “If inmates with COVID-19 are housed on the infirmary rather than outside hospitals, the infection is likely to spread throughout this unit of compromised patients.”36 The approximately 240 residents of the so-called “medical dormitories” are nearly as vulnerable: virtually all have risk factors for severe consequences from COVID-19, yet they live in “dormitories [that] are incapable of allowing inmates to follow
29 Id. ¶ 10. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. ¶¶ 7, 10. 33 See Oct. 24, 2018 Testimony of Tonia Faust at 104. 34 See Nov. 2, 2017 Class Cert. Tr. at 23:12-24:16, 51:9-21; Rec. Doc. 377 at 4 (Dr. Lavespere testifying at the class certification hearing that approximately 2600 patients at Angola have hypertension, 800 have asthma or COPD, 800 have hepatitis C, 900 have hyperlipidemia, 600 have diabetes, 112 have cancer, 125 have hyperthyroidism, 110 have HIV, 50 have seizure disorder, and 75 are anticoagulated). 35 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 10. 36 Id.
6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 7 of 18
current CDC recommendations regarding prevention against COVID-19.”37 These “[d]ormitories with large numbers of persons with severe medical conditions are similar to nursing homes where COVID is known to have caused significant death.”38
IV. Defendants Intend to Transfer Inmates with COVID-19 to LSP from Facilities
in Other Parts of Louisiana To prevent spread of COVID-19, Defendants have suspended “[t]ransfers between DOC facilities and/or local facilities … indefinitely absent extenuating circumstances.”39 But they are not applying this protective policy to LSP, despite it having the largest concentration of high-risk inmates in the entire DOC system. Instead, Defendants plan to “house inmates who test positive for the coronavirus, including those from all over the state,” at LSP and the Allen Correctional Center.40 According to a DOC spokesman, “[o]perators of local jails not equipped to treat coronavirus patients, as well as other state prisons, can transfer inmates with COVID-19 to [LSP].”41 According to news reports, Defendants plan to house the patients brought to Angola at “Camp J,” an outcamp that Defendants shut down in May 2018. But as discussed at trial, the outcamps have limited medical facilities.42 “LSP is not set up to manage hospital level care including ventilation” even at the Treatment Center, much less the outcamps.43 To the extent any of the transferred patients require intensive medical care, that would need to occur in the Treatment Center. LSP is 25 miles from the nearest hospital and even further from the nearest hospital of any meaningful size,44 and Defendants “frequently decline to send patients to outside hospitals when indicated by urgent, life-threatening vital signs and symptoms,”45 making it highly likely that they will
37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Ex. A, First Dubner Dec., Rec. Doc. No. 580-4 at 2 (Mar. 25, 2020 email from Randy Robert to Jeffrey Dubner). 40 Lane, supra n.1. 41 Id. 42 Oct. 9, 2018 Testimony of Dr. Mike Puisis at 117-120. 43 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 13. 44 Rec. Doc. No. 573 ¶ 27. 45 Rec. Doc. No. 573 ¶ 230.
7

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 8 of 18
attempt to treat serious cases of COVID-19 at the Treatment Center, with all the attendant risk of transmission throughout the facility.
Even if Defendants could find a way to provide all medical care for the COVID-19 transferees at Camp J, medical personnel and other correctional staff regularly move between Camp J and the Treatment Center, creating a high likelihood of transmission from Camp J to the rest of the prison. Equally concerning, Defendants’ plan for preventing staff from transmitting the virus is directly contrary to CDC guidelines. Defendants have directed employees found to have a fever to be sent home, and then return to work as soon as 24 hours after they are fever-free without the use of fever medication.46 But the CDC recommends returning to work no less than three days after resolution of the fever—and at least seven days after symptoms first appeared (or after receiving multiple negative COVID-19 tests).47
Medical personnel are at particular risk for contracting and spreading COVID-19.48 In many medical systems, this has impaired the ability to provide care for serious non-COVID-19 conditions. As detailed at the trial, countless Class members require ongoing care for serious, chronic medical conditions, and Class members need emergency care for urgent medical needs every day even in normal times.49
46 Rec. Doc. No. 580-4 at 31. 47 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 22 n.17; see CDC, “What to Do If You Are Sick” (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html (under “How to discontinue home isolation”); see also CDC, “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities” (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html (advising that symptomatic correctional staff should follow the guidance in “What to Do If You Are Sick”). 48 CDC, “Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations” (Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html 49 See, e.g., JX-rr, R. Lavespere Depo. at 44:4-7 (testifying that as many as 76 patients may be seen each day in the ATU).
8

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 9 of 18
V. Defendants Have Refused to Meet and Confer with Plaintiffs About the Transfer Plan
News reports first disclosed Defendants’ plan to transfer inmates with COVID-19 to LSP on Friday, March 27, 2020.50 The following morning, Plaintiffs contacted Defendants’ counsel to inquire whether the reports were accurate, explaining that the high proportion of high-risk individuals and distance from hospital care would make the plan “unconscionably risky to Class members.”51 Plaintiffs asked Defendants whether their understanding of DOC’s plans was incorrect, and advised Defendants that they would move for emergency relief if they did not hear from Defendants on the subject by Monday, March 30, 2020.52 Defendants informed Plaintiffs that they would not respond, due to Plaintiffs’ filing of their motion to reopen discovery.53 Plaintiffs twice more asked for Defendants to confirm whether DOC did in fact plan to transfer patients with COVID-19 and if Defendants would meet and confer about it, explaining that “given the urgency of the approaching tragedy we really have no choice but to go to the Court in an expedited fashion if you refuse even to meet and confer with us.”54
Late Monday afternoon, Defendants’ counsel stated that “DOC has not transferred anyone with Covid-19 to Angola and there are no imminent plans to make any such transfers at this time,” but pointedly did not respond to Plaintiffs’ request that they confirm whether Defendants planned to transfer inmates with COVID-19 to LSP at all.55 Within an hour, Plaintiffs learned that Defendants had begun transferring inmates with COVID-19 to Allen.56 Accordingly, Plaintiffs specifically asked “whether 1) DOC plans to transfer patients with COVID-19 from other jails and facilities to LSP (whether before or after Allen runs out of room for transfers) and 2) whether Defendants will provide us with 14 days’ notice before making such transfers, allowing us time at
50 See Lane, supra n.1. 51 Ex. A, Supp. Dubner Dec.; Supp. Dubner Dec. ¶¶ 3-4. 52 Supp. Dubner Dec. ¶ 4 53 Id. ¶ 6. 54 Id. ¶¶ 7-9; Ex. A, Supp. Dubner Dec. 55 Supp. Dubner Dec. ¶ 10; Ex. A, Supp. Dubner Dec. 56 Supp. Dubner Dec. ¶ 11.
9

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 10 of 18
that point to bring the matter to the Court in a more orderly fashion,”57 and requested a response by 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, March 31, 2020. Defendants responded immediately to ask who told Plaintiffs that transfers had begun, but declined to respond to Plaintiffs’ questions.58
LEGAL STANDARD In order to obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, “Plaintiffs must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant, and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not deserve the public interest.”59 Plaintiffs must show each of these factors.60 However, Plaintiffs are “not required to prove [their] entitlement to summary judgment”; rather, they “must present a prima facie case but need not show that [they are] certain to win.”61 The Court may issue a temporary restraining order without awaiting for the adverse party’s response if it finds that “immediate and irreparable injury … will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.”62
ARGUMENT Plaintiffs are a certified Class of “all inmates who [are] now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at LSP.”63 In a three-week trial in October 2018, they proved “that the medical care at [LSP] is unconstitutional in some respects.”64 In other words, they have shown that Defendants have acted “with deliberate indifference to [their] serious medical needs”65 and that they are
57 Id. ¶ 12; Ex. A, Supp. Dubner Dec. 58 Supp. Dubner Dec. ¶ 13; Ex. A, Supp. Dubner Dec. 59 Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 18-cv-23-SDD-EWD, 2018 WL 4701849, at *2 (M.D. La. Jan. 30, 2018) 60 Id. 61 New River Shopping Ctr., LLC v. Villenurve, No. 17-cv-281-SDD-RLB, 2017 WL 1821108, at *2 (M.D. La. May 5, 2017). 62 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). 63 Rec. Doc. 394 at 30. 64 Rec. Doc. 578. 65 Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2001).
10

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 11 of 18
“incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.”66 As yet, the Court has not entered any remedy alleviating these unconstitutional conditions.
Now, Defendants are on the verge of taking a step that will exponentially exacerbate this constitutional violation. They are about to intentionally bring COVID-19, a deadly and contagious virus of “unprecedented magnitude,”67 to LSP. Doing so is highly likely to lead to an outbreak of COVID-19 that could literally decimate the elderly and medically vulnerable population of LSP. Dozens if not hundreds of Class members may die. And even those who do not contract COVID19 could face serious harm. COVID-19 outbreaks wreak devastating harm on even the most prepared medical systems, and they would cripple LSP’s already unconstitutional system—further limiting access to care for the most vulnerable Class members.
Plaintiffs more than meet the standard for a preliminary injunction. There is a substantial likelihood that they can show that the transfer plan is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, and the substantial threat of irreparable harm is incontestable. There would be no harm to Defendants from enjoining this plan, and the public interest stands strongly against allowing Defendants to create a COVID-19 cluster where none currently exists, in an area that is unequipped to handle an outbreak.
Once Defendants introduce COVID-19 to LSP, there will be no unringing the bell. As soon as the transfers begin, transmission could immediately spread through LSP like wildfire and rapidly become uncontainable even in the best of circumstances and with the best of intentions. Accordingly, the Court should immediately enter an order temporarily restraining Defendants from effectuating their plan while it considers the full motion for a preliminary injunction and while the parties confer to determine whether there is any way to obviate the need for such an injunction.
I. Plaintiffs Face a Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury Thousands of Class members are elderly or have medical conditions that make it highly likely
that they would experience severe consequences, and possibly death, if they contract COVID-19.68
66 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 67 Martin, 2020 WL 1274857, at *2. 68 See supra nn.33 & 34.
11

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 12 of 18
And because Class members are incarcerated in dormitories with little to no control over their contact with others and the hygiene of their confinement, they cannot practically take the preventative measures recommended by the CDC and the President’s Task Force on COVID-19.69 They are entirely at the mercy of Defendants.
Defendants’ affirmative plan is to take individuals with COVID-19 from hotspots around the state and bring them to LSP. For all the reasons explained above, it would take a miracle for this plan not to result in a COVID-19 outbreak at LSP. And even if Defendants could somehow show that transmission was not a virtual certainty, “it is not necessary to demonstrate that harm is inevitable.”70 Rather, all that is required is “a significant threat of injury from the impending action, that the injury is imminent, and that money damages would not fully repair the harm.”71 At a minimum, there is no question that the likelihood of transmission of this virus of unprecedented “magnitude and speed of transmission”72 through a facility that could hardly be “more contrary to current public health recommendations and the President’s Task Force recommendations”73 is “significant” and “imminent.”
Nor can there be any question that the threatened harm is irreparable. Thousands of Class members have risk factors making death or severe illness likely if they contract COVID-19.74 “It goes without saying that … death is an irreparable injury.”75 Even for those who recover, the extreme suffering that they may experience during their illness76 and the possibility of long-term
69 See supra nn.16 & 17. 70 Humana, Inc. v. Jacobson, 804 F.2d 1390, 1394 (5th Cir. 1986). 71 Id. 72 Martin, 2020 WL 1274857, at *2. 73 Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶ 10. 74 See supra nn.33 & 34. 75 East v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of La., No. 14-cv-115-BAJ-RLB, 2014 WL 8332136, at *2 (M.D. La. Feb. 24, 2014); accord, e.g., Turner v. Epps, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1028 (S.D. Miss. 2012) (describing death as “the single most irreparable harm of all”). 76 See, e.g., Graham Readfearn, What Happens to People’s Lungs When They Get Coronavirus?, THE GUARDIAN (Mar. 28, 2020, 2:56 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/whathappens-to-peoples-lungs-when-they-get-coronavirus (noting that “almost all serious consequences of Covid-19 feature pneumonia” and that “there is evidence that pneumonia caused by Covid-19 may be particularly severe.” The lungs “become filled with inflammatory material [and] are unable to
12

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 13 of 18
respiratory impairment77 could not be erased. Such “bodily injury is not far behind” death as “an
irremediable and unfathomable harm.”78
Moreover, COVID-19 outbreaks have brought some of the most well-equipped medical
systems in the country to their knees.79 In New York City, for example, many people with serious
non-COVID-19 conditions are finding it difficult if not impossible to obtain needed medical care.80
People have died while waiting in line for overburdened emergency rooms.81 Medical personnel have
been hit particularly hard, leading to numerous deaths and further depleting medical systems’
get enough oxygen to the bloodstream, reducing the body’s ability to take on oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide”). 77 See, e.g., Peter Wark, How Are the Most Serious COVID-19 Cases Treated, and Does the Coronavirus Cause Lasting Damage?, THECONVERSATION.COM (Mar. 29, 2020, 9:29 PM), http://theconversation.com/how-are-the-most-serious-covid-19-cases-treated-and-does-thecoronavirus-cause-lasting-damage-134398 (“At this stage there is no data on the long-term effects of COVID-19. But we can look at the after-effects of other acute viral respiratory diseases such as influenza, SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In these diseases, collectively called acute respiratory distress syndromes (ARDS), the fragile small airways and air sacs become damaged by inflammation, can become blocked by fluid and blood, and are replaced by scar tissue as they heal. This can stiffen the lungs – at first from fluid and then from scar tissue – impairing their ability to transfer oxygen and making breathing more laboured.”). 78 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 743 F.3d 1258, 1268 (9th Cir. 2014); see also, e.g., Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996) (noting that the “suffer[ing] of physical effects” can “serve as an independent basis for [a] conclusion that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief”). 79 See, e.g., Michael Rothfeld, Somini Sengupta, Joseph Goldstein, and Brian M. Rosenthal, 13 Deaths in a Day: An “Apocalyptic” Coronavirus Surge at an N.Y.C. Hospital, NEW YORK TIMES (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-hospitals.html (“[H]ospitals are under siege. New York City’s hospitals run the gamut from prestigious teaching institutions catering to the elite to public hospitals providing care for some of the poorest communities in the nation. Regardless of whom they serve, few have been spared the impact of the pandemic: A flood of sick and fearful New Yorkers has besieged emergency rooms across the city.”); see also Miguel Marquez and Sonia Moghe, Inside a Brooklyn Hospital that Is Overwhelmed with COVID-19 Patients and Deaths, CNN (Mar. 30, 2020, 12:25 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/us/brooklyn-hospitalcoronavirus-patients-deaths/index.html (“‘A medical war zone,’ [Dr. Arabia] Mollette, an emergency room physician at Brookdale Hospital, told CNN. ‘Every day I come, what I see on a daily basis, is pain, despair, suffering and health care disparities.’”). 80 Id. 81 See, e.g., Jessica Glenza, Ankita Rao, and Alexandra Villarreal, “It’s What Was Happening in Italy”: the Hospital at the Center of New York’s COVID-19 Crisis, THE GUARDIAN (Mar. 27, 2020, 1:59 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/27/new-york-coronavirus-elmhurst-hospital.
13

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 14 of 18
resources.82 The strain on LSP’s already overtaxed and insufficient system will almost certainly be catastrophic and could result in grievous harm to the many Class members with chronic conditions that require regular medical care, as well as Class members who experience emergency medical needs of all types. Class members’ access to physicians, nurses, outside specialists, and hospital care is already unconstitutionally limited, as shown at trial; if Defendants introduce a novel virus of unprecedented magnitude to LSP, even the faint access to care that existed before the outbreak will be beyond reach.
II. Plaintiffs Have a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits To show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs “must present a prima
facie case but need not show that [they are] certain to win.”83 Plaintiffs are likely to be able to show that the transfer plan is unconstitutional for three reasons. First, for all the reasons explained above, it directly exposes Class members to a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19. “[C]orrectional officials have an affirmative obligation to protect inmates from infectious disease.”84 The Eighth Amendment “require[s] a remedy” where their jailors knowingly expose them to a risk of contracting serious infectious diseases, even if “it was not alleged that the likely harm would occur immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.”85
Second, Plaintiffs have already shown that Defendants’ inadequate medical system places them at a substantial risk of serious harm.86 Defendants’ new plan is to make that unconstitutional system even worse by introducing a virulent communicable disease into the system, exponentially increasing providers’ caseloads and reducing access to care for all Class members. In effect, Defendants are intentionally taking capacity out of LSP’s health care system, exacerbating all the
82 See, e.g., Dylan Scott, Umair Irfan, and Jen Kirby, The Next Coronavirus Crisis Will Be a Shortage of Doctors and Nurses, VOX (Mar. 26, 2020, 7:00 AM), https://www.vox.com/2020/3/26/21192191/coronavirus-us-new-york-hospitals-doctors-nurses. 83 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, 11A Federal Practice & Procedure § 2948.3 (2d ed. 1995); see also Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595-96 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting that plaintiffs are “not required to prove [their] entitlement to summary judgment” to show likelihood of success on the merits). 84 Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 477 (2d Cir. 1996). 85 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). 86 See Rec. Doc. 578.
14

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 15 of 18
problems that Plaintiffs have already proven. Defendants are knowingly increasing the risk of harm to Class members from their understaffing and inadequate procedures, which likely constitutes deliberate indifference.87
Third, Plaintiffs have yet to receive any remedy for their successful claim that Defendants’ medical care places them at a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A preliminary injunction would be in aid of remediating this proven constitutional violation, as it is necessary to ensure that Plaintiffs’ medical care does not get even worse before a remedy is instated. Indeed, the requested injunction will save an unknowable number of Class members from passing away before they can ever receive relief on their proven claim.
III.The Remaining Factors Weigh Heavily in Favor of a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction The third and fourth factors, “harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest …[,] merge when the Government is the opposing party.”88 Here, they weigh heavily in favor of granting relief. As an initial matter, the requested injunction would protect Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment, and “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.”89 Because “confidence in the humane application of the governing laws of the State must be in the public’s interest,”90 there is a clear public interest in preventing Defendants from exposing Class members to cruel and unusual punishment in the form of willful exposure to a serious risk of severe harm. And beyond the public interest in protecting the Class members themselves, minimizing risk of transmission of COVID-19 is inarguably in the public interest. As already explained, the transfer
87 See Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 948 (1975) (finding that when systematic deficiencies in staffing, facilities or procedures make unnecessary suffering inevitable, a court will not hesitate to use its injunctive powers). 88 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). 89 Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 458 n.9 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012)); accord, e.g., June Medical Servs., LLC v. Caldwell, No. 14-cv-525JWD-RLB, 2014 WL 4296679, at *8 (M.D. La. Aug. 31, 2014). 90 Harris v. Johnson, 323 F. Supp. 2d 797, 810 (S.D. Tex. 2004).
15

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 16 of 18
plan is likely to spread COVID-19 to the staff of LSP and then to the broader West Feliciana and central Louisiana community.91 “[A] COVID-19 outbreak at a detention facility could quickly overwhelm” not only the facility’s medical system, but “surrounding community hospitals” as well.92 The resulting effect on “public health and safety” would plainly harm the public interest.93
By contrast, there is no substantial harm to Defendants in enjoining the transfer plan. Defendants can have no interest in following through with a plan that will expose not only Class members but hundreds of their own staff to COVID-19. Moreover, Defendants have other, safer options than transferring persons with COVID-19 to a prison distinctly ill-suited to house and treat them, and to prevent transmission.94 And even if there were some harm to Defendants, it would be greatly outweighed by the catastrophic risk to Class members.
IV. The Court Should Immediately Enter a Temporary Restraining Order While It Adjudicates This Motion
At any moment, Defendants could begin transferring inmates with COVID-19 to LSP. They have refused even to acknowledge their transfer plan to Plaintiffs, making it impossible to know when they will start introducing COVID-19 to LSP or how they expect to prevent its spread. Although they have said that transfers are not imminent “at this time,”95 they have given no assurance that that will not change at any time without notice. Even on an expedited briefing schedule, by the time the Court can receive full briefing and hold a preliminary injunction hearing, the damage may already be done. Once COVID-19 begins to spread at LSP, it will likely be impossible to stop it. “A hearing weeks from now may be no relief at all, because Petitioners may contract COVID-19 in the interim and face serious health consequences—including death.”96
91 See, e.g., Supp Puisis Dec. ¶¶ 14, 19 92 Coronel, 2020 WL 1487274, at *7. 93 Id. 94 See, e.g., Supp. Puisis Dec. ¶¶ 15-16 (recommending, inter alia, release of low-risk prisoners to make room for proper isolation). 95 Supp. Dubner Dec. ¶ 10; Ex. A, Supp. Dubner Dec. 96 Coronel, 2020 WL 1487274, at *7.
16

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 17 of 18
This is an archetypal situation for a temporary restraining order. Temporarily restraining the
Defendants from transferring inmates with COVID-19 to LSP will allow the Court to “preserve the
status quo and prevent irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no
longer.”97 Plaintiffs are prepared to proceed to a preliminary injunction hearing as soon as
Defendants and the Court are able. But in the interim, a temporary restraining order is the only way
to ensure that Defendants’ plan to affirmatively introduce COVID-19 to LSP is not a fait accompli
before this Court has the opportunity to pass judgment on it.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should immediately issue an order temporarily
restraining Defendants from transferring inmates with COVID-19 to LSP; and, after a hearing,
preliminarily enjoin Defendants from doing so.
Respectfully submitted this 31st day of March, 2020.
Respectfully submitted by:
/s/ Mercedes Montagnes
Mercedes Montagnes, La. Bar No. 33287 Jamila Johnson, La. Bar No. 37953 Nishi Kumar, La. Bar No. 37415 The Promise of Justice Initiative 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 Facsimile: (504) 595-8006 Email: mmontagnes@defendla.org
Jeffrey B. Dubner (pro hac vice) P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 656-2722 Email: Jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com
Daniel A. Small (pro hac vice) Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
97 Snow v. Lambert, No. 15-cv-567-SDD-RLB, 2015 WL 5071981, at *1 (M.D. La. Aug. 27, 2015) (quoting RW Dev’t, LLC v. Cuningham Grp. Architecture, Inc., No. 12-cv-224, 2012 WL 3258782, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 8, 2012)).
17

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-1 03/31/20 Page 18 of 18
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
Bruce Hamilton, La. Bar No. 33170 ACLU Foundation of Louisiana P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, Louisiana 70156 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (504) 613-6511 Email: bhamilton@laaclu.org
Jared Davidson, La. Bar No. 37093 Southern Poverty Law Center 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 Email: jared.davidson@splcenter.org
Ronald K. Lospennato, La. Bar No. 32191 Advocacy Center 8325 Oak St. New Orleans, LA 700118 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (888) 534-2996 Email: rlospennato@advocacyla.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 31, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the court’s electronic filing system.
I further certify that copies of all pleadings and other papers filed in the action to date or to be presented to the Court at the hearing, have been furnished to the Defendants’ attorneys, who have already made an appearance in this matter.
/s/ Mercedes Montagnes Mercedes Montagnes La. Bar No. 33287
18

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-2 03/31/20 Page 1 of 8
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL PUISIS CONCERNING THE RISK OF THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 IN THE LOUISIANA STATE PRISON (LSP) AT
ANGOLA
1. Dr. Michael Puisis is an internist who has worked in correctional medicine for 35 years. He began working at the Cook County Jail as a physician in 1985 and became the Medical Director of Cook County Jail from 1991 to 1996 and Chief Operating Officer for the medical program at the Cook County Jail from 2009 to 2012. He has worked in and managed correctional medical programs in multiple state prisons including in Illinois and New Mexico. He has worked as a Monitor or Expert for Federal Courts on multiple cases and has worked as a Correctional Medical Expert for the Department of Justice on multiple cases. He has also participated in revisions of national standards for medical care for the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and for the American Public Health Association. He also participated in revision of tuberculosis standards for the Center for Disease Control. Dr. Puisis has edited the only textbook on correctional medicine, Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine. Dr. Puisis evaluated the Louisiana State Prison at Angola for The Promise of Justice Initiative in 2016 (and also conducted records review in 2018) and previously monitored Louisiana State Prison at Angola for the Department of Justice.
2. Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral pandemic. This is a novel virus for which there is no established curative medical treatment and no vaccine.
3. The number of cases of COVID-19 in the United States are rising rapidly. On March 30, 2020, Johns Hopkins reported that there were 161,807 reported COVID-19 infections in the U.S. The number of deaths is over 3,000 but both cases and deaths are rising rapidly so by the time this declaration is read the numbers of both cases and deaths will be significantly larger. The number of cases of COVID-19 is the highest number of reported cases of any country in the world.
4. Louisiana has a rapidly accelerating rate of COVID-19 infections. A study from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette reported that COVID-19 cases grew at a 67.8% rate, the highest rate in the U.S.1 The Louisiana Department of Health reported on March 30, 2020 that there were 3251 cases of COVID-19 with 185 deaths. Louisiana has the 5th most deaths of any state in the U.S.
5. UpToDate2 reports an overall case mortality rate from the disease of 2.3. Louisiana has 185 deaths for 3251 cases; 5.7% of persons diagnosed with the infection in Louisiana die.
1 Coronavirus cases grew faster in Louisiana than anywhere else in the world: UL study, The Acadiana Advocate, Adam Daigle March 24, 2020, https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/coronavirus/article_94494420-6d4b-11ea-ac42ff7dd722c084.html. 2 UpToDate is an online medical reference widely used in hospitals, health organizations, and private physicians.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-2 03/31/20 Page 2 of 8
6. COVID-19 is transmitted by droplets of infected aerosol when people with the infection cough. Droplets of respiratory secretions infected with the virus can survive as an aerosol for up to three hours.3 4 Droplets can be directly transmitted by inhalation to other individuals in close proximity. Droplets can land on surfaces and be picked up by the hands of another person who can then become infected by contacting a mucous membrane (eyes, mouth, or nose) with their hand. Infected droplets can remain viable on surfaces for variable lengths of time, ranging from up to 3 hours on copper, 24 hours on cardboard, and 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel.5
7. Medical care for COVID-19 focuses on prevention, which emphasizes social distancing, handwashing, and respiratory hygiene. The current CDC recommendations for social distancing and frequent handwashing measures, which are the only measures available to protect against infection, are not possible in LSP. Furthermore, repeated sanitation of horizontal and touch surfaces in inmate living units and throughout LSP is not typically done based on our review and would be an overwhelming task. LSP has worse living conditions and higher comingling of people than cruise ships and nursing homes, where COVID-19 is known to have easily spread. Prevention of contact with an infected droplet is significantly more difficult in a prison than in the community.
8. With respect to transmission of disease by droplet inhalation, correctional environments, including LSP, actually promote spread of respiratory contagious disease. Jails and prisons are long known to be a breeding ground for infectious respiratory illness. Tuberculosis is a bacteria which is significantly less transmissible than COVID-19 yet has been responsible for numerous outbreaks of illness in prisons and jails over the years. Respiratory infectious disease like TB are thought to be made worse in prisons because of crowding and recirculated air. Because of transmissibility of TB in prisons the CDC still recommends screening for this condition in prisons. Proper screening for tuberculosis can control that disease in prison populations.
9. The COVID-19 virus is a different type of respiratory illness; its spread is rapid and it is more easily transmissible. Control through screening with a test as is done for TB in prisons would be optimal but current CDC guidance6 does not recommend a test as a screening method. Likely, this is due to a critical shortage of testing material. The method of control in an intake of a correctional facility is quarantine for up to 14 days.7 If testing material
3 National Institute of Health, available at https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/newcoronavirus-stable-hours-surfaces 4 Neeltje van Doremalen and Others, Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1, Correspondence in New England Journal of Medicine, March 17, 2020, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?cid=DM88773_&bid=171021451 5 Id. 6 Evaluating and Testing Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Centers for Disease Control as found at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html 7 In their Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities guidance the CDC recommends “If possible, consider quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general population

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-2 03/31/20 Page 3 of 8
becomes readily available, I would recommend testing and a quarantine until the test is complete.
10. Jails and prisons promote spread of respiratory illnesses because of crowded congregate housing arrangements. LSP is the largest maximum security prison in the U. S. and has a population of approximately 6000 individuals. The main unit of LSP contains 32 dormitories. The remote camps C and D have a combination of dormitories and cellblocks. Camp F is a minimum dormitory. I have visited multiple inmate dormitories. All dormitories I visited were filled to capacity and were crowded. The dormitories are not arranged to provide social distancing as the distance between beds is approximately 3 feet. Large fans blow air through the units which is likely to spread contagious agents embedded in aerosol like COVID-19. Washing areas are shared. There is no privacy and it is not possible to remain 6 feet apart as recommended. Infirmary beds are in dormitory style setting and are close together. If inmates with COVID-19 are housed on the infirmary rather than outside hospitals, the infection is likely to spread throughout this unit of compromised patients. Photos in our prior 2016 report8 show what some of these dormitories and showers look like.9 Notable in these pictures is that soap is not consistently present on sinks used by staff and in showers used by inmates. Currently the President’s Task Force on COVID-19 recommends limiting gatherings to no more than 10 persons. Inmates at LSP live in large dormitories with over 80 persons per dormitory. These dormitories are incapable of allowing inmates to follow current CDC recommendations regarding prevention against COVID-19. Officers guarding the inmates can carry the infection into the prison. One couldn’t devise a system more contrary to current public health recommendations and the President’s Task Force recommendations than a prison like LSP. The elderly and those with significant medical conditions are housed together in some of these dormitories creating a nursing home like environment; environments where COVID-19 is known to have rapidly spread. Dormitories with large numbers of persons with severe medical conditions are similar to nursing homes where COVID is known to have caused significant death.
11. There is a lack of information about what is occurring within LSP and testing is not being widely performed. A bullet point summary of the LSP COVID-19 plan states that “any LSP offender presenting with symptoms is given both a flu test and COVID-19 test.” A news report on March 26, 2020 stated that two employees at different state prisons tested positive for COVID-19 but that no inmates have tested positive. The newspaper reported that only 32 inmates in the entire Louisiana Department of Corrections have been tested and all have tested negative. Currently, transfers into LSP have been suspended absent extenuating
(SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19 case). As found at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correctiondetention/guidance-correctional-detention.html 8 Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola; Health Care Evaluation Submitted October 3, 2016; Lewis et al v. Cain et al Class Action Complaint. United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Case No. 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB Document 133-1 10/14/16 9 Photos PX006.0279, PX006.0280, PX006.0277

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-2 03/31/20 Page 4 of 8
circumstances and if an inmate is transferred into LSP, they are supposed to be quarantined for a 14-day period. LSP screens visitors and new inmates with symptom screening and a temperature. These measures are consistent with recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) correctional guidelines.10 However, based on our review of this facility in 2018, we noted ineffective medical care with several unqualified physicians, insufficient nurse staff, no infection control nurse, and lack of supervision of front line medical staff. While CDC procedures are in place I question the ability to effectively carry out the procedures as stated.
12. An individual’s immune system is the primary defense against this infection. As a result, people over age 65 years of age and persons with impaired immunity may have a higher probability of death if they are infected. Age related risk is a result of impaired immunity with aging. The older a person is the greater the apparent risk. In LSP 90% of inmates are incarcerated for life and approximately 50% of inmates are over age 50. People on immunosuppressive medication, with diseases causing impaired immunity, or with significant cardiac or pulmonary medical conditions also are at increased risk of death. It has recently been reported that younger patients with cardiovascular disease or hypertension may have unappreciated risk for severe disease.11 This has significant implications for correctional facilities with high rates of hypertension. Persons with severe mental illness in prisons are also, in my opinion, at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting infection because they are unable to understand social distancing and hand hygiene and may be unable to communicate symptoms appropriately. Also, by classification, like other prison systems, LSP houses inmates who are elderly, have disabilities, are mentally ill or have severe chronic illness profiles in specific housing areas, making this population at great risk if one of them becomes infected. Because LSP has a very large elderly population with significant chronic illness spread of infection in LSP would result in high rates of death.
13. Based on our review of care at LSP through 2018, inmates lacked access to hospital care under ordinary circumstances; the COVID-19 pandemic will only make that worse. Currently, severe COVID-19 disease is treated only with supportive care including respiratory isolation, oxygen, and mechanical ventilation as a last resort. LSP is a remote prison which is also remote from hospitals. There are reports that Louisiana’s hospitals could be overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases.12 The reports of possible lack of hospital beds
10 Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted March 23, 2020 as found at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html 11 ACE2 is the SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Required for Cell Entry, Summary, New England Journal of Medicine, March 18, 2020 Review of article of Hoffman, M et al in Cell 2020 Mar 5 12 Louisiana’s hospitals could be overwhelmed by COVID-19 virus in all but best scenario; Daily Adviser March 26, 2020 as found at https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2020/03/26/coronavirus-louisiana-hospitalsoverwhelmed-under-all-covid-19-scenarios/2884019001/

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-2 03/31/20 Page 5 of 8
would place LSP inmates in a dire predicament.13 Also, LSP is not set up to manage hospital level care including ventilation. The infirmary is a dormitory and housing a COVID-19 patient on this unit would result in spread to other uninfected but medically compromised patients. There is therefore no place to treat an ill person with COVID-19 except in a general housing unit or on the infirmary, both of which would expose other patients to infection. The existing staff at LSP could not manage any hospital-level patient and getting a patient to a hospital from LSP will be challenging under current circumstances. This will invariably place inmates at risk of death.
14. The state is proposing transferring detained individuals with COVID-19 from the state’s numerous jails to Angola. This would entail transportation of COVID-19 infected detainees to Angola for housing. It is my opinion that transferring detainees from jails to LSP for medical isolation and clinical management is not a good idea for multiple reasons. First, because the process for transporting COVID positive cases to a parish and a prison without cases—or with few cases—would increase the risk of transmission of positive cases to a location without cases or few cases, thereby increasing risk of spread including to West Feliciana Parish and the surrounding communities. Second, LSP has a particularly vulnerable population with over 50% of inmates over 50 years of age and many vulnerable persons with high risk medical conditions. Staffing deficiencies will likely result in medical and custody staff working with infected transferred detainees as well as LSP prisoners, which is likely to spread infection to the uninfected prisoners currently housed at LSP. This places them at significant risk. Third, medical care at LSP is not good and transferred inmates are unlikely to receive the medical attention needed to appropriately monitor their disease. LSP had insufficient staff in 2016 and was unable to adequately provide medical care such that officers and inmates were used to provide medical care.14 Introduction of a COVID-19 infected population into a system without adequate medical staff can only result in less attention being paid to both the existing LSP patients who have substantial medical needs as well as the newly transferred inmates who should be monitored multiple times daily. Additionally, the quality of care at LSP was substandard in 2016 when we produced a report of our investigation and again in 2018 based on selected record reviews. Physicians were not credentialed appropriately and did not perform consistent with existing standards of care. On record reviews, we noted failure to recognize indications for hospitalization which is critical in the COVID-19 population. There was failure to recognize typical signs of respiratory decompensation which is also critical for COVID-19 patients. There were delays in transfer of patients to a hospital when indicated. Both physicians and other staff (nurses and emergency medical technicians) failed to recognize “red flag” signs resulting in adverse events. Also, LSP is not set up to manage acutely ill patients. Laboratory services are only available weekdays during working-day-hours and not at all on weekends. Blood gas assessments, critical for managing acute respiratory distress are not available at LSP.
13 Who gets a ventilator? Hospitals facing coronavirus surge are preparing for life-or-death decisions. NBC News as found at https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/who-gets-ventilatorhospitals-facing-coronavirus-surge-are-preparing-life-n1162721 14 Officers passed medications on most units, and inmates assisted in providing some services to inmates on the infirmary during our 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-2 03/31/20 Page 6 of 8
Physician evaluations during evening and nights were mostly telephonic and inadequate for patient needs. Also, the higher-level-of-care infirmary houses many long-term ill patients. These patients are at very high risk of death in the event of COVID-19 making the infirmary not useable for COVID-19 patients who deteriorate. Further, the local hospital is not a reference hospital and patients requiring intubation would need to be sent to Baton Rouge or New Orleans, an hour to three hour ride, respectively, a long ride with a potentially decompensating patient. For these reasons, detainees involved in these transfers would not be transferred into a situation that would include improved medical services. Services would likely be worse. Fourth and last, there is no evidence that the Louisiana Department of Health was involved in this decision. This appears to be a custody decision without consultation during a pandemic crisis with the Louisiana Department of Health. I have listed multiple reasons why this decision make little sense from a medical perspective. It also is not a good decision from a public health perspective. Custody leadership should not be making a decision that is likely to have great impact on a public health crisis, both with respect to introduction of active COVID-19 cases into a naïve and vulnerable population, and because the impact on local hospital resources could overwhelm the local community and reduce availability of ICU beds to community residents. For all of these reasons, it is my opinion that this transfer is not a good idea and will worsen the impact of this pandemic.
Recommendations
15. Steps should be taken to release any inmate who is a low risk to the community. The additional risk to inmates by virtue of crowding in prisons and the risk of promoting spread of the infection to the inmate population, and thereby to the community, needs to be weighed against the reason for not releasing the inmate from incarceration. Release based on risk should prioritize inmates over 65 years of age, inmates with immune disorders, inmates with significant cardiac (including hypertension) or pulmonary conditions, or inmates with cognitive disorders. Keeping healthy individuals in prison for short sentences, or for parole violations or other marginal public safety reasons only promotes crowding. Crowding decreases the ability of maintaining distancing of prisoners which risks spread of the virus. Therefore, healthy prisoners with low risk sentences are best sent home as a preventive measure.
16. Because LSP is a maximum security prison with a 90% of inmates having a life sentence, depopulation of low risk inmates may not yield many inmates who can be released. Depopulating should be done at other Louisiana prisons to permit LSP to reassign inmates to other prisons that will permit appropriate distancing in dormitories. Such reassignment is permissible under CDC guideline on the basis of depopulation. Current dormitory arrangements are inconsistent with current public health and CDC recommendations regarding social distancing and if COVID-19 transmission penetrates the prison, the infection will spread widely.
17. If and when COVID-19 testing becomes readily available, expanded testing should be done.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-2 03/31/20 Page 7 of 8
18. All persons over 65, with severe mental illness, with immune disorders, with serious cardiac or pulmonary disease, or with any cognitive disorder should have daily symptom screening and temperature screening. Any positive symptom or temperature should require respiratory isolation and testing for COVID-19. Temperatures should be taken with infrared no-touch thermometers so that symptom screening and temperatures can be taken without touching the patient.
19. Persons suspicious for or known to be infected with COVID-19 should NOT be transferred to LSP unless specifically approved and recommended by the Louisiana Department of Health.15 As far as news reports reveal, LSP and West Feliciana Parish have only had two confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of March 30, 2020.16 To send patients infected with COVID-19 to a parish and correctional facility with few known cases risks spreading the disease further into Louisiana and has ramifications for the community at large. Furthermore, approximately 50% of the LSP population is over age 50 with many high risk medical conditions and a majority of inmates live in dormitories. This increases risk of transmission into an uninfected population and increases risk of death.
20. The CDC recommends suspending all transfers between facilities or jurisdictions.17 LSP should enact this recommendation. However, if a transfer must be done, any person is transferred from one prison to another, they should have a negative COVID-19 test result or be quarantined for 14 days prior to transfer and known to not have COVID-19.
21. LSP needs to develop guidelines for when to send patients to a hospital. These should be developed with the reference hospital. Contact information with the reference hospital should be established as soon as possible. Criteria for hospital referral should be established
15 Louisiana plans to house local and state inmates with coronavirus at Angola and Allen Correctional; Emily Lane, WDSU News March 27, 2020; as found at https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-plans-to-house-inmates-with-coronavirus-at-angola-andanother-prison/31960114 16 Two Louisiana prison staffers, including Angola employee, test positive for coronavirus; Matt Sledge, NOLA.com March 26, 2020; as found at https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_e947332a-6f70-11ea-83bf-8fb78c8ff09c.html; School leader in West Feliciana Parish in hospital for “presumed” coronavirus; Charles Lussier, The Advocate March 27, 2020; as found athttps://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_91166ce4-7037-11eab95d-3b57904f3ce6.html 17 In the Operations item of the Management section of the CDC correctional guidance, it states, “Suspend all transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities (including work release where relevant), unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding”. LSP is not a location ideal for medical isolation or medical care due to poor service history, lack of nearby hospitals, and because the prison and surrounding area have no cases. Sending patients with COVID-19 to this facility risk spread and places them in a facility with less medical resources than a facility closer to a large city.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-2 03/31/20 Page 8 of 8
in advance and posted so that all physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners are aware. 22. The current Pandemic Flu Plan (PFP) of LSP is a generic influenza-like-illness plan which is not consistent with guidance regarding COVID-1918 and should not be used. Instead, rather than re-writing a document at this late stage, I recommend the existing CDC guidelines should be used as a plan and appropriately adapted to LSP conditions. The adaptions and CDC guidelines should be widely distributed to health and custody staff. 23. A point of contact with the Louisiana Department of Health should be established and contact information shared with medical leadership. The Department of Health should have contact information of LSP medical leadership and an update conference call with the Department of Health should occur every few days or more frequently if needed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on March 31, 2020 in Chicago, Illinois.
/s/ Michael Puisis Michael Puisis D.O.
18 I give only one example. Item 4.a, of the Yellow/Orange Phase of the LSP plan states that “employees will complete a self-screening at roll call. Employees who state they are sick shall be triaged by medical staff or health trained staff, and if found to have a fever shall be sent home. Staff with ILI shall remain at home at least 24 hours after they are free of fever (100F) or signs of fever, without the use of fever medication”. This is incorrect information with respect to COVID-19 and could result in increased transmission of infection. The CDC recommends not returning to work until there is resolution of fever without use of medication and improvement of symptoms and negative COVID-19 tests on at least two consecutive occasions24 hours apart OR at least 3 days since resolution of fever without use of medication and improvement of respiratory symptoms and at least 7 days have passed since symptoms first appeared.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-3 03/31/20 Page 1 of 3
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JEFFREY DUBNER
I, Jeffrey Dubner, state and declare as follows:
1. My name is Jeffrey Dubner, and I am over 18 years of age.
2. I am an attorney of record in this case representing the Plaintiff Class.
3. On March 27, 2020, while Plaintiffs were awaiting a response to their request for a meet-andconfer with Defendants, a reporter from WDSU contacted my cocounsel Mercedes Montagnes about a news story it was preparing to publish that reported that Defendants intended to transfer local and state inmates with COVID-19 to LSP and the Allen Correctional Center, citing a DOC spokesman. WDSU published the story later that day.1
4. In light of Defendants’ failure to respond to our March 26 request for a meet-and-confer (see Rec. Doc. 580-4), I emailed Defendants’ counsel on March 28, 2020, to let them know that in light of their failure to respond we would be filing a motion to reopen discovery. See Ex. A. I also conveyed two concerns. First, I noted our concern with the LSP “plan” that Defendants provided via email on Wednesday March 25, 2020. Id. Second, I asked that Defendants’ counsel confirm the news reports that the DOC intended to transport patients with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 to LSP from other prisons. Id. I explained that this was “precisely the opposite of what should be occurring” due to LSP’s high proportion of highrisk individuals and LSP’s distance from the nearest hospital as compared to other correctional facilities. Specifically, I informed them that “[p]roactively bringing the virus to LSP, particularly with the current insufficient plan in place, would be unconscionably risky to Class members.” Id. I asked that Defendants’ counsel let us know if our understanding as to LSP intentions was incorrect by Monday March 30, 2020, and informed them that we would move for emergency relief if necessary. Id. I also reiterated that we were available to speak to Defendants’ counsel or any representative at their convenience on any topic and asked that they contact us as soon as they could. Id.
5. Defendants’ counsel responded approximately 15 minutes later, also on March 28, 2020, and said they would forward our concerns to DOC and let us know if they had any further response by Monday March 30, 2020 if possible. See Ex. A.
6. A few hours later, on March 28, 2020, Defendants’ counsel emailed that they would not respond to Plaintiffs’ question about the transfer plan because we had moved to reopen discovery, and that they would instead respond only in their briefing on the motion. See Ex. A.
1 See Emily Lane, Louisiana Plans to House Local and State Inmates with Coronavirus at Angola and Allen Correctional, WDSU.com, Mar. 27, 2020, https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-plans-to-houseinmates-with-coronavirus-at-angola-and-another-prison/31960114.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-3 03/31/20 Page 2 of 3
7. Approximately an hour later, on March 28, 2020, I emailed to clarify that my request for a response by Monday dealt with the “news reports that DOC is actively transporting patients with COVID-19 to LSP, placing our most vulnerable clients at heightened risk,” not the broader motion to reopen discovery See Ex. A. I reiterated our previous request that Defendants’ counsel confirm by Monday March 30, 2020 whether in fact the DOC’s plan was to actively transport patients with COVID-19 to LSP. Id.
8. Approximately an hour later, on March 28, 2020, Defendants’ counsel responded in acknowledgement of our clarification but maintaining “[y]ou have clearly raised this issue in your filing and we plan to respond accordingly.” See Ex. A.
9. On March 29, 2020, in an attempt to avoid unnecessary motion practice, I emailed Defendants’ counsel to inquire yet again if they could confirm whether DOC intends to transfer patients with COVID-19 to LSP. See Ex. A. I explained that we would “file an emergency motion seeking to restrain DOC form engaging in such transfers until the Court has an opportunity to pass on their legality,” unless they could confirm “by close of business on Monday that DOC does not have this plan.” Id.
10. At 4:05 pm on March 30, 2020, Defendants’ counsel responded that he did not need to provide us with any information on “the purported movement of prisoners in the DOC system to Angola” before the Court ruled on the motion to reopen discovery, but provided a partial response that DOC had not yet transferred anyone with COVID-19 to Angola and that there were “no imminent plans to make any such transfers at this time.” See Ex. A. Defendants’ counsel did not respond to our request to confirm or deny whether DOC’s intention was to transport patients with COVID-19 to LSP from other facilities. Id.
11. Shortly after receiving Defendants’ counsel’s email, a member of the Louisiana advocacy community informed us that they had just been told by an employee of a local sheriff’s office that they had one confirmed COVID-19 case who was being transferred to Allen. We had previously been informed that DOC’s plan was to transfer patients to Allen until it was full, and then to LSP.
12. We responded to Defendants’ email shortly thereafter, pointing out that Defendants’ counsel had not answered our question of “whether DOC has a plan to transfer patients with COVID19 to LSP.” See Ex. A. We explained the information that we had just received and noted that Defendants’ email left open the possibility that transfers to LSP would begin as soon as Allen is full. Id. In a final effort to avoid motion practice, we asked Defendants’ counsel to confirm by March 31, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. whether “1) DOC plans to transfer patients with COVID-19 from other jails and facilities to LSP (before or after Allen runs out of room for transfers)” and “2) whether Defendants will provide us with 14 days’ notice before making such transfers, allowing us time at that point to bring the matter to the Court in a more orderly fashion.” See Ex. A.

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-3 03/31/20 Page 3 of 3
13. Although Defendants’ counsel emailed me almost immediately to ask who had told us that transfers to Allen had already begun, see Ex. A., as of 11:00 a.m. on March 31, 2020, they have not responded to our request that they confirm whether they plan to transfer patients with COVID-19 to LSP and whether they will provide us with time before doing so to allow us to seek relief from the Court on a less expedited timetable.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements above are true and correct. Executed on this 31st day of March, 2020.
/s/ Jeffrey Dubner Jeffrey Dubner

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens1e Roefqu1e5sted
Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com>

Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested

Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> To: Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com>

Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:12 PM

Randy,

No, the information did not come from your clients.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:39 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote: Concerned staff at a local facility? That’s not a response. Are you contacting employees of DOC or a facility associated with DOC? This is serious and I need an answer ASAP.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 30, 2020, at 6:35 PM, Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> wrote:

Randy,
Though we see no obliga on to share our source, in the interest of courtesy, the informa on originated from a concerned staﬀ member at a local facility.
Regards, Jeﬀ
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:19 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote: What is the source of your information? Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 30, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> wrote:
Randy, Thank you for responding and providing some information. But your email didn't fully answer our question. We asked whether DOC has a plan to transfer patients with COVID-19 to LSP. You said that it has not transferred any and does not imminently plan to make any such transfers at this time, but that doesn't answer whether it has the plan at all. Our understanding is that DOC plans to transfer patients with COVID-19 to Allen, and then after Allen is full, to LSP. Almost immediately after you sent your email, we received
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 1/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens2e Roefqu1e5sted
a report that transfers to Allen have begun. That makes it even more urgent that we learn whether DOC does in fact plan to transfer patients with COVID-19 to LSP -- something that you have still refused to confirm or deny. You say that "there are no imminent plans to make any such transfers at this time," but that obviously leaves open the possibility that transfers will begin as soon as Allen is full. Because we have no idea when that will occur and you have given us no assurance that transfers could not begin at any moment, we cannot wait to seek relief.
To avoid motion practice, please confirm by tomorrow at 10:30am whether 1) DOC plans to transfer patients with COVID-19 from other jails and facilities to LSP (whether before or after Allen runs out of room for transfers) and 2) whether Defendants will provide us with 14 days’ notice before making such transfers, allowing us time at that point to bring the matter to the Court in a more orderly fashion.
As always, we would be happy to get on the phone with you and discuss this, but you have made it clear that that is even less agreeable to you than these emails.
Regards, Jeff
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:05 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote:
Jeff:
Thank you for yet another email on this issue. I understood your position in the first email that you sent yet you continue to pepper me with emails in order to help paper your inevitable motion with the court. You have now filed a motion for emergency relief seeking to undertaken discovery again in this matter. One of the grounds that you use to support the motion is the purported movement of prisoners in the DOC system to Angola. You ask the court to grant your motion so you can do discovery on this very issue. You are now demanding that we provide you with this discovery before the Court has even ruled on whether you are entitled to obtain it.
I assure you that any potential movement of prisoners within the DOC system is part of a well developed plan to protect the health and safety of all inmates within the DOC system. We intend to fully respond to your allegations and provide our plans and action in response to your motion. My personal opinions of your motives have nothing to do with DOC decisions or actions in this matter. They are working extremely hard to protect the inmates at Angola and other facilities throughout the state. I know that you always think that your group has a better plan for dealing with any situation, but the state officials charged with responding to this situation are very competent and are attempting to make decisions for all concerned. Your contention that the actions of DOC is putting lives at risk is groundless rhetoric.
Nevertheless, I have spoken with DOC further about the matter and have confirmed that DOC has not transferred anyone with Covid-19 to Angola and there are no imminent plans to make any such transfers at this time. Additionally, no inmate at Angola has tested positive for Covid-19 as of this submission.

No need to send me yet another email on this matter. I understand your position. Randy
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 2/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens3e Roefqu1e5sted Randal J. Robert
Butler Snow LLP

D: (225) 325-8735 | F: (225) 325-8800 445 North Boulevard, Suite 300, Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com| vCard | Bio

Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube
From: Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 10:48 PM To: Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> Cc: Bruce Hamilton <bhamilton@laaclu.org>; Caroline Tomeny <caroline@scwllp.com>; Connell L. Archey <CONNELL@kswb.com>; Jamila Johnson <JJohnson@defendla.org>; Jared Davidson <Jared.Davidson@splcenter.org>; Jeffrey Cody <jeffreyc@scwllp.com>; John Conine <coninej@scwllp.com>; Keith J. Fernandez <Keith@kswb.com>; Mercedes Montagnes <MMontagnes@defendla.org>; Nishi Kumar <NKumar@defendla.org>; Randal J. Robert <randy@kswb.com>; Rebecca Ramaswamy <RRamaswamy@defendla.org>; rlospennato@advocacyla.org Subject: Re: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested

Randy,

In your most recent emails, you refused to confirm or deny whether DOC intends to transfer patients with COVID-19 to LSP, and indicated that you would not respond until Defendants file their response to our motion to reopen discovery. If that's the case, we will file an emergency motion seeking to restrain DOC from engaging in such transfers until the Court has an opportunity to pass on their legality.

If DOC does not in fact intend to transfer patients with COVID-19 to LSP, or does not plan to begin doing so imminently, then we would not need to file this motion. Accordingly, I wanted to ask one more time if there is any information you can provide on this subject. If we do not hear from you by close of business on Monday that DOC does not have this plan, then we will proceed with our motion as soon as possible.

I gather from the tone of your emails that you don't think much of our efforts to advocate for our clients in this matter. Please understand that we fear that DOC's actions will directly result in the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of our clients. We truly regret that this process has already become adversarial rather than cooperative, but given the urgency of the approaching tragedy we really have no choice but to go to the Court in an expedited fashion if you refuse even to meet and confer with us.

Regards, Jeff

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 3/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens4e Roefqu1e5sted
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 2:57 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote:
Thanks for your clarification. You have clearly raised this issue in your filing and we plan to respond accordingly.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> wrote:
Randy,
I believe our email and brief were clear, but to avoid any misunderstanding, we still require a response from you on a subject separate from the relief sought in our motion. The motion deals with your refusal to meet and confer and our request for information regarding our clients and LSP's actions regarding COVID-19. Our open request for a response by Monday deals with the news reports that DOC is actively transporting patients with COVID-19 to LSP, placing our most vulnerable clients at heightened risk. Please confirm by Monday whether that is in fact DOC's plan and whether you are willing to meet and confer about it; if not, we will promptly seek relief if we believe it is necessary.
Regards, Jeff
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 12:46 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote:
Correction “now”
Randal J. Robert Butler Snow LLP
D: (225) 325-8735 | F: (225) 325-8800 445 North Boulevard, Suite 300, Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com| vCard | Bio
Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 4/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens5e Roefqu1e5sted
From: Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 11:46 AM To: 'Jeffrey Dubner' <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Cc: 'Bruce Hamilton' <bhamilton@laaclu.org>; 'Caroline Tomeny' <caroline@scwllp.com>; 'Connell L. Archey' <CONNELL@kswb.com>; 'Jamila Johnson' <JJohnson@defendla.org>; 'Jared Davidson' <Jared.Davidson@splcenter.org>; 'Jeffrey Cody' <jeffreyc@scwllp.com>; 'John Conine' <coninej@scwllp.com>; 'Keith J. Fernandez' <Keith@kswb.com>; 'Mercedes Montagnes' <MMontagnes@defendla.org>; 'Nishi Kumar' <NKumar@defendla.org>; 'Randal J. Robert' <RANDY@kswb.com>; 'Rebecca Ramaswamy' <RRamaswamy@defendla.org>; 'rlospennato@advocacyla.org' <rlospennato@advocacyla.org> Subject: RE: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested
Hi Jeff:
I see that you have not sought relief from the Court. We will respond to you with our response in our briefing.
Thanks and have a nice weekend.
I’m sure that the hard working state employees working round the clock to protect your clients won’t be sitting at home enjoying the weekend.
Randal J. Robert
Butler Snow LLP
D: (225) 325-8735 | F: (225) 325-8800 445 North Boulevard, Suite 300, Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com| vCard | Bio
Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

From: Randy Robert Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:14 AM To: 'Jeffrey Dubner' <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Cc: Bruce Hamilton <bhamilton@laaclu.org>; Caroline Tomeny <caroline@scwllp.com>; Connell L. Archey <CONNELL@kswb.com>; Jamila Johnson <JJohnson@defendla.org>; Jared Davidson <Jared.Davidson@splcenter.org>; Jeffrey Cody <jeffreyc@scwllp.com>; John Conine <coninej@scwllp.com>; Keith J. Fernandez <Keith@kswb.com>; Mercedes Montagnes <MMontagnes@defendla.org>; Nishi Kumar
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 5/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens6e Roefqu1e5sted
<NKumar@defendla.org>; Randal J. Robert <RANDY@kswb.com>; Rebecca Ramaswamy <RRamaswamy@defendla.org>; rlospennato@advocacyla.org Subject: RE: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested

Jeff,

Thank you for your email. I will forward your concerns to DOC and let you know if they have any further response for you by Monday if possible.

Randal J. Robert Butler Snow LLP

D: (225) 325-8735 | F: (225) 325-8800 445 North Boulevard, Suite 300, Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com| vCard | Bio

Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

From: Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:01 AM To: Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> Cc: Bruce Hamilton <bhamilton@laaclu.org>; Caroline Tomeny <caroline@scwllp.com>; Connell L. Archey <CONNELL@kswb.com>; Jamila Johnson <JJohnson@defendla.org>; Jared Davidson <Jared.Davidson@splcenter.org>; Jeffrey Cody <jeffreyc@scwllp.com>; John Conine <coninej@scwllp.com>; Keith J. Fernandez <Keith@kswb.com>; Mercedes Montagnes <MMontagnes@defendla.org>; Nishi Kumar <NKumar@defendla.org>; Randal J. Robert <RANDY@kswb.com>; Rebecca Ramaswamy <RRamaswamy@defendla.org>; rlospennato@advocacyla.org Subject: Re: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested

Randy,

We were disappointed not to hear from you Friday, and will move for relief promptly from Judge Dick. In the meantime, we wanted to convey our urgent and extreme concern with the "plan" that you provided on Wednesday. This is not a COVID-19 plan, but rather a generic plan designed for a pandemic flu. It is directly contrary to CDC guidelines in multiple respects, such as its guidance on when staff with fever should return to work. This puts inmates at great risk of unnecessary infection, as well as LSP staff and the surrounding
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 6/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens7e Roefqu1e5sted
community. Rather than using an inappropriate plan not designed for COVID-19, DOC should base its plan on the existing CDC guidelines and make such adaptations as are necessary for LSP in particular.

Additionally, news reports state that DOC intends to transport patients with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 to LSP from other prisons. That is precisely the opposite of what should be occurring. LSP has an extraordinarily high proportion of high-risk individuals (e.g., elderly and immuno-compromised inmates). It is also furthest from the nearest hospital than most other correctional facilities in Louisiana. Proactively bringing the virus to LSP, particularly with the current insufficient plan in place, would be unconscionably risky to Class members.

Please let us know as soon as possible if our understanding that LSP intends to proactively bring confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 to LSP is incorrect. If we do not hear from you on that subject by Monday, we will assume that our understanding is correct and, if necessary, move for emergency relief.

As we have said, we are available to speak with you or any representative of Defendants at your convenience, whether about the information we are requesting, the transfer of COVID-19 patients to LSP, our concerns with the pandemic flu plan, or any other topic. Please contact us as soon as you can.

Regards, Jeff

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:49 PM Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> wrote:
Randy,
Thank you for your email. To be clear, we represent a certified class of all inmates at Angola who have alleged -- and proven -that the DOC's medical system exposes them to an unconstitutional risk of serious harm. We have an ethical and fiduciary duty to determine whether emergency relief is required while we await the District Court's order remediating that risk. If Defendants are not willing to provide us with the information we need to determine whether action is necessary, we will have no choice but to request that the Court reopen limited discovery to determine if injunctive steps are needed. We requested a meet and confer in the hopes of avoiding that possibility and ensuring that our need to protect our clients poses the least burden possible on DOC. If we must seek relief from the Court, it will not be to "interfere" with DOC's operations but to ensure that our clients are safe despite your intransigence. Of course, we would prefer to work with Defendants to avoid the need of going to court, but that will require cooperation between the parties given the urgent circumstances.
Below are the types of information we will need to ensure that
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 7/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens8e Roefqu1e5sted
emergency relief is not necessary at this time. Again, we are more than willing to discuss with you and/or DOC the least intrusive way to get this information.
Weekly population numbers for people housed at Angola beginning January 1; Documentation of Angola's criteria for transport to an outside hospital for confirmed or suspected COVID-10 infection; Documentation of trips to outside hospitals, including but not limited to ambulance runs and requests to transport by both Angola and the outside hospitals; Any criteria for who is being given a COVID-19 test and information on who is administering that screening; How many ventilators are available at Angola and where those ventilators are located; Documentation of medical supply inventory currently available at Camp J and anywhere else staff or patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 are being held; Monthly medical staffing reports beginning January 1; Any written materials, handouts, or presentations being used to educate staff and patients on COVID-19 or preventive measures; Weekly reports of how many people have been tested for COVID-19 and the results of those tests; Plans for infection surge and corresponding impact on staffing and facilities and equipment; Identity of any working group/committee on COVID-19 response, including membership, and any documents generated; Clinical guidance provided to medical staff for screening and treatment; Plans for social distancing; Plans for screening of and precautions for medically vulnerable people.
Again, we would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you at your earliest convenience. If we do not hear from you by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, Friday March 27, we will move for appropriate relief before the Court.
In the meantime, we are reviewing the plan you provided and will convey our concerns as soon as possible.

Regards, Jeff

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 4:04 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote:
Jeff:
Thank you for your concerns for the well-being of the offender population at Louisiana State Penitentiary. You may rest assured that the main priority of Secretary Le Blanc, DOC officials and LSP staff during the COVID-19
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 8/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-Gcmva-i0l -0L3ew1i8s v-.SCDainD: U-RrgeLnBt ClientDCoonccuermnseinnlitgh5t8of2C-O4VID-0193-/3Im1m/e2d0iate RPeaspgoens9e Roefqu1e5sted
emergency declaration is the health and safety of our incarcerated population at LSP.

In order to limit offender exposure to COVID19, Warden Darrel Vannoy ordered implementation of the attached LSP Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”) as updated in March 2020 to comply with applicable US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidelines.

Below is a bullet point summary of some of the key issues that LSP is addressing with offenders to both avoid exposure to the virus and provide for increased family contact:

Offender movement within the facility has been restricted, and reverse isolation is being practiced with our most vulnerable population to protect those prisoners from unnecessary exposure to staff. LSP staff in these areas are required to wear masks and only make contact when absolutely necessary.
Lines for pill call are being alternated. Medicine is distributed unit by unit so that offenders from different units do not come into contact with one another.
Meal times are also being alternated, and the dining facilities are being both cleaned and sanitized before and after each unit has meal time. Yard time is also being allocated on a unit by unit basis.
Transfers between DOC facilities and/or local facilities have been suspended indefinitely absent extenuating circumstances, and any offender transferring into LSP is required to quarantine for a 14-day period. If the offender develops symptoms, he is placed into isolation.
Any LSP offender presenting with symptoms is given both a flu test and COVID-19 test.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-… 9/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-cGvm-a0il0- 3Le1w8is-vS. CDaDin:-URrgLeBnt ClienDt Coocnucemrnseinn tlig5h8t o2f -C4OVID0-139/-3Im1m/2e0diatePRaesgpeons1e0Reoqfue1s5ted
All employees entering the facility are screened daily by means of a temperature check and a series of questions regarding COVID-19 symptoms and recent travel.
Offenders are currently being provided two free telephone calls per week, and Warden Vannoy has chosen to allow any offender being moved into quarantine or isolation a free telephone call to update family or friends.
Offenders are being provided with soap and sanitizer free of charge though out the duration of this event.
Our current procedures ensure that proper housing, housekeeping, nutrition, medical care, and sanitation requirements are met despite the additional challenges to staff and the offender population. As the situation continues to evolve, LSP staff is ready to adapt as necessary.
We hope that this response will help to alleviate your concerns. DOC and LSP officials are working round the clock to protect the inmate population from exposure to this virus. LSP has adequate supplies and tests to satisfy its current needs. As of today, there have been no positive tests among the inmate population at Angola. We are providing you with detailed information regarding the efforts being undertaken and we hope that you will allow DOC and LSP officials to do their jobs without interference. At this time DOC and LSP do not need your assistance in dealing with this event and we decline your invitation to meet and confer later this week.
Regards - Randy

Randal J. Robert Butler Snow LLP
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3A… 10/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-cGvm-a0il0- 3Le1w8is-vS. CDaDin:-URrgLeBnt ClienDt Coocnucemrnseinn tlig5h8t o2f -C4OVID0-139/-3Im1m/2e0diatePRaesgpeons1e1Reoqfue1s5ted
D: (225) 325-8735 | F: (225) 325-8800
445 North Boulevard, Suite 300, Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com| vCard | Bio

Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

From: Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 3:22 PM To: Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> Cc: John Conine <coninej@scwllp.com>; Jeffrey Cody <jeffreyc@scwllp.com>; Caroline Tomeny <caroline@scwllp.com>; Randal J. Robert <RANDY@kswb.com>; Keith J. Fernandez <Keith@kswb.com>; Connell L. Archey <CONNELL@kswb.com>; Mercedes Montagnes <MMontagnes@defendla.org>; Rebecca Ramaswamy <RRamaswamy@defendla.org>; Jared Davidson <Jared.Davidson@splcenter.org>; Jamila Johnson <JJohnson@defendla.org>; Bruce Hamilton <bhamilton@laaclu.org>; rlospennato@advocacyla.org; Nishi Kumar <NKumar@defendla.org> Subject: Re: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested

Counsel,

In light of the evolving and urgent situation facing all of our clients at Angola due the mounting concerns of a COVID-19 outbreak in jails and prisons across the state, we think it makes sense to schedule a meet and confer to discuss the situation in addition to having your clients respond to our previous request. In order to protect our clients while we await the Court's ruling, we anticipate that there is additional, ongoing information we will require in addition to our request for the DOC and Angola plans. As we said in our previous email, we understand how complex the situation is for your clients and hope that we can aid the DOC in keeping Angola's inmates safe and informed. We are happy to discuss further any time this week that is convenient for you. We would also request that someone from the DOC be present at the meet and confer.

Best, Jeff

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:14 PM Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> wrote:
Randy,

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3A… 11/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-cGvm-a0il0- 3Le1w8is-vS. CDaDin:-URrgLeBnt ClienDt Coocnucemrnseinn tlig5h8t o2f -C4OVID0-139/-3Im1m/2e0diatePRaesgpeons1e2Reoqfue1s5ted
Thank you for your email. Tuesday or Wednesday is fine with us. We'll look forward to your response.

Again, we wish you all the best in these difficult times.

Regards, Jeff

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:35 PM Randy Robert <Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com> wrote:
Jeff:

Thanks for you deep heartfelt concerns for us. We appreciate the lovely sentiments.

I have passed you concerns on to those on the frontline at DOC and they have agreed to provide you with a reasonable response to your inquiry. As you are well aware, DOC officials have pressing matters and cannot respond to you “immediately.” However, I anticipate that we will be able to provide you with a response by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

Regards - Randy

Randal J. Robert Butler Snow LLP

D: (225) 325-8735 | F: (225) 325-8800
445 North Boulevard, Suite 300, Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com| vCard | Bio

Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

From: Jeffrey Dubner <jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 8:38 PM To: John Conine <coninej@scwllp.com>; Jeffrey Cody <jeffreyc@scwllp.com>; Caroline Tomeny <caroline@scwllp.com>; Randal J. Robert <RANDY@kswb.com>; Keith J. Fernandez <Keith@kswb.com>; Connell L. Archey <CONNELL@kswb.com>
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3A… 12/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-cGvm-a0il0- 3Le1w8is-vS. CDaDin:-URrgLeBnt ClienDt Coocnucemrnseinn tlig5h8t o2f -C4OVID0-139/-3Im1m/2e0diatePRaesgpeons1e3Reoqfue1s5ted
Cc: Mercedes Montagnes <MMontagnes@defendla.org>; Rebecca Ramaswamy <RRamaswamy@defendla.org>; Jared Davidson <Jared.Davidson@splcenter.org>; Jamila Johnson <JJohnson@defendla.org>; Bruce Hamilton <bhamilton@laaclu.org>; rlospennato@advocacyla.org Subject: Lewis v. Cain: Urgent Client Concerns in light of COVID-19 - Immediate Response Requested
Counsel,
We hope this email finds you all safe and healthy. In light of the rapidly escalating numbers of confirmed cases of COVID-19 across the state, we are reaching out because we are concerned about the health and wellbeing of each of our 6000+ clients housed at Angola. As we are sure you have heard, the virus that causes COVID-19 is easily spread in institutional settings like Angola and typical prevention measures – such as avoiding close contact and frequent cleaning and disinfecting of surfaces – are not always possible in jails and prisons. With so many of our clients already at high risk of complications and death from COVID-19 due to advanced age, chronic medical conditions, or otherwise compromised immune systems, we think everyone would agree that measures must be put in place to prevent a widespread outbreak and provide medical care to anyone who may exhibit symptoms in the future.
We know the DOC and Angola staff are likely overburdened right now and we do not want to do anything to impede their efforts on behalf of our clients. We simply request that you share whatever plan the DOC has put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and that we are timely provided with updated versions as that plan evolves. It is vital that we have access to this information as it impacts the immediate safety of our clients. We urge you to share those plans with us as soon as possible.
Thank you for your help. This is a concerning time for everyone and we hope you all are able to take the necessary precautions to keep yourselves and your loved ones safe.
Best,
Jeff
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law office and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3A… 13/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-cGvm-a0il0- 3Le1w8is-vS. CDaDin:-URrgLeBnt ClienDt Coocnucemrnseinn tlig5h8t o2f -C4OVID0-139/-3Im1m/2e0diatePRaesgpeons1e4Reoqfue1s5ted

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3A… 14/15

3/31/2020

Case 3:15-cGvm-a0il0- 3Le1w8is-vS. CDaDin:-URrgLeBnt ClienDt Coocnucemrnseinn tlig5h8t o2f -C4OVID0-139/-3Im1m/2e0diatePRaesgpeons1e5Reoqfue1s5ted
protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=1e5b81c1d6&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-3033784938332935946&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3A… 15/15

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 582-5 03/31/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-00318

v.

JUDGE SDD

BURL CAIN, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity, et al.,

MAGISTRATE RLB

Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER Considering the foregoing Emergency Motion to Restrain Defendants From Transferring COVID-19 Carriers to Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”), it is ordered that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and Defendants are temporarily restrained from transferring people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 to LSP up until and including the time that this Court issues a decision on the preliminary injunction application, after a hearing. The parties are directed to meet and confer within 24 hours of this order on the least burdensome means for the DOC to provide accurate and up-to-date information on any plans to transfer persons with COVID-19 in the DOC system or parish facilities to LSP, including when such transfers may begin and all measures intended to prevent spread to Class members. A hearing in this matter will take place on _______________.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this ___ day of ______________, 2020.

_______________________________ Chief Judge Shelly Dick

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 587 04/02/20 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL. VERSUS BURL CAIN, ET AL.

CIVIL DOCKET 15-318-SDD-RLB

RULING
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Re-open
Discovery Regarding COVID-19,1 Motion for Expedited Consideration on Emergency
Motion for Discovery,2 and Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Restrain Defendants from
Transferring COVID-19 Carriers to Louisiana State Penitentiary,3 to which Defendants
filed an Opposition.4 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration on Emergency Motion
for Discovery5 is granted; however, Plaintiff’s substantive motions shall be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
This suit was originally brought by several inmates incarcerated at the Louisiana
State Penitentiary (“LSP”). The LSP at Angola (sometimes referred to as “Angola”) is a
maximum-security men’s prison in Angola, Louisiana that housed between 6200-6400
men throughout the discovery period.6 In part, Plaintiffs claim that the medical care
1 Rec. Doc. No. 580. 2 Rec. Doc. No. 581. 3 Rec. Doc. No. 582. 4 Rec. Doc. No. 585. 5 Rec. Doc. No. 581. 6 Undisputed Facts (“UF”) ¶ 1, First Amended Joint Pretrial Order (“JPTO”), Rec. Doc. 242-2; PX 6 at 0017; DX 14 at 02876.
Document Number: 59799 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 587 04/02/20 Page 2 of 6

provided at LSP violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Following a class certification hearing, the Court certified a class consisting of “all inmates who [are] now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at LSP.” 7
This matter came before the Court for an eleven-day non-jury trial on the merits beginning October 9, 2018.8 The Court allowed the Parties to submit post-trial briefs, and on February 5, 2020, the undersigned conducted a site visit to LSP to observe various medical facilities and dormitories.9 On February 21, 2020, the Court issued an Order advising the Parties that it is prepared to find that the medical care at LSP is unconstitutional in some respects and is prepared to order injunctive relief addressing conditions which the Court finds unconstitutional. The Court also encouraged the Parties to attempt to reach an amicable resolution on some or all claims.10 II. PENDING MOTIONS
Plaintiffs now seek to “reopen discovery in this matter given the imminent and dangerous threat that the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) poses to Plaintiffs and Class members.”11 Citing the large population of LSP inmates suffering from serious health conditions, and the constitutionally deficient medical care provided by LSP in some respects, Plaintiffs maintain that emergency discovery is necessary because:
The question therefore is not if or even when COVID-19 will strike Angola. Rather, the crucial question that must be addressed immediately is: Is Angola taking proper measures to deal with this imminent and deadly virus and, if not, how many Class members will get sick, suffer serious complications, and die from COVID-19?12

7 Rec. Doc. 394, p. 30. 8 Rec. Doc. No. 520. 9 Rec. Doc. No. 576. 10 Rec. Doc. No. 578. 11 Rec. Doc. No. 580-1, p. 1. 12 Id. at p. 3 (emphasis in original).
Document Number: 59799

Page 2 of 6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 587 04/02/20 Page 3 of 6

Plaintiffs contend discovery is necessary because counsel has inquired about the
health of Plaintiffs and LSP’s plan to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet Plaintiffs find
Defendants to be largely unresponsive. While Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a
Continuity of Operations Plan and a Pandemic Flu Plan on March 25, 2020, Plaintiffs
complain that neither document specifically references COVID-19. Further, Plaintiffs
argue that Defendants’ e-mail provided a “bullet point summary” of some precautionary
measures allegedly being implemented at LSP, such as restricting movement,
modifications to pill call procedures, the provision of testing for symptomatic staff and
patients, screening of staff, and provision of free soap, but Defendants have explicitly
refused to meet and confer with Plaintiffs.13 Finding that the DOC’s COVID-19 guidance
failed to address a number of critical issues, Plaintiffs again requested to meet with
Defendants, which they refused and prompted Plaintiffs’ motions.
Plaintiffs have also moved the Court to enter a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)
enjoining the Defendants from enacting a plan to transfer to LSP inmates who are COVID-
19 carriers from state and local facilities across Louisiana. Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants
are about to embark on a course of action that will likely result in the death of dozens if not hundreds of Class members. According to multiple press reports, Defendants intend to transfer persons with COVID-19 from prisons and jails throughout Louisiana to the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (“LSP”). But LSP has “no place to treat an ill person with COVID-19 except in a general housing unit or on the infirmary, both of which would expose other patients to infection.” And even if Defendants could somehow isolate the transferred inmates while treating their condition, LSP’s inappropriate policy on staff who may have contracted COVID-19 makes it likely that staff would transmit the virus to other staff and to the general population of LSP.

13 Id. at pp. 3-4.
Document Number: 59799

Page 3 of 6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 587 04/02/20 Page 4 of 6

In such settings, transmission to large numbers of Class members is inevitable.14 Plaintiffs further claim that the evidence presented the 2018 bench trial in this case established that LSP “has a uniquely high number of inmates who are elderly, immunocompromised, or disabled, or have cardiac, pulmonary, or cardiovascular conditions— individuals who are at particularly high risk for severe or even fatal consequences if they contract COVID-19.”15 Plaintiffs argue that, if Defendants “intentionally bring carriers of COVID-19 to LSP and treat them in the infirmary—the only place at LSP where even moderate cases of COVID-19 could conceivably be treated—'the infection is likely to spread throughout this unit of compromised patients,’ just like ‘nursing homes where COVID is known to have caused significant death.’”16 Plaintiffs claim that Defendants “will be intentionally and willfully exposing the most vulnerable people in the entire DOC system to an unconscionably high risk of death or serious harm.”17 Thus, Plaintiffs request the Court enter a TRO preventing Defendants from “knowingly transferring patients with COVID-19 to LSP” until a preliminary injunction hearing may be held.18 Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO, arguing that the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and LSP have taken steps to protect both offenders and staff from the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants submit details regarding the efforts it has taken in this regard: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, DOC has a developed a plan to protect the health and safety of all offenders within the DOC system. As part of its infection control program, DOC’s Influenza and Pandemic Viral

14 Rec. Doc. No. 582-1, p. 1 (footnotes omitted). 15 Id. at pp. 1-2. 16 Id. at p. 2 (quoting Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Michael Puisis, ¶ 10). 17 Id. 18 Id. at p. 3.
Document Number: 59799

Page 4 of 6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 587 04/02/20 Page 5 of 6

Outbreaks regulation provides a formal policy and procedure concerning the planning, preparation, and management of a pandemic viral disease or an influenza outbreak. DOC recognized that a pandemic or an influenza outbreak may not follow an expected course and may present new challenges. DOC activated this regulation to the highest level, and DOC facility plans have been customized specifically to address COVID-19.
Pursuant to the DOC regulation, each state prison has implemented a thorough and detailed Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”), which have been reviewed by DOC Headquarters Medical/Operations. DOC is coordinating with the Governor’s office and other state agencies to stay up to date on all COVID-19 related issues, developments, and discussions. Secretary LeBlanc has engaged in daily phone calls with the Unified Command Group headed by the Governor. He along with all other Cabinet Secretaries, participate in these phone calls. DOC is actively involved in the statewide management and response through the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Moreover, DOC leadership has conference calls every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with all Wardens, Louisiana State Police, and the Louisiana Sheriffs Association. These phone calls discuss updates from each institution, medical reports and updates, institutional reports, and strategy for continued management related to COVID-19.19
Defendants maintain that they have been proactive in the fight against the COVID-
19 pandemic and the DOC is following the guidelines of the United States Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). The DOC has obtained from the Louisiana
Department of Health (“LDH”) COVID-19 test sample collection kits, which have been
issued to all prison facilities, and Defendants described the plan for testing criteria.
Defendants explain that:
Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”) has been distributed to staff and offenders, as needed. DOC has issued COVID-19-specific guidelines and trained all state prisons regarding screening, isolation, quarantine, housing, proper use of PPE, and precautionary measures. These guidelines are revised and updated as the CDC issues new information. Each DOC facility has quarantine and isolation capabilities, which are used as needed. DOC has implemented daily tracking of all inmate influenza and COVID-19

19 Id. at pp. 2-3 (footnotes omitted).
Document Number: 59799

Page 5 of 6

Case 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB Document 587 04/02/20 Page 6 of 6

testing at each facility and delivers the COVID-19 test samples to LDH for laboratory testing.20 Defendants go on to describe the specific ways LSP is implementing the guidelines and safety measures at Angola. III. ANALYSIS The Court need not reach the merits of the requirements for a TRO because the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ requests are improper given the procedural posture of this case. This request for emergency relief is not justiciable within the present matter. The discovery and relief Plaintiffs seek is beyond the scope of the claims asserted and tried before the Court. Moreover, Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that they can join what the Court views as an independent claim to a case that has been tried and is presently under submission. Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion is based primarily on speculation and conjecture, citing to news reports and what the DOC “might” do with respect to transferring inmates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration on Emergency Motion for Discovery21 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Re-open Discovery Regarding COVID-1922 and Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Restrain Defendants from Transferring COVID-19 Carriers to Louisiana State Penitentiary23 are DENIED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 2, 2020.

20 Id. at p. 5 (footnotes omitted). 21 Rec. Doc. No. 581. 22 Rec. Doc. No. 580. 23 Rec. Doc. No. 582.
Document Number: 59799

S
CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Page 6 of 6

 
 1/18/2021

Query Reports

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Utilities Help Log Out

U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB

Alerts not yet Supported for this Docket

Lewis et al v. Cain et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick Referred to: Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Conditions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Joseph Lewis, Jr. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 06/21/2016

represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes Promise of Justice 1024 Elysian Fields 7011 New Orleans, LA 70117 504-529-5955 Email: mmontagnes@defendla.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton ACLU of Louisiana PO Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 504-522-0617 Email: bhamilton@laaclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon 2723 DAbadie Street New Orleans, LA 70119 917-699-5405 Email: candice.sirmon@gmail.com TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-406-4699 Email: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

1/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Derek Allen Warden Advocacy Center of Louisiana 8325 Oak Street New Orleans, LA 70118 (504) 522-2337 Email: dwarden@advocacyla.org TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa The Promise of Justice Initiative 636 Baronne St New Orleans, LA 70113 (504) 529-5955 Email: bethc@thejusticecenter.org TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson Southern Poverty Law Center 1055 St. Charles Ave. Suite 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-486-8982 Email: jared.davidson@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Email: jeffrey.dubner@gmail.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison ACLU Foundation of Louisiana P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 504-522-0628 Email: harrison.justin.p@gmail.com TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Meredith Angelson Innocence Project New Orleans 4051 Ulloa Street New Orleans, LA 70119 917-443-7575 Email: mereditha@ip-no.org TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
2/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd

Plaintiff
Kentrell Parker on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Miranda Tait Advocacy Center 600 Jefferson Street Suite 812 Lafayette, La 70501 337-237-7380 Email: mtait@advocacyla.org TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato Advocacy Center 8325 Oak Street New Orleans, LA 70118 504-208-4679 Fax: 504-335-2890 Email: rlospennato@disabilityrightsla.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow Promise of Justice Initiative 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 504-529-5955 Fax: 501-595-8006 Email: azarrow@thejusticecenter.org TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017
3/101

1/18/2021
Plaintiff Farrell Sampier on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica Lauren Navalance The Capital Appeals Project 636 Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 504-529-5955 Email: enavalance@defendla.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nishi Lal Kumar Promise of Justice Initiative 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 504-529-5955 Email: nkumar@defendla.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

4/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Miranda Tait

5/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Reginald George

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address)
6/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Tonubbee on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Daniel A, Small (See above for address)
7/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Otto Barrera on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address)
8/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamila Asha Johnson Promise of Justice Initiative 1024 Elysian Fields New Orleans, LA 70117 504-312-2304 Email: jamila.johnson@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

9/101

1/18/2021
Plaintiff Clyde Carter on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

10/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamila Asha Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cedric Evans on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 06/21/2016

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address)
11/101

1/18/2021
Plaintiff Edward Giovanni on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

12/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Miranda Tait

13/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ricky D. Davis on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Jamila Asha Johnson (See above for address)
14/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lionel Tolbert on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016
15/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rufus White on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

16/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
17/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shannon Hurd

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
18/101

1/18/2021
Plaintiff Alton Adams

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

19/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamila Asha Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Nishi Lal Kumar

20/101

1/18/2021
Plaintiff Ian Cazenave

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamila Asha Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020
21/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Edward Washington

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
22/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Alton Batiste

Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Ronald Kenneth Lospennato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
23/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Christine Zarrow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candice C. Sirmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A, Small (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Derek Allen Warden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica Lauren Navalance (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamila Asha Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jared Fletcher Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Dubner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

24/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Meredith Angelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miranda Tait (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nishi Lal Kumar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Burl Cain Warde of the Louisiana State Pententiary, in his ofﬁcial capacity TERMINATED: 06/21/2016

represented by Edmond Wade Shows Shows, Cali & Walsh, LLp P. O. Drawer 4425 628 St. Louis Street Baton Rouge, LA 70821 225-346-1461 Fax: 225-346-1467 Email: wade@scwllp.com TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal J. Robert Butler Snow P.O. Box 2997 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 225-325-8735 Fax: 225-343-0630 Email: Randy.Robert@butlersnow.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Leigh Barient Pendley, Baudin & Cofﬁn 24110 Eden Street Plaquemine, LA 70765 225-975-0150 Email: abarient@pbclawﬁrm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colin Andrew Clark United States Attorney's Ofﬁce, Louisiana Middle Distr 777 Florida Street Suite 208 Baton Rouge, LA 70801

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

25/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
225-389-0443 Fax: 225-389-0561 Email: Colin.Clark@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Baker Murrill Louisiana's Ofﬁce of the Attorney General Civil Division P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 225-326-6766 Email: murrille@ag.louisiana.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant Joseph Guillot Adams and Reese, LLP 450 Laurel Street Suite 1900 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 (225) 336-5200 Fax: (225) 336-5220 Email: grant.guillot@arlaw.com TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L. Hilburn Louisiana Department of Justice 1885 N. Third Street Third Floor Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225-326-6382 Fax: 225-326-6490 Email: hilburnj@ag.louisiana.gov TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey K. Cody Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP 628 St. Louis Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225-346-1461 Fax: 225-346-1467 Email: jeffreyc@scwllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clifton Conine , Jr. Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P. 628 St. Louis St. Baton Rouge, LA 70802 (225) 346-1461 Email: coninej@scwllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

26/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Kathryn Dufrene Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit 1600 N. Third Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 (225) 382-3110 Email: kdufrene@la-fcca.org TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Stephanie Lamartiniere Assistant Warden for Health Services, in her ofﬁcial capacity TERMINATED: 09/11/2018

Mary E. Roper Roper Ligh, LLC 10839 Perkins Road Baton Rouge, LA 70810 225-338-9238 Email: mary@roperligh.com TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelique Duhon Freel Louisiana Department of Justice - B.R. P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005 225-326-6000 Fax: 225-326-6098 Email: duhona@ag.state.la.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Caroline M Tomeny Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP 628 St. Louis Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 (225) 346-1461
27/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Fax: (225) 346-1467 Email: caroline@scwllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connell Lee Archey Butler Snow 445 North Boulevard Ste 300 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225-325-8700 Fax: 225-325-8800 Email: connell.archey@butlersnow.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Baker Murrill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Holmes Kantrow Spaht Weaver and Blitzer 445 North Blvd, Suite 300 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 (225) 383-4703 Email: george@kswb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L. Hilburn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

28/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Keith Fernandez Butler Snow 445 North Boulevard Suite 300 Baton Rouge Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225-325-8700 Email: keith.fernandez@butlersnow.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Marney White Louisiana Department of Justice PO Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 225-326-6000 Email: whitemi@ag.louisiana.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James M LeBlanc Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his ofﬁcial capacity

Patricia Hill Wilton Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners 630 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 504-568-1082 Email: pwilton@lsbme.la.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelique Duhon Freel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Caroline M Tomeny

29/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Baker Murrill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Hilburn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Marney White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Patricia Hill Wilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
30/101

1/18/2021
Defendant The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelique Duhon Freel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Baker Murrill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Hilburn

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

31/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Marney White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Darrel Vannoy Warden of Angola

Patricia Hill Wilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
32/101

1/18/2021
Defendant Raman Singh MD TERMINATED: 09/11/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L. Hilburn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

33/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Hilburn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

34/101

1/18/2021
Stacye Falgout

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Hilburn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address)
35/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Randy Lavespere MD

Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
36/101

1/18/2021
Defendant Sherwood Poret RN

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
James L. Hilburn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

37/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Hilburn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Cynthia Park ACNP

Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edmond Wade Shows (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Andrea Leigh Barient

38/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grant Joseph Guillot (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Hilburn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Dufrene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Morrison M. D.

Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Andrea Leigh Barient

39/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelique Duhon Freel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Baker Murrill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Tracy Falgout R.N.
https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

Michelle Marney White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Randal J. Robert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

40/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Andrea Leigh Barient (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelique Duhon Freel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline M Tomeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colin Andrew Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connell Lee Archey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Baker Murrill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey K. Cody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clifton Conine , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Fernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary E. Roper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Marney White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

41/101

1/18/2021
05/20/2015

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 053N-1236257.), ﬁled by Lionel Tolbert, Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Joseph Lewis, Jr, Otto Barrera, Farrell Sampier, Edward Giovanni, Rufus White, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Ricky D. Davis, John Wayne Tonubbee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Attachment Civil Cover Sheet, # 5 Attachment Summons (Cain), # 6 Attachment Summons (Lamartiniere), # 7 Attachment Summons (Leblanc), # 8 Attachment Summons (DOC))(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 5/21/2015 to ﬂatten summons and replace (LLH). (Entered: 05/20/2015)

05/21/2015

2 Summons Issued as to Burl Cain, Stephanie Lamartiniere, James LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve both the summons and all attachments in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.) (LLH) (Entered: 05/21/2015)

06/05/2015

3 Ex-Parte MOTION for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Jeffrey B. Dubner (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number 053N-1243024) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey Dubner, # 2 Attachment Cert. of Good Standing NY, # 3 Attachment Cert. of Good Standing DC)(Compa, Elizabeth) Modiﬁed on 6/5/2015 to edit text(ELW). (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/05/2015

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 3 MOTION for Jeffrey B. Dubner to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number 053N-1243024). This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (ELW) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/05/2015

4 ORDER granting 3 Motion for Jeffrey Dubner to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 6/5/2015. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SMG) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/22/2015

5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lionel Tolbert, Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Joseph Lewis, Jr, Otto Barrera, Farrell Sampier, Edward Giovanni, Rufus White, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Ricky D. Davis, John Tonubbee. All Defendants. (Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/22/2015)

06/22/2015

6 MOTION to Designate Additional Lead Counsel by All Plaintiffs. (Compa, Elizabeth) Modiﬁed to edit text on 6/23/2015 (BCL). Modiﬁed to substitute document per rec. doc. 9 on 6/26/2015 (BCL). (Entered: 06/22/2015)

06/23/2015

7 MOTION for Extension of Time Responsive Pleadings by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Hilburn, James) Modiﬁed on 6/26/2015 to edit event(LLH). (Entered: 06/23/2015)

06/23/2015

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 6 MOTION to Designate Additional Lead Counsel, 7 MOTION for Extension of Time Responsive Pleadings. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (BCL) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

06/24/2015

8 MOTION Substitute Document 6 To Address Typographical Errors by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Corrected Motion to Designate Additional Lead Counsel)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

06/25/2015

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 7 MOTION for Extension of Time Responsive Pleadings. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

06/25/2015

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 8 MOTION Substitute Document 6 To Address Typographical Errors. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

06/26/2015

9 ORDER granting 8 Motion to Substitute Document 6. Plaintiffs may substitute the Attachment to the Motion (R. Doc. 8-1) for the previously ﬁled Document 6. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 6/26/2015. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

42/101

1/18/2021
06/26/2015 06/26/2015 07/08/2015 07/08/2015 07/09/2015 07/09/2015 07/09/2015 07/28/2015 08/06/2015 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 08/17/2015
08/19/2015

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SMG) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
10 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Burl Cain, Stephanie Lamartiniere, James LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections answer due 7/8/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 6/26/2015. (LLH) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
11 ORDER denying 6 Motion to Designate Additional Lead Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 6/26/2015. (LLH) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
12 MOTION for Daniel A. Small to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number 053N-1257656) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Declaration of Daniel Small, # 2 Attachment Cert. of Good Standing Maryland, # 3 Attachment Cert. of Good Standing DC)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
13 ANSWER and Afﬁrmative Defenses to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand by Burl Cain, Stephanie Lamartiniere, James LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.(Hilburn, James) Modiﬁed on 7/9/2015 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 07/08/2015)
14 90 DAY CONFERENCE ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 8/20/2015 at 01:30 PM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. Status Report due by 8/6/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 7/9/2015. (JSL) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 12 MOTION for Daniel A. Small to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number 053N-1257656). This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
15 ORDER granting 12 Motion for Daniel A. Small to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 7/9/2015. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
16 There is no # 16 Docket Entry, ﬁled in error by Case Administrator. (LLH). (Entered: 07/28/2015)
17 Joint STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Dubner, Jeffrey) (Main Document 17 replaced on 8/17/2015 in accordance with record document 19) (NLT). (Entered: 08/06/2015)
18 MOTION to Amend 17 Status Report by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Revised Joint Status Report, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 18 MOTION to Amend 17 Status Report . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (JDL) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
19 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Amend Pleading. Revised Status Report (R. Doc. 18-1) attached to Motion to Amend (R. Doc. 18) be substituted for the previously ﬁled Joint Status Report (R. Doc. 17). Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 8/17/2015. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
20 Notice to Counsel: The scheduling conference set for 8/20/2015 at 1:30 p.m. before United States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. is CANCELLED. A scheduling order will be issued as appropriate. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 08/19/2015)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

43/101

1/18/2021
08/28/2015

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
21 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Answer and Afﬁrmative Defenses by Burl Cain, Stephanie Lamartiniere, James LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Supplemental and Amending Answer and Afﬁrmative Defenses)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/31/2015

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 21 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Answer and Afﬁrmative Defenses . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/31/2015

22 ORDER granting 21 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Answer and Afﬁrmative Defenses. The Supplemental and Amended Answer and Afﬁrmative Defenses (R. Doc. 21-2) shall be ﬁled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/31/2015. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/31/2015

23 SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (NLT) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

09/11/2015

24 SCHEDULING ORDER: In accordance with FRCP 16(b), the following discovery deadlines are established. Amended Pleadings due by 3/11/2016. F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) disclosures due by 9/18/2015. Discovery due by 6/6/2016. Plaintiff`s Expert Witness List due by 3/18/2016. Filing motion for class certiﬁcation: 7/6/2016. Defendant`s Expert Witness List due by 4/18/2016. Plaintiff`s Expert Reports due by 7/6/2016. Pltfs' Rebuttal: 9/6/2016. Defendant`s Expert Reports due by 8/5/2016. Discovery from Experts due by 10/7/2016. Motions shall be ﬁled by 11/7/2016. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 2/27/2017. Pretrial Conference set for 3/16/2017 at 01:30 PM in chambers before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. Motions In Limine shall be ﬁled by 3/27/2017. Responses to Motions In Limine shall be ﬁled by 4/17/2017. Afﬁdavit of Settlement Efforts due by 4/17/2017. Joint jury instructions, voir dire, verdict forms, and trial briefs due by 5/1/2017. Jury Trial set for 5/15/2017-6/5/2017 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 9/11/2015. (JSL) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

12/14/2015

25 Consent MOTION for Entry of Protective Order Governing Protected and Individually Identiﬁable Health Information by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Proposed Order)(Sirmon, Candice) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2015 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 12/14/2015)

12/14/2015

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 25 Consent MOTION for Protective Order . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH) (Entered: 12/14/2015)

12/16/2015

26 ORDER granting 25 Consent Motion for Entry of Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 12/16/2015. (JDL) (Entered: 12/16/2015)

12/16/2015

27 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 12/16/2015. (JDL) (Entered: 12/16/2015)

02/23/2016

28 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 13)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016

29 Notice to Counsel: A Status Conference regarding the MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ﬁled by All Plaintiffs on February 23, 2016 [ doc. 28] is set for

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

44/101

1/18/2021
02/24/2016
02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 03/01/2016 03/02/2016
03/04/2016 03/07/2016 03/09/2016 03/11/2016
03/11/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
2/24/2016 at 02:30 PM in Chambers before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. ( There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (PJH) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
30 Notice to Counsel: Status Conference reset for 2/24/2016 at 02:15 PM in chambers before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson.
Evidence, in electronic format, shall be provided in accordance with Local Rule 79 and Administrative Procedures.
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) THIS IS A TIME CHANGE ONLY!(PJH) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
31 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 28 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ﬁled by Burl Cain, Stephanie Lamartiniere, James LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
32 MOTION to Withdraw 28 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson: Status Conference held on 2/24/2016. Matter discussed. (Court Reporter C. Smith-Neely.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (PJH) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
33 ORDER: In view of attached correspondence from counsel,Telephone Conference set for 3/2/2016 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. Pltfs' counsel shall initiate the conference call to chambers at 225-389-3602. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 3/1/2016. (JSL) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
35 Minute Entry/ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.: Telephone Conference held on 3/2/2016. The parties discussed the status of this matter and the best way to proceed to request modiﬁcation of the current deadlines. Speciﬁcally, the parties have yet to ﬁnalize an agreed upon protocol for the production of electronically stored information (ESI). The parties anticipated ﬁling a motion seeking modiﬁcation of the scheduling order within a week. (LLH) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
36 Joint MOTION to Revise Scheduling Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 36 Joint MOTION to Revise Scheduling Order . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
37 ORDER granting 32 Motion to Withdraw 28 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 3/8/2016. (LLH) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
38 ORDER granting 36 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Amended Pleadings due by 6/10/2016. Discovery due by 9/6/2016. Plaintiff`s Expert Witness List due by 3/18/2016. Defendant`s Expert Witness List due by 4/18/2016. Plaintiff`s Expert Reports due by 9/9/2016. Defendant`s Expert Reports due by 9/30/2016. Discovery from Experts due by 11/4/2016. Motions shall be ﬁled by 11/30/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 03/11/2016. (NLT) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
39 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A letter requesting a status conference is not the appropriate method to present this matter to the court. Plaintiff should ﬁle a motion, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

45/101

1/18/2021
04/01/2016 05/06/2016 06/08/2016
06/09/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016
06/16/2016
06/17/2016
06/17/2016 06/17/2016 06/17/2016 06/17/2016 06/20/2016
06/20/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Bourgeois, Jr. on 3/11/2016. (LLH) Modiﬁed on 3/11/2016 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 03/11/2016)
40 Joint STATUS REPORT Regarding Production of ESI Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
41 Joint STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Dubner, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
42 RULE 37 MOTION to Compel Production, Amend Deadline, and Award Sanctions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 6/9/2016 to add motions and edit text (LLH). Added MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines, MOTION for Sanctions on 6/9/2016 (LLH). (Entered: 06/08/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 42 MOTION to Compel MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines MOTION for Sanctions. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
43 ORDER: Defendants shall ﬁle any response to Plaintiffs' 42 Motion on or before 6/16/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 6/9/2016. (LLH) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
44 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, ﬁled by Lionel Tolbert, Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Joseph Lewis, Jr, Otto Barrera, Farrell Sampier, Edward Giovanni, Rufus White, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Ricky D. Davis, John Tonubbee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
45 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production, Amend Deadlines, and Award Sanctions ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhbit B, # 3 Afﬁdavit)(Cody, Jeffrey) Modiﬁed on 6/24/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 06/16/2016)
46 NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE with LR 7(g) as to 45 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. REQUIRED CORRECTION: A combined Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limits and Motion to Strike the Incorrect Pleading must ﬁled within 24 hours of this notice. Otherwise, the original ﬁling may be stricken by the Court without further notice. (EDC) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
47 MOTION to Withdraw Request for Extension by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 47 MOTION to Withdraw Request for Extension. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
48 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and to Strike Rec. Doc. 45 by All Defendants. (Cody, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
49 MOTION to Enroll Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Colin Clark and Andrea Barient as Additional Attorney by All Defendants. (Cody, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 49 MOTION to Enroll Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Colin Clark and Andrea Barient as Additional Attorney , 48 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and to Strike Rec. Doc. 45. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
50 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 37 Motion

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

46/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
to Compel by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Reply, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

06/20/2016

51 ORDER granting 49 Motion to Enroll Additional Counsel of Record. Added attorneys Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Colin Andrew Clark & Andrea Leigh Barient as additional counsel for Burl Cain/Darrel Vannoy in his ofﬁcial capacity as Warden of LSP, Stephanie Lamartiniere, James LeBlanc & The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 6/20/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

06/21/2016

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 50 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 37 Motion to Compel. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

52 ORDER granting 47 Motion to Withdraw Request for Extension of Deadline to File an Amended Complaint. The request to extend the deadline contained in the Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 42) will be considered withdrawn. In all other respects, the motion remains pending. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 6/21/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

53 ORDER granting 48 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendants opposition [R. Doc. 45] will be considered by the court. Striking and reﬁlling is unnecessary. In the future, leave of court should be sought prior to ﬁling any brief in excess of the permissible page limits. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 6/21/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

54 ORDER granting 50 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 37 Motion to Compel. The Reply [50-2] shall be ﬁled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 6/21/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

57 REPLY in Support of 42 Rule 37 MOTION to Compel Production, Amend Deadlines, and Award Sanctions ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (LLH) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016

55 Notice to Counsel: Telephone Conference set for 6/17/2016 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. The purpose of the conference is to discuss the status of discovery. Plaintiffs' counsel shall initiate the conference call to chambers at (225) 389-3602. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(JSL) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016

56 Notice to Counsel of CORRECTED DATE: Telephone Conference set for 6/24/2016 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. The purpose of the conference is to discuss the status of discovery. Plaintiffs' counsel shall initiate the conference call to chambers at (225) 389-3602. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(JSL) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/24/2016

58 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to 44 Amended Complaint, by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Hilburn, James) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016

59 ORDER/Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.: Telephone Conference held on 6/24/2016. During conference, parties discussed procedural posture of the case, including status of outstanding production at

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

47/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
issue in Pltfs Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 42). IT IS ORDERED that Pltfs Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 42) is GRANTED in part to the extent Pltfs requested a deadline for production of the remaining documents, absent those documents undergoing further privilege review. In all other respects, the Motionremains pending. Deft ORDERED to produce remaining documents, absent those marked as potentially privileged & undergoing further privilege review, on or before 7/1/2016. Telephone Conference set for 7/1/2016 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. to discuss status of the production due by 7/1/2016. Additional Telephone Conference set for 7/12/2016 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. to follow-up on any remaining discovery related issues. (JSL) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/27/2016

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 58 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to 44 Amended Complaint, . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (TNB) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

07/01/2016

60 Minute Entry/Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/1/2016. The parties are ORDERED to submit a letter to the Court by 5:00 p.m. on 7/11/2016, summarizing the parties' discussions, the status of the 11,000 documents currently undergoing privilege review, and any proposed modiﬁcation of any deadlines. The letter should note any productions that have already been made, the amount of documents that have been reviewed and any production (or anticipated production) of a privilege log. The telephone status conference on 7/12/2016 at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. will remain as scheduled. (SGO) (Entered: 07/01/2016)

07/01/2016

61 ORDER granting 58 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Responsive pleadings shall be ﬁled on or before July 8, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/1/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 07/01/2016)

07/08/2016

62 ANSWER to 44 Amended Complaint and Afﬁrmative Defenses by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy.(Hilburn, James) Modiﬁed on 7/11/2016 to edit the text (TNB). (Entered: 07/08/2016)

07/12/2016

63 ORDER: The Court's 38 Scheduling Order is modiﬁed as follows: Discovery due by 9/13/2016. Motion for Class Certiﬁcation due 9/30/2016. Plaintiff`s Expert Reports due by 9/16/2016. Defendant`s Expert Reports due by 10/7/2016. Plaintiff's Rebuttal Reports due by 10/28/2016. Discovery from Experts due by 11/18/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/12/2016. (SGO) (Entered: 07/12/2016)

07/12/2016

64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. Telephone Conference held on 7/12/2016. Mercedes Hardy Montagnes, Jefffrey Dubner and Elizabeth O'K Compa were present for Plaintiff. James Hilburn, Andrea Leigh Barient and Jeffrey K. Cody were present for Defendants. the parties are ORDERED to submit a letter to the Court by 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time on July 25, 2016, summarizing the status of the privilege review and any related document production(s). The Court will hold a telephone status conference on July 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. By separate Order, the Court will modify certain existing deadlines as agreed upon by the parties and referenced in the attached letter.Telephone Conference set for 7/26/2016 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ELW) (Entered: 07/13/2016)

07/19/2016

65 MOTION to File Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint regarding 44 Amended Complaint by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Compa, Elizabeth) Modiﬁed on 7/19/2016 to edit text.(EDC). (Entered: 07/19/2016)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

48/101

1/18/2021
07/19/2016 07/22/2016
07/22/2016
07/22/2016 07/24/2016 07/25/2016
07/25/2016 07/25/2016
07/26/2016 07/26/2016 07/26/2016
07/27/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 65 MOTION to Amend 44 Amended Complaint, . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
66 MOTION for Protective Order Pursuant to FRCP 26(c) by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A & B, # 3 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Protective Order)(Hilburn, James) Modiﬁed on 7/22/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 07/22/2016)
67 MOTION for Expedited Consideration of 66 MOTION for Protective Order Pursuant to FRCO 26(c) by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Hilburn, James) Modiﬁed on 7/22/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 07/22/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 66 MOTION for Protective Order , 67 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 66 MOTION for Protective Order . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
68 RESPONSE in Opposition to 66 MOTION for Protective Order ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 07/24/2016)
69 ORDER granting 67 Motion for Expedited Hearing. The underlying motion has been briefed and the parties should be prepared to discuss potential resolution of the motion on the conference call set for 7/26/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/25/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
70 ORDER granting 65 Motion to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 07/25/2016. (ELW) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
71 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Burl Cain, Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, ﬁled by Lionel Tolbert, Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Joseph Lewis, Jr., Otto Barrera, Farrell Sampier, Edward Giovanni, Rufus White, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Ricky D. Davis, John Tonubbee.(ELW) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
72 MOTION for Leave to Depose by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
73 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 72 MOTION for Leave to Depose by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
75 Minute Entry/Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/26/2016. Defendants shall submit a letter to the Court by 5:00 p.m. on 8/5/2016, summarizing the status of the privilege log being prepared. Concerning Plaintiff's request for costs associated with their 42 Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs are ordered to ﬁle an afﬁdavit of costs by 8/5/2016. Defendants may ﬁle their response, if any, on or before 8/12/2016. The Defendants' 66 Motion for Protective Order will be denied in a separate order providing reasons. (SGO) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
74 ORDER granting (R. Doc. 73) Motion for Expedited Consideration of MOTION for Leave to Depose by All Plaintiffs (R. Doc. 72). Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

49/101

1/18/2021
07/27/2016 07/27/2016 07/27/2016 07/27/2016
07/29/2016 08/01/2016 08/03/2016
08/03/2016 08/03/2016 08/03/2016
08/05/2016 08/05/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/27/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 72 MOTION for Leave to Depose . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SGO) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
76 ORDER granting 72 MOTION for Leave to Depose. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/27/2016. (SGO) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
77 ORDER denying 66 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 07/27/2016. (ELW) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
78 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. Telephone Conference held on 7/27/2016. Mercedes Montagnes (Plaintiffs counsel) and James Hilburn (Defendants counsel) spoke with Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. about a dispute that arose between the parties. The Court heard the dispute and provided guidance. (ELW) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
79 MOTION to Enroll Additional Counsel by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Hilburn, James) Modiﬁed on 8/1/2016 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 07/29/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 79 MOTION to Enroll Grant J. Guillot as Additional Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (ELW) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
80 Rule 37 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records and Award Sanctions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Attachment)(Compa, Elizabeth) Modiﬁed on 8/3/2016 to edit text.(EDC). (Attachment 5 replaced on 8/3/2016) (EDC). Modiﬁed on 8/3/2016 to rotate pages. (EDC). (Entered: 08/03/2016)
81 MOTION for Expedited Consideration on 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Compa, Elizabeth) Modiﬁed on 8/3/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 08/03/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 81 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records , 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
82 ORDER granting 79 Motion to Enroll Additional Attorney. Added attorney Grant Joseph Guillot Defendants, Darrel Vannoy, in his ofﬁcial capacity as Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP), Stephanie Lamartiniere, in her ofﬁcial capacity as Assistant Warden for Health Services, James M. LeBlanc, in his ofﬁcial capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/3/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
83 ORDER granting 81 Motion for Expedited Consideration on 80 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 08/05/2016. (ELW) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
Set Response Deadline as to 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records must be ﬁled by August 10, 2016. (ELW) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

50/101

1/18/2021
08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
84 AFFIDAVIT in Support of 42 MOTION to Compel MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines MOTION for Sanctions ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
85 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Alton Adams by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
86 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Otto Barrera by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
87 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Alton Batiste by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
88 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Clyde Carter by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
89 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Ian Cazenave by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
90 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Ricky Davis by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
91 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Reginald George by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
92 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Kentrell Parker by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
93 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Farrell Sampier by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
94 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Lionel Tolbert by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
95 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff John Tonubbee by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

51/101

1/18/2021
08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/08/2016 08/08/2016
08/08/2016 08/09/2016 08/10/2016
08/10/2016 08/11/2016 08/11/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
96 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Edward Washington by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
97 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Rufus White by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
98 MOTION to Enroll Kathryn A. Dufrene as Additional Attorney by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 90 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Ricky Davis , 94 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Lionel Tolbert , 88 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Clyde Carter , 86 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Otto Barrera , 97 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Rufus White , 93 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Farrell Sampier , 91 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Reginald George , 85 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Alton Adams , 95 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff John Tonubbee , 87 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Alton Batiste , 92 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Kentrell Parker , 96 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Edward Washington , 98 MOTION to Enroll Kathryn A. Dufrene as Additional Attorney , 89 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Ian Cazenave . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (NLT) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 98 MOTION to Enroll Kathryn A. Dufrene as Additional Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
99 ANSWER to 71 Second Amended Complaint and Afﬁrmative Defenses by Burl Cain, Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy.(Cody, Jeffrey) Modiﬁed on 8/10/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 08/09/2016)
100 ORDER granting 98 Motion to Enroll Additional Attorney. Added attorney Kathryn Dufrene as additional counsel for Darrell Vannoy, in his ofﬁcial capacity as Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Stephanie Lamartiniere, and James M LeBlanc, in his ofﬁcial capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/10/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
101 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Cody, Jeffrey) (Attachment 3 replaced on 8/11/2016) (EDC). Modiﬁed on 8/11/2016 to rotate pages. (EDC). (Entered: 08/10/2016)
102 ORDER granting 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , and 97 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/11/2016. (LLH) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
103 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production (Rec. Doc. 80) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

52/101

1/18/2021
08/11/2016 08/12/2016 08/15/2016 08/16/2016 08/16/2016
08/17/2016
08/18/2016 08/19/2016
08/19/2016
08/19/2016
08/19/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Proposed Pleading;)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 8/11/2016 to edit the text (TNB). (Entered: 08/11/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 103 MOTION for Leave to File Reply . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (TNB) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
104 RESPONSE to 84 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion ﬁled by All Defendants. (Cody, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
105 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Response to Afﬁdavit of Jeff Dubner by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Reply re Afﬁdavit, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
106 MOTION to Substitute Justin P. Harrison in place of Candice C. Sirmon as Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Sirmon, Candice) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
107 MOTION for Leave to Depose Inmates by Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Attachment, # 4 Attachment, # 5 Attachment, # 6 Attachment, # 7 Attachment, # 8 Attachment, # 9 Attachment, # 10 Attachment, # 11 Attachment, # 12 Attachment, # 13 Attachment, # 14 Attachment, # 15 Attachment)(Hilburn, James) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
108 ORDER granting 107 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiffs. Pursuant to FRCP 30(a) (2)(B) and the agreement between the parties, the depositions may proceed as noticed. The parties may also reschedule any deposition, if necessary and upon agreement by the parties, without further seeking leave of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/17/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 106 MOTION to Substitute Justin P. Harrison in place of Candice C. Sirmon as Attorney , 105 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Response to Afﬁdavit of Jeff Dubner . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (NLT) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
109 ORDER granting 103 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production (R. Doc. 103). Plaintiffs' Reply (R. Doc. 103-2) and its attached Exhibits (R. Docs. 103-3 to 103-7) shall be ﬁled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/19/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
110 ORDER granting 105 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Response to Afﬁdavit of Jeff Dubner. Plaintiffs' Reply (R. Doc. 105-1) shall be ﬁled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/19/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
111 REPLY to 101 Memorandum in Opposition to 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records ﬁled by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(SGO) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
112 REPLY to 104 Response to 84 Afﬁdavit in Support of 42 MOTION to Compel ﬁled by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier,

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

53/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White. (SGO) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/22/2016

113 MOTION to Withdraw Jury Demand by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/23/2016

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 113 MOTION to Withdraw Jury Demand. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (TNB) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

08/24/2016

114 ORDER granting 106 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Justin Paul Harrison substituted as counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter, replacing Candice C. Sirmon. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/24/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/24/2016

115 ORDER granting 113 Motion to Withdraw Jury Demand. This matter will proceed as a bench trial. The deadline to ﬁle proposed jury instructions, voir dire and verdict forms are cancelled. The parties are advised of Chief Judge Jackson's Pretrial Order Instructions found on the Court's website requiring, among other things, the submission of Trial Briefs in non-jury trials. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 08/24/2016. (NLT) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/24/2016

116 MOTION to Withdraw 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/25/2016

117 Joint MOTION to Revise Scheduling Order and Set Status Conference by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment) (Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 8/25/2016 to edit text. (EDC). Modiﬁed on 8/29/2016 to edit event (LLH). (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/25/2016

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 116 MOTION to Withdraw 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/25/2016

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 117 Joint MOTION Revise Scheduling Order . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/25/2016

118 ORDER granting 116 Motion to Withdraw 80 MOTION to Compel Production of 67 Medical Records. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/25/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/25/2016

119 ORDER ﬁnding as moot 80 Motion to Compel. The Motion to Compel has been withdrawn [R. Doc. 118]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/25/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/29/2016

120 ORDER granting 117 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 9/30/2016. Motions for Class Certiﬁcation due by 10/14/2016. Plaintiff`s Expert Reports due by 10/3/2016. Defendant`s Expert Reports due by 10/24/2016. Plaintiff's Rebuttal due by 11/14/2016. Discovery from Experts due by 12/9/2016. Dispositive and Daubert Motions shall be ﬁled by 1/6/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/29/2016. (LLH) (Entered: 08/29/2016)

08/31/2016

121 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is DENIED to the extent it seeks an award for costs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5). In all other respects, the Motion to Compel is denied as moot. Because the Motion to Compel was granted in part and denied in part, and because the Court ﬁnds that Defendants' failure to meet the parties agreed upon deadlines was substantially justiﬁed and that awarding expenses under the circumstances would be

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

54/101

1/18/2021
09/12/2016 09/13/2016 09/13/2016
09/13/2016 09/14/2016
09/19/2016
09/27/2016 09/28/2016 09/28/2016 09/30/2016 10/03/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
unjust, each party shall bear its own costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 08/31/2016. (NLT) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
122 Revised MOTION to Substitute MARY E. ROPER in place of JAMES L. HILBURN as Attorney of Record by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Guillot, Grant) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2016 to replace documents as per Order #124 (LLH). (Entered: 09/12/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 122 MOTION to Substitute MARY E. ROPER in place of JAMES L. HILBURN as Attorney of Record. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
123 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel of Record by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order_Motion for Leave, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Revised Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel of Record, # 3 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order_Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel of Record)(Hilburn, James) Modiﬁed on 9/13/2016 to edit text.(EDC). (Entered: 09/13/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 123 MOTION for Leave to File Revised Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel of Record . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
124 ORDER granting 123 MOTION for Leave to File Revised Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel of Record ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, James M LeBlanc, Randy Lavespere, Stephanie Lamartiniere. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Revised Motion to Withdraw & Substitute Counsel of Record (R. Doc. 123-2) shall be substituted in the record in place of the motion to withdraw (R. Doc. 122). Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 9/14/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
125 ORDER granting 122 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Mary E. Roper substituted as counsel of record for Defendants Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and Darrel Vannoy replacing James L. Hilburn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 9/19/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Ex. A, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B, # 4 Exhibit Ex. C, # 5 Exhibit Ex. D, # 6 Exhibit Ex. E, # 7 Exhibit Ex. F, # 8 Exhibit Ex. G, # 9 Exhibit Ex. H, # 10 Attachment Proposed Order)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
127 Rule 37(a)(1) Certiﬁcation for Motion to Compel in support of 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Compa, Elizabeth) Modiﬁed on 9/28/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 09/28/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
128 Joint MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 128 Joint MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines .

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

55/101

1/18/2021
10/06/2016 10/07/2016 10/12/2016 10/13/2016 10/13/2016 10/14/2016
10/17/2016 10/17/2016 10/17/2016 10/18/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (TNB) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
129 ORDER granting 128 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report on October 28, 2016 informing the Court as to the status of Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9, and providing proposed deadlines for any Items that remain outstanding as of October 28, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/06/2016. (NLT) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
130 Joint MOTION for Revision to Scheduling Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 10/7/2016 to edit the text (TNB). (Entered: 10/07/2016)
131 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support of 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 10/13/2016 to edit the text (TNB). (Entered: 10/12/2016)
132 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Guillot, Grant) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 130 Joint MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SGO) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
133 MOTION for Class Certiﬁcation by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD (1) Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 10/17/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Attachments 4,41 & 42 replaced on 10/17/2016) (EDC). Modiﬁed on 10/17/2016 to rotate pages.(EDC). Modiﬁed on 10/21/2016 to remove memo as it has been stricken (LLH). Modiﬁed on 10/24/2016 (NLT). (Attachment 42 replaced on 5/16/2017 as per rec doc 257) (NLT). (Entered: 10/14/2016)
134 NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE with LR 7(g) as to 133 Motion to Certify Class,,,,. REQUIRED CORRECTION: A combined Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limits and Motion to Strike the Incorrect Pleading must ﬁled within 24 hours of this notice. Otherwise, the original ﬁling may be stricken by the Court without further notice. (EDC) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
135 MOTION for Leave to Exceed the Page Limits and to Strike the Incorrect Pleading by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 10/18/2016 to edit text. (EDC). Added MOTION to Strike on 10/18/2016 (EDC). (Entered: 10/17/2016)
136 MOTION to Compel Production by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Rule 37 Certiﬁcate, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 10/18/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 10/17/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 136 MOTION to Compel . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 10/18/2016)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

56/101

1/18/2021
10/18/2016 10/18/2016 10/21/2016 10/21/2016 10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/25/2016
10/25/2016
10/25/2016
10/25/2016
10/25/2016 10/26/2016 10/28/2016 10/31/2016
10/31/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
137 ORDER: Any response to Defendants' 136 Motion to Compel Production must be ﬁled by Plaintiffs on or before 11/2/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/18/2016. (LLH) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
138 ORDER Granting 130 Joint MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines. Status Report due by 10/28/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/18/2016. (ELW) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
139 ORDER granting 135 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and Strike Incorrect Pleading. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 10/20/2016. (LLH) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
140 MEMORANDUM in Support of 133 MOTION to Certify Class ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (LLH) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
141 MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit the Expert Report of Dr. Jacqueline Moore by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 10/25/2016 to edit event (LLH). (Entered: 10/24/2016)
142 MOTION to Withdraw 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 142 MOTION to Withdraw 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses , 141 MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit the Expert Report of Dr. Jacqueline Moore. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
143 ORDER granting 142 Motion to Withdraw 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/25/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
144 ORDER denying 126 Motion to Compel. The Motion has been withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/25/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
145 ORDER granting 141 Motion for Extension of Time to Submit the Expert Report of Dr. Jacqueline Moore. Defendant`s Expert Report of Dr. Jacqueline Moore due by 10/27/2016. Plaintiff's Rebuttal due by 11/17/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/25/2016. (LLH) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
146 MOTION to Withdraw 136 MOTION to Compel Production by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 146 MOTION to Withdraw 136 MOTION to Compel Production. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (ELW) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
147 Joint STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Cody, Jeffrey) Modiﬁed on 11/7/2016 to replace document as per Order #151 (LLH). (Entered: 10/28/2016)
148 ORDER granting 146 Motion to Withdraw 136 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/31/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
149 ORDER denying 136 Motion to Compel. The Motion has been withdrawn. Signed by

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

57/101

1/18/2021
10/31/2016 11/01/2016 11/01/2016
11/03/2016
11/03/2016 11/03/2016
11/04/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016
11/07/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/31/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
150 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Joint Status Report by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 150 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Joint Status Report . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
151 ORDER granting 150 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Corrected Status Report. R. Doc. 150-2 shall be substituted in the place of R. Doc. 147. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/1/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
152 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Rule 37 Certiﬁcation, # 3 Exhibit)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 11/4/2016 to edit text (ELW). Modiﬁed on 11/10/2016 (ELW). (Entered: 11/03/2016)
153 MOTION to Substitute Counsel by All Plaintiffs. (Harrison, Justin) Modiﬁed on 11/4/2016 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 11/03/2016)
161 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson: At the request of Counsel, Status Conference held on 11/3/2016. The Court will withhold ruling on Motion to Certify Class at this time. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (PJH) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
154 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposing and Supplemental Memoranda in regards to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Guillot, Grant) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 152 MOTION to Compel . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (ELW) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 154 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposing and Supplemental Memoranda in regards to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certiﬁcation. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (ELW) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 153 MOTION to Substitute Bruce W. Hamilton in place of Justin P. Harrison as Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (NLT) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
Motions No Longer Referred: 154 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposing and Supplemental Memoranda in regards to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certiﬁcation. This motion is now pending before the USDJ. (NLT) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
155 ORDER as to 152 Motion to Compel. Any response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel must be ﬁled by Defendants on or before November 14, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/07/2016. (ELW) Modiﬁed on 11/10/2016 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 11/07/2016)
156 ORDER granting 153 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Bruce Warﬁeld substituted as counsel for plaintiffs Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington and Rufus White replacing Justin P. Harrison as counsel for plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

58/101

1/18/2021
11/07/2016 11/11/2016
11/14/2016 11/15/2016 11/15/2016 11/15/2016
11/16/2016
11/17/2016
11/17/2016 11/21/2016 11/22/2016 11/28/2016
11/28/2016 11/29/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/7/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
Set Deadlines as to 152 MOTION to Compel . Replies due by 11/14/2016. (ELW) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
157 Revised Second Joint STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 11/15/2016 to edit text. (EDC). Modiﬁed to substitute the document per rec. doc. 160 on 11/15/2016 (SGO). (Main Document 157 replaced as ordered by the court on 11/16/2016) (ELW). (Entered: 11/11/2016)
158 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 152 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 11/15/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 11/14/2016)
159 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Second Joint Status Report by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 159 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Second Joint Status Report . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SGO) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
160 ORDER granting 159 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Second Joint Status Report. The Clerk shall substitute the revised report [R. Doc. 159-2] in the place of the previously ﬁled version [R. Doc. 157]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/15/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
162 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production (Rec. Doc. 152) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 11/17/2016 to edit text.(EDC). (Entered: 11/16/2016)
163 ORDER granting 162 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production. The Reply Memorandum [162-2] and attachment [162-3] shall be ﬁled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/17/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
164 REPLY in Support of to 152 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents ﬁled by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(LLH) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
165 Joint MOTION to Extend Expert Discovery Deadline by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 11/22/2016 to edit text.(EDC). (Entered: 11/21/2016)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 165 Joint MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
166 ORDER granting 165 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery from Experts shall be completed by 12/23/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/28/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
167 MOTION to Enroll Derek Warden as Additional Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
168 ORDER granting 154 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposing and

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

59/101

1/18/2021
11/29/2016
12/05/2016 12/05/2016 12/05/2016 12/07/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/16/2016
12/16/2016 12/19/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Supplemental Memoranda in regards to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certiﬁcation. The deadline for Defendants' submission of their memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certiﬁcation is extended thirty days. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 11/29/2016. (EDC) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
169 ORDER granting 167 Motion to Enroll Additional Attorney. Added attorney Derek Allen Warden as additional counsel for Plaintiffs, Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington and Rufus White. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/29/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
170 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 133 MOTION to Certify Class , 154 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposing and Supplemental Memoranda in regards to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Guillot, Grant) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
171 ORDER granting 170 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 12/05/2016. (ELW) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
172 Joint MOTION for Clariﬁcation of 171 Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 12/7/2016 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 12/05/2016)
173 ORDER granting 152 Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 12/7/2016. (LLH) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
174 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 133 MOTION to Certify Class ﬁled by All Defendants. (Guillot, Grant) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
175 ORDER denying as moot 172 Motion to Clarify Order on Second Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for Submission of Opposing and Supplemental Memoranda in Regards to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certiﬁcation. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 12/12/2016. (NLT) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
176 MOTION for Relief From Order Denying Joint Motion to Clarify Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 12/13/2016 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 12/12/2016)
177 ORDER granting 176 MOTION for Relief From Order Denying Joint Motion to Clarify Order. The Court's Order Denying as Moot the Joint Motion to Clarify Order on Second Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for Submission of Opposing and Supplemental Memorandum in Regards to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certiﬁcation 175 is VACATED. The deadline for Plaintiff's submission of any supplemental memorandum in support of their Motion for Class Certiﬁcation is extended to 12/19/2016. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 12/15/2016. (EDC) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
178 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Guillot, Grant) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
179 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 12/21/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 12/19/2016)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

60/101

1/18/2021
12/19/2016 12/19/2016
12/23/2016 12/23/2016 12/23/2016
12/23/2016 12/23/2016 12/23/2016 12/29/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
180 Additional Exhibits to 179 MOTION for Leave to File Reply by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
181 MOTION to File Supplement to Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation on ADA pursuant to this Courts' December 16, 2016 Order (Rec. Doc. 1770 by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 12/21/2016 to edit text. (EDC). (Attachment 12 replaced on 12/21/2016) (EDC). Modiﬁed on 12/21/2016 to rotate pages.(EDC). (Attachment 6 replaced on 12/23/2016) (EDC). Modiﬁed on 12/23/2016 to rotate pages. (EDC). (Entered: 12/19/2016)
182 ORDER granting 178 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, James M LeBlanc, Randy Lavespere, Stephanie Lamartiniere. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 12/22/2016. (EDC) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
183 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 133 MOTION to Certify Class ﬁled by Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (EDC) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
184 ORDER granting 181 MOTION to File Supplement to Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation on ADA pursuant to this Courts' December 16, 2016 Order ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 12/22/2016. (EDC) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
185 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support of 133 MOTION to Certify Class ﬁled by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White. (Attachments: # 1 exhibits, # 2 exhibits, # 3 exhibits, # 4 exhibits, # 5 exhibits, # 6 exhibits, # 7 exhibits, # 8 exhibits, # 9 exhibits, # 10 exhibits, # 11 exhibits)(EDC) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
186 ORDER granting 179 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 12/22/2016. (EDC) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
187 REPLY in Support to 174 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Certify Class, 133 MOTION to Certify Class ﬁled by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington. (Attachments: # 1 exhibits, # 2 exhibits, # 3 exhibits, # 4 exhibits, # 5 exhibits, # 6 exhibits, # 7 exhibits, # 8 exhibits, # 9 exhibits)(EDC) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
188 MOTION for Grant J. Guillot to Withdraw as Attorney by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Guillot, Grant) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

61/101

1/18/2021
12/29/2016

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
189 ORDER granting 188 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Grant J. Guillot is withdrawn as counsel for defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 12/29/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

01/01/2017

190 MOTION for Leave to File two Summary Judgment Motions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 01/01/2017)

01/06/2017

191 First MOTION to Strike Expert Testimony Jacqueline Moore by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 1/10/2017 to edit text (LLH). (Attachment 1 replaced on 5/16/2017 as per rec doc 256) (NLT). (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

192 Second MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Thomas by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 1/10/2017 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

193 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U)(Montagnes, Mercedes) . Modiﬁed on 1/10/2017 to rotate and replace exhibit D (LLH). Modiﬁed on 8/29/2018 to replace Exhibit D as per Order # 452 (LLH). (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

194 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Claim by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U, # 24 Exhibit V, # 25 Exhibit W, # 26 Exhibit X, # 27 Exhibit Y, # 28 Exhibit Z, # 29 Exhibit AA, # 30 Exhibit AB, # 31 Exhibit AC, # 32 Exhibit AD, # 33 Exhibit AE, # 34 Exhibit AF, # 35 Exhibit AG, # 36 Exhibit AH, # 37 Exhibit AI, # 38 Exhibit AJ, # 39 Exhibit AK, # 40 Exhibit AL, # 41 Exhibit AM, # 42 Exhibit AN, # 43 Exhibit AO, # 44 Exhibit AP, # 45 Exhibit AQ, # 46 Exhibit AR, # 47 Exhibit AS, # 48 Exhibit AT, # 49 Exhibit AU, # 50 Exhibit AV, # 51 Exhibit AW, # 52 Exhibit AX, # 53 Exhibit AY, # 54 Exhibit AZ, # 55 Exhibit BA, # 56 Exhibit BB, # 57 Exhibit BC, # 58 Exhibit BD, # 59 Exhibit BE, # 60 Exhibit BF, # 61 Exhibit BG, # 62 Exhibit BH, # 63 Exhibit BI, # 64 Exhibit BJ, # 65 Exhibit BK, # 66 Exhibit BL, # 67 Exhibit BM, # 68 Exhibit BN)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

195 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit T, # 3 Exhibit V, # 4 Exhibit Z, # 5 Exhibit AP, # 6 Exhibit AZ, # 7 Exhibit BH, # 8 Exhibit BN, # 9 Proposed Order) (Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 1/9/2017 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

196 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits Under Seal by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment, # 4 Memorandum in Support, # 5 Proposed Pleading;, # 6 Attachment, # 7 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 8 Memorandum in Support, # 9 Proposed Pleading;, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 1(a), # 12 Exhibit

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

62/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Exhibit 1(b) - Part 1, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 2, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 3a, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 3b, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 4, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 5, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 6, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 7a, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 7b, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 8, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 9, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 10a, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 10b, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 11, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 12, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 13, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 14, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit 1(b) - Part 15, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 37 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 38 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 39 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 40 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 41 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 42 Exhibit Exhibit 14)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 1/9/2017 to rotate and replace exhbits #12, 16 and 19 (LLH). Modiﬁed on 2/7/2017 to replace exhibit as per Order #212 (LLH). (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/09/2017

197 OPPOSITION to 185 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by All Defendants. (Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 1/10/2017 (NLT). (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/10/2017 198 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Exhibit by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

01/18/2017 199 ORDER granting 190 MOTION for Leave to to File two Summary Judgment Motions. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 01/18/2017. (ELW) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/20/2017

200 Unopposed MOTION to Reset the Trial Date and Set a Scheduling Conference by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 1/23/2017 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/27/2017

201 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Proposed Pleading;, # 4 Statement of Undisputed Facts Response, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Exhibit F, # 11 Exhibit G, # 12 Exhibit H, # 13 Exhibit I, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O) (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017

202 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 191 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Jacqueline Moore ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 1/31/2017 to edit the text (KAH). (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017

203 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limits by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 4 Proposed Pleading;, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Attachment 7 replaced on 1/31/2017) (KAH). (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017

204 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 1/31/2017 to edit the text(KAH). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/14/2017: # 7 Exhibit) (ELW). Modiﬁed on 2/14/2017 added exhibit as granted by the court (ELW). (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017

205 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 192 Second MOTION to Strike Expert Testimony of David Thomas ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

02/03/2017 206 MOTION for Leave to Supplement Defendants' memorandum in Oppositon to Motion for partial Summary Judgment [Rec Doc 204] with additional exhibits by All Defendants.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

63/101

1/18/2021
02/06/2017
02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/08/2017 02/08/2017 02/13/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Exhibit, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Roper, Mary) Modiﬁed on 2/6/2017 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 02/03/2017)
207 ORDER granting 200 Motion to Reset the Trial Date and Set a Scheduling Conference. The bench trial currently scheduled for 5/15/2017 - 6/2/2017 is CONTINUED and RESET for 7/31/2017 - 08/15/2017. Oral argument shall be held on 3/16/2017, at 1:30 p.m. on all pending motions for summary judgment. The Court will address any further deadlines that the parties wish to reschedule at the hearing on 03/16/2017. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 02/06/2017. (EDC) Modiﬁed on 2/9/2017 to put deadline on report. (EDC). (Entered: 02/06/2017)
Set/Reset Trial and Related Deadlines:, Set/Reset Deadlines: Bench Trial set for 7/31/2017 - 08/15/2017 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. (EDC) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
208 ORDER granting 201 and 203 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Granting 206 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Supplement Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 02/06/2017. (ELW) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
209 MOTION to Reinstate Original Trial Date by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
210 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Declaration Under Seal by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
211 MOTION for Expedited Consideration on 209 MOTION to Reinstate Original Trial Date by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 2/7/2017 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 02/07/2017)
212 ORDER granting 198 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Exhibit. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 02/06/2017. (EDC) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
213 MOTION to Set Status Conference by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 2/8/2017 to edit text (LLH). (Attachment 1 replaced on 5/16/2017 as per rec doc 252) (NLT). (Entered: 02/07/2017)
214 MOTION for Leave to Withdraw and Substitute Document 213-1 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
215 MOTION for Expedited Consideration of 213 MOTION for Status Conference by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;) (Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 2/8/2017 to edit text(LLH). (Entered: 02/08/2017)
216 ORDER granting 213 and 215 Motion to Set Status Conference and Motion for Expedited Consideration on Motion to Set Status Conference. Status Conference set for 2/14/2017 at 10:30 AM in chambers before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 02/08/2017. (EDC) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
217 Notice to Counsel: Due to an unforeseen scheduling conﬂict, the Status Conference scheduled in this matter on 2/14/2017 is RESET for 2/24/2017 at 10:30 AM in chambers before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson.
Evidence, in electronic format, shall be provided in accordance with Local Rule 79 and Administrative Procedures.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

64/101

1/18/2021
02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017
02/23/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(PJH) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
218 ORDER Vacating 208 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 02/13/2017. (ELW) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
219 ORDER granting 203 MOTION for Leave to to Exceed Page Limit Pursuant to Local Rule 7(g) AND 206 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limits. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 02/13/2017. (ELW) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
220 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 193 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims ﬁled by Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(ELW) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
221 Notice to Counsel: The status conference scheduled for 2/24/2017 is CANCELLED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue and/or Reschedule the Trial of this matter will be discussed at the Hearing scheduled March 16, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2.

Evidence, in electronic format, shall be provided in accordance with Local Rule 79 and Administrative Procedures.

(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (PJH) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017

Set/Reset Hearings: Hearing on all pending Motions for Summary Judgment set for 3/16/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. (PJH) Modiﬁed on 2/23/2017 (PJH). (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/27/2017

222 Joint Pretrial Order by All Plaintiffs (For your free look at document, enter your ECF login and pw to conﬁrm your right to view). (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B1, # 3 Attachment B2, # 4 Attachment C, # 5 Attachment D, # 6 Attachment E, # 7 Attachment F)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed to edit text on 2/28/2017 (SGO). (Entered: 02/27/2017)

02/28/2017 223 MOTION to Disqualify Judge by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Attachment)(Roper, Mary) (Entered: 02/28/2017)

03/01/2017

224 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 223 MOTION to Disqualify Judge by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Roper, Mary) (Entered: 03/01/2017)

03/02/2017

225 ORDER granting 224 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 223 MOTION to Disqualify Judge. The oral argument on all pending motions for summary judgment scheduled for 3/16/2017, at 1:30 is CONVERTED to oral argument on 223 Motion to Disqualify. Opposition to 223 Motion to Disqualify due on or before 3/13/2017. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 3/2/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/06/2017

226 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Rec. Doc. 192 by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/06/2017

227 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Rec. Doc. 194 by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Attachment) (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/06/2017 228 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Rec. Doc. 193 by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

65/101

1/18/2021
03/06/2017 03/07/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
229 MOTION to Amend 191 First MOTION to Strike Expert Testimony by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
230 Notice to Counsel: The Pretrial Conference scheduled in this matter for 3/16/2017 is cancelled. Hearing on Motion to Disqualify scheduled for 3/16/2017 at 1:30 p.m. will go forward as scheduled.

Evidence, in electronic format, shall be provided in accordance with Local Rule 79 and Administrative Procedures.

03/09/2017

(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (PJH) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
231 Notice to Counsel: Motion Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Disqualify is RESET for 3/16/2017 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. ***THIS IS A TIME CHANGE ONLY!

Evidence, in electronic format, shall be provided in accordance with Local Rule 79 and Administrative Procedures.

(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (PJH) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

03/13/2017

232 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 223 MOTION to Disqualify Judge ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/15/2017

233 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Attachment)(Roper, Mary) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/16/2017

234 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson: Motion Hearing held on 3/16/2017 223 MOTION to Disqualify Judge ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc. The Court grants 233 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, James M LeBlanc, Randy Lavespere, Stephanie Lamartiniere. Counsel presents oral argument to the Court. Matter is taken under advisement. As stated by the Court, the current deadline for ﬁling of Motions In Limine is extended. Motions in Limine shall be ﬁled by 4/28/2017. (Court Reporter N. Breaux.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (PJH) (Entered: 03/16/2017)

03/28/2017

235 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Joseph Lewis, Jr, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White for proceedings held on March 16 2017 before Judge Brian A. Jackson.. (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

04/12/2017 236 MOTION for Elizabeth Compa to Withdraw as Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Compa, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/13/2017

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 236 MOTION for Elizabeth Compa to Withdraw as Attorney .

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

66/101

1/18/2021
04/13/2017 04/17/2017
04/17/2017 04/19/2017 04/20/2017 04/20/2017 04/23/2017 04/24/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/28/2017 04/28/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KAH) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
237 ORDER granting 236 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record. Attorney Elizabeth Compa is withdrawn as counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 4/13/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
238 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Motion to Disqualify hearing before Judge Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson held on March 16, 2017. Court Reporter: Natalie W. Breaux.
NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 5/5/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/15/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2017. (Breaux, Natalie) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
239 AFFIDAVIT by All Plaintiffs. (Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed to edit text on 4/18/2017 (SGO). (Entered: 04/17/2017)
240 MOTION Substitute Pleading by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Order) (Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 4/20/2017 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 04/19/2017)
241 ORDER granting 223 Motion to Disqualify Judge. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 4/20/2017. (EDC) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
Case Reassigned to Judge Shelly D. Dick. Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson no longer assigned to the case. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (EDC) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
242 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Joint Pretrial Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment A, # 4 Attachment B, # 5 Attachment B (Supp), # 6 Attachment C, # 7 Attachment D, # 8 Attachment E, # 9 Attachment F)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 04/23/2017)
243 MOTION for Status Conference by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
244 ORDER granting 195 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/25/2017. (SGO) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
245 SEALED DOCUMENT Plaintiff's Exhibits to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Claim (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit V, # 2 Exhibit Z, # 3 Exhibit AP, # 4 Exhibit AZ, # 5 Exhibit BH, # 6 Exhibit BN) (SGO) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
246 MOTION in Limine by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
247 MOTION for Request of Judicial Notice by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 04/28/2017)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

67/101

1/18/2021
04/28/2017 05/12/2017 05/12/2017 05/12/2017 05/12/2017 05/12/2017
05/12/2017
05/12/2017
05/12/2017 05/12/2017 05/12/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
248 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Roper, Mary) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2017 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 04/28/2017)
249 ORDER granting 196 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits Under Seal. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
250 ORDER granting 201 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
251 ORDER granting 210 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Declaration Under Seal. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
252 ORDER granting [214 ]MOTION for Leave to Withdraw and Substitute Document 2131. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
253 ORDER granting 226 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Rec. Doc. 192 ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
254 ORDER granting 227 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Rec. Doc. 194 ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
255 ORDER granting 228 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Rec. Doc. 193 ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
256 ORDER granting 229 Motion to Amend 191 First Motion to Strike Expert Testimony. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
257 ORDER granting 240 Motion to Substitute Exhibit. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
258 ORDER granting 242 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Joint Pretrial Order ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

68/101

1/18/2021
05/12/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
259 ORDER denying 209 Motion to Reinstate Original Trial Date. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017

260 ORDER granting 243 Motion for Conference Status Conference set for 6/7/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Shelly D. Dick. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/12/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017

261 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 1a, # 5 Exhibit 1b Part 1, # 6 Exhibit 1b Part 2, # 7 Exhibit 1b Part 3a, # 8 Exhibit 1b Part 3b, # 9 Exhibit 1b Part 4, # 10 Exhibit 1b Part 5, # 11 Exhibit 1b Part 6, # 12 Exhibit 1b Part 7a, # 13 Exhibit 1b Part 7b, # 14 Exhibit 1b Part 8, # 15 Exhibit 1b Part 9, # 16 Exhibit 1b Part 10a, # 17 Exhibit 1b Part 10b, # 18 Exhibit 1b Part 11, # 19 Exhibit 1b Part 12, # 20 Exhibit 1b Part 13, # 21 Exhibit 1b Part 14, # 22 Exhibit 1b Part 15, # 23 Exhibit 2-5, # 24 Exhibit 6, # 25 Exhibit 7, # 26 Exhibit 8, # 27 Exhibit 9, # 28 Exhibit 10, # 29 Exhibit 11, # 30 Exhibit 12, # 31 Exhibit 13, # 32 Exhibit 14)(NLT) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/12/2017

262 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 261 SEALED MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Exhibit A to O) (NLT) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/12/2017 263 SEALED DOCUMENT: Declaration by All Plaintiffs. (NLT) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/12/2017 264 Reply MEMORANDUM in Support of 192 Second MOTION to Strike Expert Testimony ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (NLT) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/12/2017

265 Reply MEMORANDUM in Support of 194 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Claim ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(NLT) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/12/2017

266 Reply MEMORANDUM in Support of 193 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(NLT) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/12/2017

267 First Amended Joint Pretrial Order by All Parties (For your free look at document, enter your ECF login and pw to conﬁrm your right to view). (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A to F)(NLT) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/16/2017

268 NOTICE of Brieﬁng Schedule on 261 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment : Opposition to the motion shall be ﬁled within 21 days from the ﬁling of the motion and shall not exceed 10 pages excluding attachments. The mover may ﬁle a reply brief within 14 days of the ﬁling of the opposition and shall be limited to a total of 5 pages. No motion for leave will be required.(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(DCB) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/17/2017

269 MOTION to Participate in Status Conference via Telephone by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/17/2017)

05/19/2017

270 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Response Under Seal by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017 271 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

69/101

1/18/2021
05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/26/2017
05/26/2017
05/26/2017 05/31/2017 05/31/2017 06/01/2017 06/02/2017
06/02/2017 06/06/2017 06/06/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 5/24/2017 to edit text (SGO). (Entered: 05/19/2017)
272 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 247 MOTION for Request of Judicial Notice ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
273 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 246 MOTION in Limine ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
274 AMENDED MOTION to File Exhibit Under Seal by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Opposition to Defendants' Motion In Limine, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit)(Hamilton, Bruce) Modiﬁed on 5/30/2017 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 05/26/2017)
275 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Proposed Pleading;, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 5/31/2017 to rotate and replace exhibits 11, 13 and 14 (LLH). (Entered: 05/26/2017)
276 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limits by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
277 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 269 MOTION to Participate in Status Conference via Telephone by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
278 MOTION to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel of Record by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed on 6/1/2017 to edit the text (KAH). (Entered: 05/31/2017)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 278 MOTION to Substitute John C. Conine, Jr. in place of E. Wade Shows as Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KAH) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
279 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply In Support Of Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice and Motions in Limine by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in support of motion for leave to reply, # 2 Proposed Pleading; REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, # 3 Proposed order granting leave, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit A for Reply Memorandum)(Warden, Derek) Modiﬁed on 6/5/2017 to edit the text (KAH). (Attachment 2 replaced on 6/16/2017) (ELW). Modiﬁed on 6/16/2017 as ordered by the court (ELW). (Entered: 06/02/2017)
280 ORDER granting 269 Motion to Participate in Status Conference via Telephone and denying as moot 277 Motion for Expedited Hearing. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 06/02/2017. (NLT) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
281 ORDER granting 276 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limit. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/5/2017. (EDC) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
282 ORDER granting 271 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/5/2017. (EDC) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

70/101

1/18/2021
06/06/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
283 ORDER granting 274 Amended Motion for leave to ﬁle Memorandum in Opposition to 248 Motion in Limine. The motion and all attachments shall be ﬁled into the record, exhibit 15 to be ﬁled under seal. The 270 Sealed Motion for Leave is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/6/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017

284 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 248 MOTION in Limine ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(LLH) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/6/2017: # 15 Exhibit) (LLH). (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017

285 ORDER granting 279 Motion for Leave to File Reply In Support Of Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice and Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/5/2017. (EDC) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017

286 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Substitute Pleading by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice and Motions in Limine, # 2 Proposed Order)(Warden, Derek) Modiﬁed on 6/7/2017 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017

287 REPLY Memorandum in Support of MOTIONS in Limine and Request of Judicial Notice ﬁled by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 exhibit)(EDC) Modiﬁed on 6/7/2017 to correct date.(EDC). (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017

288 MOTION to Strike 275 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal, OR, In the Alternative, For Limited Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Warden, Derek). Added MOTION for Limited Discovery on 6/7/2017 (KAH). Modiﬁed on 6/7/2017 to edit the text (KAH). (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/07/2017

289 ORDER granting 278 Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Attorney. John Clifton Conine, Jr. enrolled as additional counsel for defendants Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and Darrel Vannoy replacing E. Wade Shows. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 6/7/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 06/07/2017)

06/08/2017

290 ORDER granting 275 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's 261 Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/8/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

06/08/2017

291 SEALED REPLY Memorandum to 262 Opposition to 261 Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit) (LLH) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

06/14/2017 292 NOTICE of Change of Address by Bruce Warﬁeld Hamilton (Hamilton, Bruce) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017

293 NOTICE of Brieﬁng Schedule on 288 MOTION to Strike 275 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal MOTION for Limited Discovery : Opposition to the motion shall be ﬁled within 21 days from the ﬁling of the motion and shall not exceed 10 pages excluding attachments. The mover may ﬁle a reply brief within 14 days of the ﬁling of the opposition and shall be limited to a total of 5 pages. No motion for leave will be required. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(DCB) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

71/101

1/18/2021
06/14/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/27/2017 06/29/2017 06/29/2017 06/29/2017 06/30/2017
07/11/2017
07/13/2017 07/13/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
294 ORDER granting 286 Motion to Substitute Pleading. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/14/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (DCB) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
295 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine and to Exceed Page Limitation by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Proposed Pleading;, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Roper, Mary) (Attachment 1 replaced on 6/29/2017) (ELW). Modiﬁed on 6/29/2017 substituted as ordered. (ELW). (Entered: 06/21/2017)
296 MOTION for Leave to Substitute 295 Memorandum in Support by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Proposed Pleading;)(Roper, Mary) Modiﬁed to edit the text on 6/22/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 06/21/2017)
297 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 288 MOTION to Strike Defendants' Reply Memorandum Which Was Filed in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by All Defendants. (Roper, Mary) Modiﬁed to edit text on 6/29/2017 (SGO). (Entered: 06/27/2017)
298 ORDER granting 295 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine and to Exceed Page Limitation. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 06/29/2017. (ELW) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
299 MEMORANDUM IN REPLY to 284 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion; 248 MOTION in Limine ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(ELW) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
300 ORDER granting 296 MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine and to Exceed Page Limits. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/29/2017. (ELW) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
301 Notice to Counsel: As discussed at the 6/7/17 Status Conference, the Class Certiﬁcation Hearing is set for 9/19/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Shelly D. Dick. Any motions to continue that hearing shall be ﬁled on or before July 14, 2017.
Evidence, in electronic format, shall be provided in accordance with Local Rule 79 and Administrative Procedures.
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(DCB) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
302 REPLY to 288 MOTION to Strike 275 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal MOTION for Limited Discovery, 297 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Warden, Derek) (Main Document 302 replaced on 7/20/2017) (EDC). Modiﬁed on 7/20/2017 in accordance with record document 306. (EDC). (Entered: 07/11/2017)
303 NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE with LR 7(g) as to 302 Reply to Response to Motion,. REQUIRED CORRECTION: A combined Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limits and Motion to Strike the Incorrect Pleading must ﬁled within 24 hours of this notice. Otherwise, the original ﬁling may be stricken by the Court without further notice. (ELW) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
304 Combined Motion to Strike Incorrect Pleading and Substitute Amended Pleading by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Amended

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

72/101

1/18/2021
07/14/2017 07/20/2017 07/27/2017
07/28/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/07/2017 08/08/2017 08/09/2017 08/09/2017 08/15/2017
08/31/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Reply Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit)(Warden, Derek) Modiﬁed to edit text on 7/20/2017 (SGO). (Entered: 07/13/2017)
305 MOTION to Continue Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
306 ORDER granting 304 Motion to Strike Incorrect Pleading and Substitute Amended Pleading. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 7/20/2017. (EDC) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
307 ORDER granting 305 Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing previously set for 9/19/2017 is hereby reset for 10/26/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Shelly D. Dick.. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 7/27/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
308 MOTION for Reconsideration of 307 Order on Motion to Continue, and Motion to Expedite by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Hamilton, Bruce). Added MOTION for Expedited Consideration on 7/28/2017 (LLH). (Entered: 07/28/2017)
309 ORDER: Plaintiffs' 308 Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Expedite will be treated as an opposition to the Defendant's 305 Motion to Continue. The Defendants shall have until Friday, August 11, 2017 to respond to this pleading. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/2/2017. (EDC) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
Set Deadlines: Defendants have until Friday, August 11, 2017 to respond to 305 Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for Class Certiﬁcation. (EDC) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
310 MOTION for Derek Warden to Withdraw as Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Warden, Derek) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 310 MOTION for Derek Warden to Withdraw as Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SGO) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
311 ORDER granting 310 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Derek Warden, Esq. is withdrawn as counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/9/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
312 REPLY to 308 MOTION for Reconsideration of 307 Order on Motion to Continue, MOTION for Expedited Hearing, 305 MOTION to Continue Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by All Defendants. (Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
313 ORDER: The Court has reconsidered its Ruling 307 granting the Defendants Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for Class Certiﬁcation 305 and declines reconsideration. The Court has considered the Plaintiff's opposition 308 and and the Defendants Response 312 and denies reconsideration. The Class Certiﬁcation hearing is hereby conﬁrmed and will be conducted on 10/26/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/15/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
314 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' 261 Motion for Summary Judgment by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment)(Dufrene, Kathryn) Modiﬁed to edit the text on 9/1/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 08/31/2017)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

73/101

1/18/2021
09/01/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
315 Notice to Counsel Resetting Hearing: Due to an unforeseen scheduling conﬂict the Motion Hearing set for 10/26/2017 is hereby Reset for 11/1/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Shelly D. Dick. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(BKA) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

09/11/2017

316 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: PLEASE BE ADVISED that a Telephone Status Conference is set in this matter for 9/21/2017 at 2:30 pm. The Parties are to set up the call into the Chamber's main line with all Parties on the line. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

09/12/2017

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Status Conference set for 9/21/2017 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shelly D. Dick. This entry for docketing purposes only. (BKA) (Entered: 09/12/2017)

09/21/2017

317 ORDER: Because the class certiﬁcation issue must be decided before dispositive motions, and the Court believes that resolution of this issue may (or may not) alter the facts and /or analysis regarding the dispositive motions ﬁled in this case, the Court will deny the 193 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs ADA Claims, 194 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment Claims, and the Defendants 261 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Following the class certiﬁcation hearing, the Parties are granted leave of Court to re-urge these motions by reference to record document numbers, without the necessity of re-ﬁling same. Should supplemental brieﬁng be required based on the class certiﬁcation determination, such leave is granted to ﬁle supplemental briefs not to exceed 15 pages without leave of Court. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/21/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/21/2017 318 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shelly D. Dick: Telephone Conference held on 9/21/2017. (BKA) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/22/2017

319 ORDER denying without prejudice 314 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' 261 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/22/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/25/2017 320 MOTION to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel of Record by All Defendants. (Conine, John) Modiﬁed on 9/25/2017 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/26/2017

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 320 MOTION to Substitute Caroline Tomeny Bond in place of Kathryn A. Dufrene as Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (ELW) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/27/2017 321 RULING denying 191 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Jacqueline Moore. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/27/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/29/2017 322 RULING granting 192 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/29/2017. (SGO) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

09/29/2017

323 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 320 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Motion granted to enroll Caroline T. Bond as additional counsel for Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy, Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M. LeBlanc, Raman Singh, MD, Stacye Falgout, Randy Lavespere, MD, Sherwood Poret, RN and Cynthia Park. Motion denied as to Kathryn Dufrene, as motion not signed by withdrawing attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 9/29/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

10/02/2017 324 MOTION for Kathryn A. Dufrene to Withdraw as Attorney by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order)(Dufrene, Kathryn) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/03/2017

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 324 MOTION for Kathryn A. Dufrene to Withdraw as

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

74/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (ELW) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

10/04/2017

325 ORDER granting 324 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Kathryn A. Dufrene is withdrawn as counsel for defendants, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy, Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M. Leblanc, Raman Singh, MD, Stacye Falgout, Randy Lavespere, MD, Sherwood Poret, RN and Cynthia Park, ACNP in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/4/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 10/04/2017)

10/06/2017

326 MOTION for Clariﬁcation of and Relief From 322 Ruling on Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Cody, Jeffrey) Modiﬁed to edit the text on 10/10/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/06/2017

327 MOTION for Expedited Consideration on 326 MOTION for Clariﬁcation of and Relief From 322 Ruling on Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Cody, Jeffrey) Modiﬁed to edit the text on 10/10/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/10/2017

328 MOTION to Enroll Nishi Kumar as Additional Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/10/2017

329 MOTION for Amanda Boozer to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number 053N-1651623) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A2, # 4 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/10/2017

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 329 MOTION for Amanda Boozer to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number 053N-1651623), 328 MOTION to Enroll Nishi Kumar as Additional Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/11/2017

330 ORDER granting 328 Motion to Enroll Additional Attorney. Added attorney Nishi Lal Kumar as additional counsel for Plaintiffs Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington and Rufus White. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/11/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

10/11/2017

331 ORDER granting 329 Motion for Amanda Boozer to Appear Pro Hac Vice as co-counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/11/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

10/12/2017

332 STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD MOTION in Limine for Class Certiﬁcation Hearing by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 10/26/2017 Stricken in accordance with rec doc 348 (ELW). (Entered: 10/12/2017)

10/13/2017

333 ORDER granting 327 Motion for Expedited Hearing on 326 Defendants Motion for Clariﬁcation of Court's Limine Order 322 . Oral arguments are not necessary. The Court will rule upon the Motion for Clariﬁcation expeditiously. Opposition or response, if any, shall be ﬁled on or before October 17, 2017. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/13/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

75/101

1/18/2021
10/13/2017
10/16/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
334 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 332 MOTION in Limine for Class Certiﬁcation Hearing by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
335 MOTION to Enroll Angelique Freel, Michelle White, and Patricia Wilton as Additional Attorney by All Defendants. (Barient, Andrea) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/17/2017

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 335 MOTION to Enroll Angelique Freel, Michelle White, and Patricia Wilton as Additional Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KAH) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017 10/17/2017

336 ORDER granting 334 Motion for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs' 332 Motion to Exclude the Declarations of Tiffany Bellue and Nyesha Kelly. Defendants shall ﬁle a response to the motion on before 10/23/2017. The Court does not need oral argument. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/17/2017. (SGO) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines (Court Use Only) (SGO) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017

337 ORDER granting 335 Motion to Enroll Additional Attorney. Added attorneys Angelique Duhon Freel, Michelle Marney White and Patricia Hill Wilton as additional counsel of record for Stephanie Lamartiniere, James M LeBlanc and The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/17/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017

338 STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 326 MOTION for Clariﬁcation of and Relief From 322 Ruling on Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kumar, Nishi) Modiﬁed on 10/24/2017 Stricken as ordered (ELW). (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/18/2017 10/18/2017

339 NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE with LR 7(g) as to 338 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. REQUIRED CORRECTION: A combined Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limits and Motion to Strike the Incorrect Pleading must ﬁled within 24 hours of this notice. Otherwise, the original ﬁling may be stricken by the Court without further notice. (ELW) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
340 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages , MOTION to Strike the Incorrect Pleading by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Attachment Proposed Order)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017 10/20/2017

341 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in support of Motion for Clariﬁcation of and Relief from Order Granting Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed order, # 3 Proposed Pleading; Reply Brief, # 4 Exhibit Redacted Report)(Cody, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
342 ORDER granting 341 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in support of Motion for Clariﬁcation of and Relief from Order Granting Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, James M LeBlanc, Randy Lavespere, Stephanie Lamartiniere. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/20/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017 352 REPLY BRIEF in Support of 326 MOTION for Clariﬁcation of and Relief From 322 Ruling on Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas ﬁled by All Defendants.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

76/101

1/18/2021
10/23/2017
10/23/2017 10/23/2017 10/23/2017
10/23/2017 10/24/2017 10/24/2017 10/24/2017 10/24/2017
10/25/2017 11/01/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ELW) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
343 RULING granting 326 MOTION for Clariﬁcation of and Relief From 322 Ruling on 192 Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas. The Courts' Prior 322 RULING is vacated in part . Plaintiff' s 192 Motion in Limine to exclude Dr. David Thomas' opinion testimony as relating to legal and security issues is GRANTED; the motion to exclude standard of care opinion testimony is DENIED, and all objections to admissibility are reserved. Defendants' request to vacate and amend the Scheduling Order and for leave to name a substitute expert is DENIED, as moot. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/23/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
344 ORDER granting 340 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and granting 340 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/23/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
345 MOTION for Status Conference by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Cody, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
346 MOTION to Strike 332 Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude the Declarations of Tiffany Bellue and Nyesha Kelly, or in the Alternative, Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude the Declarations of Tiffany Bellue and Nyesha Kelly by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Attachment Proposed Order)(Cody, Jeffrey) Modiﬁed to edit the text on 10/24/2017 (KAH). (Attachment 2 replaced on 10/24/2017) (KAH). (Entered: 10/23/2017)
350 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Defendant's 326 MOTION for Clariﬁcation ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(ELW) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
347 RULING : The 246 Motion in Limine is DENIED with full reservation of rights to urge objections at the time of trial. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/24/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
348 ORDER granting 346 Motion to Strike 332 Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude the Declarations of Tiffany Bellue and Nyesha Kelly. The Motion is GRANTED for the reason that the Motion in Limine 322 was untimely ﬁled. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/24/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
349 ORDER granting 247 Plaintiffs Motion Request of Judicial Notice of the licensure status of physicians, without prejudice to the parties right to make evidentiary objections at the time of hearing or trial. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/24/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
351 ORDER denying 345 Motion for Conference. The parties are hereby advised that each side will be permitted the time required to present their respective evidence at the Class Certiﬁcation Hearing set for Nov. 1, 2017. In the event of the desire of either party to make a proffer, the Court will provide guidance on same at the time of the hearing. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/24/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
353 RULING granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 248 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/25/2017. (LLH) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
375 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shelly D. Dick: Motion Hearing held on

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

77/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
11/1/2017 re 133 MOTION to Certify Class ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr.. (Court Reporter Judy Francisco.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits.. (BKA) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

11/02/2017

354 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 133 MOTION to Certify Class :Motion Hearing continuation set for 11/2/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Shelly D. Dick. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/02/2017

355 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shelly D. Dick: Motion Hearing concluded on 11/2/2017 re 133 MOTION to Certify Class ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr. (Court Reporter Judy Francisco.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/03/2017

356 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Joseph Lewis, Jr, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White for proceedings held on November 1, 2017 and November 2, 2017 before Judge Shelly D. Dick.. (Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/09/2017

357 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Darrel Vannoy for proceedings held on 11/1/2017 11/2/2017 before Judge Shelly D. Dick. Fee $ 30, receipt number 053N-1672909. (Conine, John) Modiﬁed to ﬂatten main document and edit the text on 11/9/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

358 Exhibit(s) to 355 Motion Hearing,, by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List (Joint), # 2 Exhibit 1-2, # 3 Exhibit 3-15, # 4 Exhibit 16-36, # 5 Exhibit 37-47, # 6 Exhibit 48-56)(Kumar, Nishi) Modiﬁed to rotate attachments 2, 3 and 6 on 11/13/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

359 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 62-67, # 2 Exhibit 68-78, # 3 Exhibit 79 part 1, # 4 Exhibit 79 part 2)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

360 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 81, # 2 Exhibit 82-87, # 3 Exhibit 88-94, # 4 Exhibit 95 part 1) (Kumar, Nishi) (Main Document 360 replaced on 11/13/2017) (KAH). (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

361 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 96-97, # 2 Exhibit 98-99, # 3 Exhibit 100-104, # 4 Exhibit 105107 part 1)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

362 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 107 part 3, # 2 Exhibit 107 part 4, # 3 Exhibit 107 part 5, # 4 Exhibit 107 part 6)(Kumar, Nishi) Modiﬁed to rotate attachments 1-3 on 11/13/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

363 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 108-109, # 2 Exhibit 110 part 1, # 3 Exhibit 110 part 2, # 4 Exhibit 110 part 3)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

78/101

1/18/2021
11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017
11/09/2017 11/09/2017
11/13/2017 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 11/15/2017

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
364 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 110 part 5, # 2 Exhibit 110 part 6, # 3 Exhibit 110 part 7, # 4 Exhibit 110 part 8)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
365 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 111 part 1, # 2 Exhibit 111 part 2, # 3 Exhibit 112-113, # 4 Exhibit 114 part 1)(Kumar, Nishi) Modiﬁed to rotate pages in main document and attachment 4 on 11/13/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 11/09/2017)
366 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 114 part 3, # 2 Exhibit 114 part 4, # 3 Exhibit 114 part 5, # 4 Exhibit 115-116 part 1)(Kumar, Nishi) Modiﬁed to rotate main document and attachments 1-3 on 11/13/2017 (KAH). (Entered: 11/09/2017)
367 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 116 part 3, # 2 Exhibit 117 part 1, # 3 Exhibit 117 part 2, # 4 Exhibit 118 part 1)(Kumar, Nishi) (Attachment 2 replaced on 11/13/2017) (ELW). (Attachment 4 replaced on 11/13/2017) (ELW). Modiﬁed on 11/13/2017 to correct page orientation(ELW). (Entered: 11/09/2017)
368 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 118 part 3, # 2 Exhibit 119-125, # 3 Exhibit 126 part 1, # 4 Exhibit 126 part 2-127)(Kumar, Nishi) (Main Document 368 replaced on 11/13/2017) (KAH). (Entered: 11/09/2017)
369 Additional Exhibits to 358 Exhibit(s) by All Plaintiffs. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 136-145, # 2 Exhibit 146 part 1, # 3 Exhibit 146 part 2, # 4 Exhibit 146 part 3, # 5 Exhibit 146 part 4)(Kumar, Nishi) (Attachment 4 replaced on 11/13/2017) (KAH). (Attachment 5 replaced on 11/13/2017) (KAH). Modiﬁed to rotate attachments 4 & 5 on 11/13/2017 (KAH). (Attachment 2 replaced on 11/13/2017) (ELW). (Attachment 2 replaced on 12/13/2017) (SGO). (Entered: 11/09/2017)
370 ORDER denying as moot 288 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 288 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 11/13/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
371 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections for proceedings held on 11/1/2017 - 11/2/2017 before Judge Shelly D. Dick.. (Conine, John) (Main Document 371 replaced on 11/14/2017 to ﬂatten the image) (NLT). (Entered: 11/13/2017)
372 ORDER denying as moot 332 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 11/13/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
373 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Trancript of Class Certiﬁcation Hearing before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on November 1, 2017. Court Reporter: Judy Y. Francisco, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3566.
NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

79/101

1/18/2021
11/15/2017
12/04/2017 12/04/2017 12/05/2017 12/08/2017 12/11/2017 12/11/2017 12/26/2017 01/09/2018 01/10/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 12/6/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/18/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/13/2018. (Francisco, Judy) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
374 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Transcript of Class Certiﬁcation Hearing before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on November 2, 2017. Court Reporter: Judy Y. Francisco, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3566.
NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 12/6/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/18/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/13/2018. (Francisco, Judy) (Main Document 374 replaced on 11/16/2017 to include index as per court reporter) (DCB). Modiﬁed on 11/16/2017 (DCB). (Entered: 11/15/2017)
376 MOTION for Evidentiary Sanctions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Hamilton, Bruce) Modiﬁed to edit text on 12/5/2017 (SGO). (Entered: 12/04/2017)
377 Post-Hearing Brief in Support of 133 MOTION to Certify Class ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Attachment C)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 12/5/2017 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 12/04/2017)
378 Post-Hearing Brief in Opposition to 133 MOTION to Certify Class by James M LeBlanc. (Roper, Mary) Modiﬁed on 12/5/2017 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 12/05/2017)
379 MOTION for Leave to Supplement Memo in Support of Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Supplement to Memo, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Hamilton, Bruce) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
380 ORDER granting 379 MOTION for Leave to Supplement Memo. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 12/11/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
381 SUPPLEMENTAL to MEMORANDUM in Support of 376 MOTION for Sanctions ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (ELW) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
382 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 376 MOTION for Sanctions ﬁled by All Defendants. (Cody, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/26/2017)
383 MOTION for Leave to File Reply by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Proposed Pleading;, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Attachment Proposed Order) (Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 1/10/2018to rotate and replace Exhibit B, E(LLH). (Entered: 01/09/2018)
384 Ex Parte MOTION to Enroll Randal J. Robert, Connell L. Archey, Keith J. Fernandez, and George P. Holmes as Additional Attorney by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

80/101

1/18/2021
01/11/2018 01/11/2018
01/11/2018 01/12/2018
01/12/2018
01/17/2018 01/18/2018 01/19/2018 01/29/2018 02/06/2018 02/09/2018 02/21/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Attachment Proposed Order)(Roper, Mary) Modiﬁed on 1/11/2018 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 01/10/2018)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 384 MOTION to Enroll Randal J. Robert, Connell L. Archey, Keith J. Fernandez, and George P. Holmes as Additional Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
385 ORDER granting 383 MOTION for Leave to File Reply ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr.. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 1/11/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
387 REPLY in Support of 376 MOTION for Sanctions ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Attachment, # 4 Attachment, # 5 Attachment)(ELW) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
386 ORDER granting 384 Motion to Enroll Additional Counsel of Record for Defendants. Added attorneys Randal J. Robert, Connell Lee Archey, Keith Fernandez and George Holmes as additional counsel of record for defendants Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and Darrel Vannoy, and designating Randal J. Robert as lead attorney for defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 1/12/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
388 RULING granting 376 Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions. The Court will exclude any evidence or documents not produced in discovery unless such documents were attached to pleadings ﬁled into the record prior to the class certiﬁcation hearing. The Court declines to award any monetary sanctions. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 1/12/2018. (SGO) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
389 MOTION for Scheduling Conference by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
390 RESPONSE to 389 MOTION for Scheduling Conference ﬁled by All Defendants. (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 389 MOTION for Scheduling Conference . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SGO) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
391 ORDER: Plaintiffs are ordered to submit supplemental brief advisingthe Court which Named Plaintiffs have fully exhausted their administrative remedies prior to 5/20/2015. Plaintiffs are ordered to submit this supplement to the Court on or before 2/6/2018. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 1/29/2018. (SGO) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
392 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed to edit text on 2/7/2018 (SGO). (Entered: 02/06/2018)
393 MOTION for Leave to File Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A)(Robert, Randal) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
Motions No Longer Referred: 389 MOTION for Scheduling Conference . This motion is now pending before the USDJ. (DCB) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

81/101

1/18/2021
02/26/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
394 RULING granting 133 Motion for Class Certiﬁcation. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 2/26/2018. (SGO) (Entered: 02/26/2018)

03/12/2018

395 ORDER granting 393 MOTION for Leave to File Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, James M LeBlanc, Randy Lavespere, Stephanie Lamartiniere. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 3/12/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018

396 REPLY to 392 Supplemental Brief on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies ﬁled by Burl Cain, Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (SGO) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/15/2018

397 MOTION for Leave to substitute witnesses and take depositions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Attachment) (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/22/2018

398 ORDER granting 389 Motion for a Scheduling Conference. A Telephone Conference set for 4/19/2018 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shelly D. Dick. Counsel for Plaintiff shall arrange the call into chambers and have all Parties on the line. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 3/22/2018. (SGO) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/27/2018

399 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Re-Urge Motions for Summary Judgment by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed, # 3 Attachment Motion to Re-Urge, # 4 Attachment Memorandum in Support of Motion to Re-Urge, # 5 Attachment Proposed Order for Motion to Re-Urge)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

04/05/2018

400 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 397 MOTION for Leave to substitute witnesses and take depositions ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

04/11/2018

401 ORDER granting 399 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Re-Urge Motions for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr.. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/11/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/11/2018

403 MOTION to Re-Urge 193 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims, 194 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Claim by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Order) (LLH) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/12/2018

402 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' 397 Motion for Leave to Substitute Witnesses and Take Depositions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Attachment Proposed Order)(Kumar, Nishi) Modiﬁed on 4/13/2018 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 04/12/2018)

04/18/2018 404 ORDER granting 402 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Substitute Witnesses and Take Depositions ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

82/101

1/18/2021
04/18/2018
04/19/2018 04/19/2018 04/24/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/18/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
407 REPLY in Support of 397 MOTION for Leave to substitute witnesses and take depositions ﬁled by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Joseph Lewis, Jr., Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (EDC) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
405 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shelly D. Dick: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/19/2018. (BKA) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
406 Notice Setting Trial and Related Deadlines: Jury Trial set for 10/9/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Shelly D. Dick. Pretrial Conference set for 9/25/2018 at 02:30 PM in chambers before Judge Shelly D. Dick. Afﬁdavit of Settlement Efforts due by 8/28/2018. All other Trial deadlines are set as stated in the attached Notice. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/19/18. (BKA) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
408 Notice to Counsel: The Jury Trial set for 10/9/2018 is hereby Canceled. A Bench Trial is hereby set for 10/9/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Shelly D. Dick.

Evidence, in electronic format, shall be provided in accordance with Local Rule 79 and Administrative Procedures.

04/24/2018 04/26/2018
04/26/2018
05/15/2018 05/15/2018 05/15/2018

(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(BKA) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
409 MOTION for Copy of Audio Recording of Conference by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
410 Witness List by Stacye Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (For your free look at document, enter your ECF login and pw to conﬁrm your right to view). (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
411 Witness List for Trial by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White. (For your free look at document, enter your ECF login and pw to conﬁrm your right to view). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Will Call List, # 2 Exhibit B May Call List) (Kumar, Nishi) Modiﬁed to edit text on 4/27/2018 (SGO). (Entered: 04/26/2018)
412 ORDER denying 397 MOTION for Leave to Substitute Witnesses and Take Depositions. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/15/2018. (SGO) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
413 MOTION to Enroll Jamila Johnson, Meredith Angelson, and Jared Davidson as Additional Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 413 MOTION to Enroll Jamila Johnson, Meredith Angelson, and Jared Davidson as Additional Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SGO) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

83/101

1/18/2021
05/17/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
414 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File a Motion to Exclude Evidence of Post-Discovery Conditions or, in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Proposed Pleading;, # 4 Memorandum in Support, # 5 Attachment, # 6 Exhibit A, # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit C, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E, # 11 Exhibit F, # 12 Exhibit G, # 13 Exhibit H, # 14 Exhibit I, # 15 Exhibit J, # 16 Exhibit K)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed to edit text on 5/17/2018 (SGO). (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/18/2018

415 ORDER granting 413 Motion to Enroll Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs. Added attorney Jamila Asha Johnson, Meredith Jane Angelson and Jared Fletcher Davidson for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 5/18/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/22/2018

416 ORDER granting 414 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File a Motion to Exclude Evidence of Post-Discovery Conditions or, in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Discovery ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr..Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/22/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018

417 MOTION to Exclude Evidence of Post-Discovery Conditions or, in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K)(SGO). Added MOTION to Compel on 5/23/2018 (SGO). (Entered: 05/23/2018)

06/11/2018

418 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 417 MOTION in Limine or in the Alternative MOTION to Compel Additional Discovery ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Robert, Randal) Modiﬁed on 6/11/2018 to text (LLH). (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/21/2018

419 ORDER: Plaintiff's 417 MOTION to Exclude Evidence of Post-DiscoveryConditions is hereby GRANTED, and the 417 MOTION to Compel Additional Discovery is hereby DENIED. A bench trial on liability only, limited to evidence of the conditions as they existed on or before 9/30/2016 will go forward commencing on 10/9/2018. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/20/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

06/29/2018

420 Joint MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines to Depose "Will Call" Witness Francis Brauner by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order) (Conine, John) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

07/09/2018

421 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 261 Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Supplemental Memorandum)(Robert, Randal) Modiﬁed on 7/10/2018 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018

426 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO 193 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims, 194 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Claim ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/10/2018 427 MOTION Seal Exhibits in Documents Nos. 422, 423, 424 and 425 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Order)(Robert, Randal) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/11/2018 428 MOTION to Re-Urge Motion for Summary Judgment by All Defendants. (Attachments: #

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

84/101

1/18/2021
07/12/2018 07/12/2018 07/12/2018 07/12/2018 07/16/2018 07/23/2018 07/23/2018 07/24/2018 07/24/2018 08/10/2018
08/10/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Conine, John) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
429 ORDER granting 421 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 261 Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 7/12/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
430 SEALED ORDER granting 427 MOTION to Seal Exhibits in Documents Nos. 422, 423, 424 and 425 ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, James M LeBlanc, Randy Lavespere, Stephanie Lamartiniere. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 7/12/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
431 SEALED EXHIBITS to 261 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit)(LLH) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
432 SEALED Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 261 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit)(LLH) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
433 ORDER granting 428 Motion to Re-urge Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 7/16/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
434 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 193 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims, 194 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Claim ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6)(Robert, Randal) Modiﬁed on 7/24/2018 to rotate and replace exhibit (LLH). (Entered: 07/23/2018)
435 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 421 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
436 ORDER granting Joint MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines to Depose "Will Call" Witness Francis Brauner. The remaining deposition will take place by 7/27/2018. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 7/24/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
437 ADDENDUM to 435 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Attachment 1 replaced on 7/25/2018) (EDC). Modiﬁed on 7/25/2018 to rotate pages and to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 07/24/2018)
438 MOTION for Leave to Motion for Judicial Notice Out of Time. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading;, # 4 Proposed Pleading; MIS, # 5 Exhibit 1, # 6 Exhibit 2, # 7 Exhibit 3, # 8 Exhibit 4, # 9 Exhibit 5, # 10 Exhibit 6, # 11 Exhibit 7, # 12 Exhibit 8, # 13 Exhibit 9, # 14 Exhibit 10, # 15 Exhibit 11, # 16 Exhibit 12)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
439 MOTION for Permission for Secretary James M. LeBlanc to be Absent During a Portion of the Trial Due to Travel by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support,

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

85/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
# 2 Exhibit, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Roper, Mary) Modiﬁed on 8/13/2018 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

440 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 439 MOTION for Permission for Secretary James M. LeBlanc to be Absent During a Portion of the Trial Due to Travel by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order)(Roper, Mary) Modiﬁed on 8/13/2018 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/13/2018

441 MOTION to Clarify Order by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Order)(Robert, Randal) Modiﬁed on 8/15/2018 to replace main doc. per R. Doc. 446 (SWE). (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018

442 MOTION to Re-Urge Motion to Strike by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 8/14/2018 to edit the text (NLT). (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 08/13/2018

443 ORDER granting 440 Motion for Expedited Hearing on 439 MOTION for Permission for Secretary James M. LeBlanc to be Absent During a Portion of the Trial Due to Travel. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/13/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
444 ORDER granting 439 MOTION for Permission for Secretary James M. LeBlanc to be Absent During a Portion of the Trial Due to Travel. The Parties are to cooperate on the presentation of evidence in light of this ruling. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/13/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018

445 MOTION to Substitute Defendants' Motion to Clarify Order by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Correct Document to be Substituted, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Order)(Robert, Randal) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/14/2018
08/21/2018 08/24/2018 08/27/2018 08/27/2018 08/28/2018 08/28/2018

446 ORDER granting 445 MOTION to Substitute Defendants' Motion to Clarify Order ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, James M LeBlanc, Randy Lavespere, Stephanie Lamartiniere. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/14/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
447 ORDER granting 441 Motion to Clarify Order. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/21/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
448 MOTION for Leave to Amend Witness Lists by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
449 MOTION to Substitute Party Under RULE 25(D) by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(Cody, Jeffrey) Modiﬁed on 8/28/2018 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 08/27/2018)
450 MOTION to Substitute Exhibit as to 193 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D1, # 2 Exhibit D2, # 3 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 8/28/2018 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 08/27/2018)
451 AFFIDAVIT of Settlement by All Plaintiffs. (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
452 ORDER granting 450 MOTION to Substitute Exhibit as to 193 MOTION for Partial

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

86/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr.. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/28/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

09/04/2018

453 MOTION to Re-Urge Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Order) (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/11/2018

454 ORDER granting 438 MOTION for Leave to Motion for Judicial Notice Out of Time. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/11/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018

455 ORDER granting 448 MOTION for Leave to Amend Witness Lists. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/11/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018

456 ORDER granting 453 Motion to Re-Urge Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/11/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018

457 ORDER denying 409 Motion for Copy of Audio Recording of Conference. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/11/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018

458 ORDER granting 442 Motion to Re-Urge Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/11/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018

459 MOTION for Leave to Permit Dr. Jane Andrews to Testify Remotely at Trial by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 9/12/2018 to edit the text (NLT). (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018

460 ORDER granting 449 Motion to Substitute Party Under RULE 25(D). John Morrison, M.D. and Tracy Falgout, R.N., added in place of Raman Singh, M.D. and Stephanie Lamartiniere. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/11/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018

461 MOTION for Site Visit by Judge by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Order)(Robert, Randal) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018 465 AMENDED Witness List Filed by Plaintiffs'. (LLH) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/11/2018

466 Second Motion Requesting Judicial Notice by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit) (EDC) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/12/2018

462 ORDER: The 403 Motion for Reconsideration of 193 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ADA Claims, 194 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Claim is DENIED except as to exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff's Re-Urged 288 Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/12/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

87/101

1/18/2021
09/12/2018
09/12/2018 09/14/2018 09/17/2018
09/19/2018 09/19/2018 09/19/2018 09/19/2018
09/23/2018 09/24/2018 09/25/2018 09/25/2018 09/26/2018
09/26/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
463 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 459 MOTION for Leave to Permit Dr. Jane Andrews to Testify Remotely at Trial ﬁled by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Robert, Randal) Modiﬁed on 9/12/2018 to edit the text (NLT). (Entered: 09/12/2018)
464 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for deposition designations by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
467 MOTION to Enroll Amanda Zarrow as Additional Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
468 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of 459 MOTION for Leave to Permit Dr. Jane Andrews to Testify Remotely at Trial by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order) (Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 9/18/2018 to edit text(LLH). (Entered: 09/17/2018)
469 ORDER granting 468 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of 459 MOTION for Leave to Permit Dr. Jane Andrews to Testify Remotely at Trial. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/19/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
470 REPLY Memorandum in Support of 459 MOTION for Leave to Permit Dr. Jane Andrews to Testify Remotely at Trial ﬁled by Alton Adams. (LLH) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
471 ORDER granting 467 Motion to Enroll Amanda Zarrow as Additional Attorney for Plaintiffs. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/19/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
472 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Permit Dr. Jane Andrews to Testify Remotely at Trial by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Permit Dr. Jane Andrews to Testify Remotely at Trial, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Order)(Robert, Randal) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
473 RESPONSE to 461 MOTION for Site Visit by Judge ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 09/23/2018)
474 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 466 MOTION Second Motion Requesting Judicial Notice ﬁled by All Defendants. (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
475 ORDER: The Parties are hereby ordered to submit Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the Court on or before Wednesday, 10/3/2018. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/24/2018. (KAH) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
476 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Pretrial Conference held on 9/25/2018. (BKA) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
477 ORDER granting 472 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled by Sherwood Poret, Burl Cain, Cynthia Park, Raman Singh, Tracy Falgout, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, John Morrison, Stacye Falgout, Darrel Vannoy, James M LeBlanc, Randy Lavespere, Stephanie Lamartiniere. There will be no further replies permitted. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/26/18. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
478 Defendants' SUR-REPLY to 459 MOTION for Leave to Permit Dr. Jane Andrews to Testify Remotely at Trial ﬁled by Stacye Falgout, Tracy Falgout, Randy Lavespere, James

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

88/101

1/18/2021
09/28/2018
10/02/2018
10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/03/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
M LeBlanc, John Morrison, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (SWE) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
479 MOTION to Enroll Erica Navalance as Additional Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
480 ORDER: Considering the length of the bench trial, in addition to the one laptop per counsel, Plaintiffs and Defendants are allowed up to three (3) additional laptops per side, without asking for leave. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/2/2018. (LLH) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
481 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Alton Adams. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
482 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Otto Barrera. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
483 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum for Charles Butler by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
484 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Clyde Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
485 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Ian Cazenave. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
486 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Ricky D. Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
487 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Reginald George. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
488 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum Lawrence Jenkins by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
489 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
490 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Kentrell Parker. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
491 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
492 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Farrell Sampier. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
493 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Lionel Tolbert. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
494 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by John Tonubbee. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
495 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Edward Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
496 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum by Rufus White. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
497 Proposed Findings of Fact by Stacye Falgout, Tracy Falgout, Randy Lavespere, James M

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

89/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
LeBlanc, John Morrison, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/03/2018

498 Proposed Findings of Fact by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White. (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/04/2018

499 ORDER granting 479 Motion to Enroll Additional Attorney. Added attorney Erica Lauren Navalance for Plaintiffs. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

500 ORDER granting 481 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Alton Adams. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

501 ORDER granting 482 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Otto Barrera. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) Modiﬁed on 10/4/2018 to rotate page (SWE). (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

502 ORDER granting 483 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Charles Butler. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

503 ORDER granting 484 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Clyde Carter. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

504 ORDER granting 485 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Ian Cazenave. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018 505 ORDER granting 486 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum Ricky Davis. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

506 ORDER granting 487 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Reginald George. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

507 ORDER granting 488 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Lawrence Jenkins. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

508 ORDER granting 490 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Kentrell Parker. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

509 ORDER granting 489 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Anthony Mandigo. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018 510 ORDER granting 491 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Daniel Price. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

511 ORDER granting 492 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Farrell Sampier. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018 512 ORDER granting 493 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Lionel

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

90/101

1/18/2021
10/04/2018 10/04/2018 10/04/2018 10/05/2018 10/05/2018
10/09/2018
10/09/2018
10/09/2018 10/09/2018 10/10/2018 10/11/2018 10/11/2018 10/12/2018 10/15/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Tolbert. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
513 ORDER granting 494 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to John Tonubbee. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
514 ORDER granting 495 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Edward Washington. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
515 ORDER granting 496 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testiﬁcandum as to Rufus White. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/4/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
516 Return on ORDER. ACCEPTED BY RHONDA WELDON - DOC PARALEGAL ON 10/04/2018. (US Marshal, ) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
517 SUPPLEMENTAL Information Offered Pursuant to Ruling on 438 Second MOTION for Leave to Motion for Judicial Notice Out of Time. ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 10/9/2018 to edit the text (NLT). (Entered: 10/05/2018)
518 Exhibit List for Plaintiffs by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White.. (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
519 Exhibit List for Joint Exhibits by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White.. (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
520 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/9/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
555 ELECTRONIC EXHIBITS for Bench Trial dated 10/9/2018. (SWE) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
521 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/10/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
522 Exhibit List by Stacye Falgout, Tracy Falgout, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, John Morrison, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy.. (Bond, Caroline) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
523 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/11/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
524 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/12/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
525 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/15/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

91/101

1/18/2021
10/16/2018 10/17/2018
10/17/2018 10/18/2018 10/22/2018 10/23/2018 10/24/2018
10/24/2018 10/25/2018
10/25/2018 10/25/2018 11/05/2018

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
526 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/16/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
527 ORDER: The Bench Trial of this matter is currently proceeding. However, due to a scheduling conﬂict, the Court has canceled the Bench Trial on 10/19/2018. Accordingly, any previous Orders requiring the Warden of the LSP to produce inmate parties or witnesses for 10/19/2018, are hereby vacated, and no LSP inmate parties or witnesses should be produced on this date. The Bench Trial is scheduled to resume on 10/22/2018, and any Orders requiring the Warden of LSP to produce inmate parties or witnesses during the week of October 22, 2018 remain in effect. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/17/2018. (NLT) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
529 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/17/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) (BKA) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
528 Return on ORDER. ACCEPTED BY RHONDA WELDON, DOC PARALEGAL ON 10/17/2018. (US Marshal, ) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
530 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/22/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) (BKA) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
531 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/23/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
532 AMENDED ORDER: The Bench Trial of this matter, which began on October 9, 2018, is currently proceeding. Due to a change in scheduling, the Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana, Darell Vannoy, is hereby ORDERED to transport and produce Plaintiff, KENTRELL PARKER, DOC# 371212, for the trial before Chief Judge Dick scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m. on October 25, 2018. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/24/2018. (NLT) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
533 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial held on 10/24/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) Modiﬁed on 10/25/2018 (BKA). (Entered: 10/25/2018)
534 ORDER: The Bench Trial of this matter, which began on10/9/2018, is currently proceeding. However, due to a scheduling conﬂict, the Court has canceled the Bench Trial on 10/26/2018. Accordingly, any previous Orders requiring the Warden of LSP to produce inmate parties or witnesses for 10/26/2018, are hereby vacated, and no LSP inmate parties or witnesses should be produced on this date. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/25/2018. (NLT) Modiﬁed on 10/26/2018 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 10/25/2018)
535 Return on ORDER. ACCEPTED BY RHONDA WELDON - DOC PARALEGAL. (US Marshal, ) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
536 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Bench Trial completed on 10/25/2018. (Court Reporter Shannon Thompson.) Pursuant to Local Rules, offering parties shall retain custody of exhibits..(BKA) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
537 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Joseph Lewis, Jr, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White for proceedings held on October 9, 2018

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

92/101

1/18/2021
11/06/2018
11/06/2018
11/06/2018 11/15/2018
02/13/2019 02/14/2019 02/15/2019 03/18/2019

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
through October 25, 2018 before Judge Shelly D. Dick.. (Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
538 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Burl Cain, Stacye Falgout, Tracy Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, John Morrison, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy for proceedings held on 10/9/2018 before Judge Shelly D. Dick. (Robert, Randal) Modiﬁed on 11/7/2018 to ﬂatten and replace doc (LLH). (Entered: 11/06/2018)
539 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Burl Cain, Stacye Falgout, Tracy Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, John Morrison, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, Raman Singh, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy for proceedings held on 10/9/2018-10/25/2018 before Judge Shelly D. Dick.. (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
540 ORDER: A Telephone Conference is set for 11/15/2018 at 01:30 PM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/6/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(KAH) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
541 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.: Telephone Conference held on 11/15/2018. The parties discussed the scheduling of a settlement conference in this matter. Upon the completion and ﬁling of the trial transcripts, the parties are to confer with one another and contact the undersigneds chambers with proposed dates for a settlement conference. The Court's order setting the settlement conference will provide additional instructions regarding the required submissions in advance of the conference. (SGO) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
542 MOTION for Mary E. Roper to Withdraw as Attorney by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order)(Roper, Mary) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 542 MOTION for Mary E. Roper to Withdraw as Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SWE) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
543 ORDER granting 542 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Mary E. Roper as Attorney for Defendants in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 2/15/2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (JSL) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
544 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/09/2018. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)

03/18/2019

545 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/10/2018. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

93/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

03/18/2019

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
546 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/12/2018. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

03/18/2019

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
547 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/15/2018. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

03/18/2019

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
548 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/16/2018. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

94/101

1/18/2021
03/18/2019 03/18/2019 03/18/2019 03/18/2019

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
549 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/17/2018. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.
NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
550 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/11/2018. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.
NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
551 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/22/2018. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.
NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
552 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/23/18. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225389-3567.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

95/101

1/18/2021

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

03/18/2019

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
553 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/24/18. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567.

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

03/18/2019

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
554 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: Bench Trial before Judge Shelly D. Dick held on 10/25/18. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225389-3567.

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov.

04/17/2019 04/17/2019

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
556 Post-Trial Memorandum by All Defendants. (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
557 ATTENTION: To view the corrected version of this document, please see rec. doc. 573....Proposed Findings of Fact by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Appendix A)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Main Document 557 and Attachment 1 replaced on 5/2/2019 in accordance with RD 559) (SWE). Modiﬁed on 10/21/2019 to substitute document as per Order # 571 (LLH). This entry was modiﬁed on 1/7/2020 to notate that rec. doc. 573 replaces rec. doc. 557 and shall be considered the operative document and replaces any and all previously ﬁled documents (DCB). (Entered: 04/17/2019)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

96/101

1/18/2021
04/17/2019 04/17/2019
04/29/2019
05/07/2019 05/07/2019 05/16/2019
07/24/2019 08/09/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
558 MOTION to Substitute Plaintiffs' FFCL by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Revised FFCL, # 3 Attachment Appendix, # 4 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Attachment 2 replaced on 10/17/2019 in accordance with RD 571) (SWE). (Entered: 04/17/2019)
573 Corrected Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law . by Alton Adams, Otto Barrera, Alton Batiste, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky D. Davis, Cedric Evans, Reginald George, Edward Giovanni, Shannon Hurd, Joseph Lewis, Jr, Kentrell Parker, Farrell Sampier, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee, Edward Washington, Rufus White (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Appendix A)(Kumar, Nishi). As per rec. doc. no. 572 this entry was modiﬁed to reﬂect that this corrected pleading replaces rec. doc. 557 and shall be considered the operative document and replaces any and all previously ﬁled documents(DCB). (Entered: 01/07/2020)
559 ORDER granting 558 MOTION to Substitute Plaintiffs' FFCL ﬁled by Clyde Carter, Kentrell Parker, Shannon Hurd, Cedric Evans, Lionel Tolbert, Reginald George, Rufus White, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, John Tonubbee, Edward Giovanni, Farrell Sampier, Alton Batiste, Ricky D. Davis, Edward Washington, Otto Barrera, Joseph Lewis, Jr.. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/29/19. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
560 Post-Trial Memorandum by All Defendants. (Robert, Randal) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
561 Reply to 556 Post-Trial Memorandum ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 5/8/2019 to edit to the docket text to match the document (KMW). (Entered: 05/07/2019)
562 ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 7/24/2019 at 09:30 AM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. The parties shall submit conﬁdential settlement position papers by noon on July 17, 2019 to the judge's chambers either via facsimile transmission to (225) 389-3603 or hand delivery. The statement shall be succinct and not exceed twenty pages. Before arriving at the settlement conference the parties are to negotiate and make a good faith effort to settle the case without the involvement of the Court. A speciﬁc settlement offer, in writing, must be submitted by the plaintiff by June 28, 2019, with a brief explanation of why settlement is appropriate on any particular issue. If unacceptable to the defendant, a speciﬁc counteroffer, in writing, must be submitted by the defendant by July 12, 2019. If settlement is not achieved, plaintiff's counsel shall deliver or fax copies of all letters to Judge Bourgeois no later than noon on July 19, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 5/16/2019. (JSL) (Entered: 05/16/2019)
563 Order/Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.: Settlement Conference held on 7/24/2019. The parties were unable to reach a resolution. The parties will continue negotiations themselves and will contact the Court again should a follow-up settlement conference be desired. (KAH) (Entered: 07/26/2019)
564 MOTION to Substitute Plaintiffs' Proposed Remedy by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Remedy, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
565 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel of Record by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order)(Zarrow, Amanda) Modiﬁed on 8/15/2019 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 08/15/2019)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 565 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel of Record . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KMW) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

97/101

1/18/2021
08/21/2019
09/09/2019 09/19/2019 10/09/2019 10/10/2019 10/10/2019
10/17/2019 01/06/2020
01/31/2020 01/31/2020 02/03/2020
02/04/2020

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
566 ORDER granting 565 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record. Attorney Amanda Zarrow is withdrawn as co-counsel of record for plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/21/2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SGO) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
567 MOTION to Substitute Ronald K. Lospennato in place of Miranda Tait as Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order)(Kumar, Nishi) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
568 ORDER granting 567 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Ronald Kenneth Lospennato for all plaintiffs replacing Miranda Tait. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 09/18/2019. (ELW) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
569 MOTION for Colin Clark to Withdraw as Attorney by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Colin) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 569 MOTION for Colin Clark to Withdraw as Attorney . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LT) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
570 ORDER granting 569 Motion to Withdraw Counsel of Record. Attorney Colin Clark is withdrawn as co-counsel for defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/10/2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SGO) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
571 ORDER granting 564 MOTION to Substitute Plaintiffs' Proposed Remedy . Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/17/2019. (SWE) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
572 ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Plaintiffs Proposed Remedy, which the Court granted. However, rather than substitute only the remedy portion of Plaintiffs' memorandum, Plaintiffs' Post-Trial memorandum, originally 298 pages, was substituted entirely by Plaintiffs' substituted remedy. Thus, the current record does not contain Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Memorandum. Counsel for Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to confer with the Clerk of Court's Ofﬁce to correct the docket by close of business Wednesday, January 8, 2020. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 1/6/2020. (EDC) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
574 MOTION for Meredith Angelson to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Order)(Angelson, Meredith) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 574 MOTION for Meredith Angelson to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
575 ORDER granting 574 Motion to Withdraw as Co-Counsel of Record. Attorney Meredith Angelson is withdrawn as co-counsel for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 2/3/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SGO) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
576 ORDER: Upon request of all parties the Court will conduct a site visit of Louisiana State Penitentiary on Wednesday February 5th commencing at 10 am. The Court's site visit shall include the following: R.E.Barrow Treatment Center, The Acute Treatment Center, Nursing Unit 1, Nursing Unit 2, and the Ash 2 Medical Dormitory. Counsel for the parties may be present and are invited to attend and accompany the Court as their interests may require. Counsel for LSP is Ordered to coordinate the necessary arrangements and security clearances for the Court's site visit. Counsel is instructed to contact the Louisiana Middle District Marshal Service (225-389-0359) and coordinate with Deputy Marshal Clayton McDonough, who will accompany the Court to the site. Signed by Chief Judge

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

98/101

1/18/2021
02/04/2020 02/21/2020
03/03/2020 03/28/2020 03/28/2020 03/30/2020 03/30/2020 03/31/2020 03/31/2020

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
Shelly D. Dick on 2/4/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
577 ORDER: The Parties are hereby advised that, for tomorrow's Angola site visit, there is a limit of two counsel for Plaintiffs and two counsel for Defendants. Additionally, the Parties are hereby ordered to advise the Court and the U.S. Marshal of the identity of the attorneys attending by 4:00 p.m. CST today. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 2/4/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(BKA) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
578 ORDER: The Court has taken under advisement the parties claims and defenses and is preparing to issue a Ruling on the merits. The Court will ﬁnd that the medical care at Angola State Penitentiary is unconstitutional in some respects and is prepared to Order injunctive relief addressing conditions which the Court ﬁnds unconstitutional. The Court considers it to be in the best interests of the litigants to attempt to reach an amicable resolution on some or all of the claims. It is ORDERED that Randal Robert, only,for the Defendants and Mercedes Montagnes,only,for the Plaintiffs, meet and confer in person for the purposes of reaching resolution on some or all claims. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Secretary LeBlanc attend the in person meeting of counsel Robert and Montagnes. Mr. Robert and Ms. Montagnes are hereby ORDERED to contact United States Magistrate Judge Richard Bourgeois to schedule a date and time to meet and confer under the the direction and assistance of Magistrate Judge. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 2/21/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
579 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 4/14/2020 at 09:30 AM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 3/3/2020. (EDC) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
580 Emergency MOTION to Re-open Discovery Regarding COVID-19 by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Declaration of Dr. Puisis, # 3 Attachment Declaration of Jeff Dubner, # 4 Attachment Email Correspondence, # 5 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 3/30/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 03/28/2020)
581 MOTION for Expedited Consideration on 580 Emergency MOTION for Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 3/30/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 03/28/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 580 Emergency MOTION to Re-open Discovery Regarding COVID-19. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KMW) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 581 MOTION for Expedited Consideration on 580 Emergency MOTION for Discovery . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KMW) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
582 Plaintiff's Emergency MOTION to Restrain Defendants from Transferring COVID-19 Carriers to Louisiana State Penitentiary by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Declaration of Dr. Puisis, # 3 Attachment Declaration of Jeff Dubner, # 4 Attachment Email Correspondence, # 5 Attachment Proposed Order) (Montagnes, Mercedes) Modiﬁed on 3/31/2020 to edit text (LT). (Entered: 03/31/2020)
583 MOTION to Continue Post-Trial Settlement Conference by Stacye Falgout, Tracy Falgout, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, John Morrison, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

99/101

1/18/2021
03/31/2020 03/31/2020 04/01/2020 04/01/2020
04/02/2020 04/02/2020 04/02/2020 04/20/2020
05/19/2020 05/28/2020 06/04/2020

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Order)(Tomeny, Caroline) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 583 MOTION to Continue Post-Trial Settlement Conference . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KMW) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
584 RESPONSE to 583 MOTION to Continue Post-Trial Settlement Conference ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
Motions No Longer Referred: 581 MOTION for Expedited Consideration on 580 Emergency MOTION for Discovery , 580 Emergency MOTION to Re-open Discovery Regarding COVID-19. This motion is now pending before the USDJ. (KMW) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
585 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 582 Plaintiff's Emergency MOTION to Restrain Defendants from Transferring COVID-19 Carriers to Louisiana State Penitentiary by All Plaintiffs ﬁled by Stacye Falgout, Tracy Falgout, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Randy Lavespere, James M LeBlanc, Cynthia Park, Sherwood Poret, The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Darrel Vannoy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Afﬁdavit of James M. LeBlanc, # 2 Exhibit Afﬁdavit of Tracy Falgout, # 3 Exhibit Afﬁdavit of Dr. John E. Morrison, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Robert, Randal) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
586 ORDER granting 583 Motion to Continue. The settlement conference set for 4/14/2020 is CANCELLED. A telephone conference is set for 4/21/2020 at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 4/1/2020. (EDC) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry) Telephone Conference before the Magistrate Judge set for 4/21/2020 at 11:00 AM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr.. (EDC) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
587 RULING granting 581 Motion for Expedited Hearing on 580 Emergency Motion to ReOpen Discovery Regarding COVID-19. Plaintiffs' 580 Emergency Motion to Re-Open Discovery Regarding COVID-19 and 582 Emergency Motion to Restrain Defendants from Transferring COVID-19 Carriers to Louisiana State Penitentiary are DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/2/2020. (SWE) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
588 Considering the current national emergency relating to COVID-19, the telephone conference set April 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. remains premature. Accordingly, it is CANCELLED and RESET for 5/19/2020 at 10:30 AM. Attorney Randal J. Robert, counsel for defendants, and attorney Mercedes Montagnes, counsel for plaintiff, shall participate in the telephone conference. Attorney Randal J. Robert shall initiate the call to all parties then contact the Court at (225) 389-3602 once both attorneys are on the line. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(Bourgeois, Richard) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
589 Minute Entry/Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.: Telephone Conference held on 5/19/2020. (LT) Modiﬁed on 5/21/2020 to edit text (LT). (Entered: 05/19/2020)
590 Notice to Counsel: A Settlement Conference with Randal J. Robert and Secretary LeBlanc is set for 6/4/2020 at 03:00 PM in by video before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. Participant instructions shall be sent to Mr. Robert and Secretary LeBlanc via separate e-mail by the courtroom deputy. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(SGO) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
591 Minute Entry/Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.: Video Settlement Conference held on 6/4/2020. (LT) Modiﬁed on 6/8/2020 to edit text

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

100/101

1/18/2021
09/22/2020 09/22/2020 09/24/2020

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd
(LT). Modiﬁed on 6/9/2020 to edit title (LT). (Entered: 06/05/2020)
592 MOTION to Withdraw as Co-Counsel of Record by All Plaintiffs. (Davidson, Jared) (Entered: 09/22/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 592 MOTION to Withdraw as Co-Counsel of Record. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KMW) (Entered: 09/22/2020)
593 ORDER granting 592 Motion to Withdraw as Co-Counsel of Record. Attorney Jared Davidson is withdrawn as co-counsel for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 9/24/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SGO) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

01/18/2021 16:33:12

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

30

Cost:

Exempt ﬂag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Boyer 3:15-cv-00318-SDDRLB 3.00
Not Exempt

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?188061269144062-L_1_0-1

101/101